Beware of False Information Used by Pet Euthanasia Services

Getting the facts right from serious research about animal behavior really matters

Dr. Jessica Pierce's essay called "Pet Euthanasia Advertisement Spreads 'Alt Facts'" rightly calls attention to the devious practices of some euthanasia services that offer a more peaceful death to our companion animals than those experienced by their wild relatives. One blatant example of the egregious use of myths about the end of life for wild animals can be found on the website for Home Pet Euthanasia of Southern California where we read: "Nature has a way of taking care of its own and when we take this mechanism away, we have to replace it by humane intervention or it becomes cruel. When an animal ages, weakens or becomes ill, nature remedies this very quickly and animal suffering does not drag on and on. The old and weak die rather rapidly. Brutally, yes, but quickly! This is the way of nature. When we look at pets in their old days, they do not die rapidly anymore. Yet, their survival instincts still dictate to hide pain and weakness! They will carefully hide their symptoms until they can no longer bear their suffering in silence and then, and only then, will they display weakness and pain (see 'understanding pain')."

“'Nature’s way'” may seem cruel to us 'civilized beings', but it is kind in that it does not allow for prolonged suffering. A predator or even a pack leader will terminate a fellow pack member’s suffering. When it comes to our pets, it is up to us, as pack leaders, to recognize suffering and to replace nature's way either by active medical intervention and aggressive pain management or by euthanasia."

A photograph of a wolf seemingly killing another wolf accompanies this misleading garble, but as an expert on canid behavior, I could have just as well thought that they were playing or having a fight. Even if this is an example of one wolf killing another, this hardly is a common behavior used to put another dying individual out of their misery.

After I read these paragraphs, I wasn't sure where to begin to dispel this plethora of myths, because there are so many things that are wrong or not supported by any substantial research of which I am aware. Here are some of my concerns.

1) The use of the word "nature" and the phrase "natural death." The authors never tell us what they mean by "nature." It seems as if they mean "evolution," so this sentence, for example, "Nature has a way of taking care of its own and when we take this mechanism away, we have to replace it by humane intervention or it becomes cruel," might read something like, "Evolution has provided mechanisms for other animals taking care of injured, sick, elderly, or otherwise moribund animals, 'and when we take this mechanism away, we have to replace it by humane intervention or it becomes cruel.'" The italics are mine. This sounds nice and compassionate, but there's not much evidence for this at all across numerous and diverse taxa. Sure, there are some examples of elephants and some great apes and carnivores, for example, caring for those in need, but to claim that there has been strong selection in an evolutionary sense for these patterns of behavior just isn't so, so it's also clear that the phrase "natural death" is pretty meaningless.

2) We also read, "When an animal ages, weakens or becomes ill, nature remedies this very quickly and animal suffering does not drag on and on. The old and weak die rather rapidly. Brutally, yes, but quickly! This is the way of nature." Once again, the word "nature" pops its head, and once again, there are no comparative data that show that "nature remedies this very quickly and animal suffering does not drag on and on. The old and weak die rather rapidly. Brutally, yes, but quickly!" In my own field work on wild coyotes, Adélie penguins, and various birds, I've seen just the opposite, and by watching documentaries on animal behavior such as "Planet Earth," "Blue Planet, PBS and National Geographic films, and the recent BBC series "Dynasties," it's clear that there aren't many quick "natural remedies." And, often individuals just lie down and die and there isn't anything brutal about their passing on.

Along these lines, we also read, " “'Nature’s way'” may seem cruel to us 'civilized beings', but it is kind in that it does not allow for prolonged suffering." Not.

3) We also read, "Yet, their [pets'] survival instincts still dictates to hide pain and weakness! They will carefully hide their symptoms until they can no longer bear their suffering in silence and then, and only then, will they display weakness and pain (see 'understanding pain')." I know that some companions animals do this, however, I can't find any systematic studies on this topic that show that there is some general or even weak trend for them to do so.

4) We're also told, "A predator or even a pack leader will terminate a fellow pack member’s suffering." I have no idea where this misleading fabrication comes from, and perhaps that's what the photograph of a wolf seemingly killing another wolf refers to.

5) We also read, "When it comes to our pets, it is up to us, as pack leaders, to recognize suffering and to replace nature's way either by active medical intervention and aggressive pain management or by euthanasia." In the last paragraph of their piece we also read, "Having a pet is a big responsibility throughout the life of the pet. It also comes with the responsibility of stepping into the shoes of the pack leader when the pet is suffering." Of course, I agree that we must take care of our nonhuman companions and give them all we can, however, the "pack leader" metaphor has been seriously questioned by numerous people, inducing those who study dog behavior. (Also see Canine Confidential: Why Dogs Do What They Do and references therein.) We could also simply refer to ourselves as caring guardians who don't want our companion animals to endure prolonged pain and suffering.

The bottom line is that facts matter as do ethics

"What really matters is that each and every human who chooses to share their home and heart with a nonhuman companion gives them the very best life possible, and this means caring for them when their life is coming to an end."

Source: Daria Shevtsova, Pexels free download

While some pet euthanasia services do important work and surely can help to end interminable suffering, there is no reason at all for them to refer how wild animals supposedly die and surely, they shouldn't be using misleading nonsense to explain and justify their services. Another myth about how wild animals choose to die is that they go off to die. While A few individuals might, there's no credible evidence this is a robust trend, yet the myth persists. (See "Do Animals Really Leave Their Group to Go Off to Die?") It's time to put myths about dogs to bed, once and for all.

While I'm sure that Home Pet Euthanasia of Southern California does good work and has good intentions, I look forward to their removing this gibberish from their website and focusing on what we really know and owe to our companions animals, because it really doesn't matter what their wild relatives supposedly do when others are dying. While there may be a few scattered examples of various types of behavior that suggest that others are putting an individual out of their misery, I can't find a single detailed systematic study that bears on this topic. And, it really doesn't matter if there are a few here and there.

Animal Behavior Essential Reads

Why Do People Use Outdated Dog Training Methods?

Rethinking Cat Scratching

However, I can well see how some people might feel guilty or fear they're not doing the "right" thing for their companions after reading about what wild animals, especially the wild relatives of domestic dogs and other companion animals, supposedly do when a group member is dying. They may be lured into doing something they really don't want to do because they believe the myths and have been told with a voice of authority that they really don't care about the well-being of their companion(s). There are some serious ethical issues here, including fear- and guilt-mongering along with false advertising, as pointed out by Dr. Pierce. They're essentially peddling misinformation. As one of my colleagues told me, If they were just selling winter coats or something like that, it wouldn't be as egregious. It's essential to get the facts right.

What really matters is that each and every human who chooses to share their home and heart with a nonhuman companion gives them the very best life possible, and this means caring for them when their life is coming to an end. (See Unleashing Your Dog: A Field Guide to Giving Your Canine Companion the Best Life Possible.) When we make this decision we become their caregivers and they assume we have their best interests in mind from "cradle to grave," and the cradle begins when we welcome them into our lives. I like to say that people should "Choose a Dog Trainer as Carefully as You Would a Surgeon" and the same goes for choosing someone to end the life of your companion animal at such a terribly difficult, sad, and vulnerable time for all involved. (Also see "Dog Training's Dirty Little Secret: Anyone Can Legally Do It.")

When we love and respect dogs for who they are, it is a win-win for everybody. We are most fortunate to have dogs in our lives, and we must work for the day when all dogs are fortunate to have us in their lives, too.

Neither Psychology Today nor I are responsible for advertisements that appear embedded in this essay.