And now time for more "liberal" prattle from Aura.

It occurred to me earlier that we have little or no issue putting pets to sleep when they are ill. We justify it because they are dying, in pain and we love them enough to put them out of their misery and let them rest.

When it comes to humans in the same predicament, however, people become divided. What makes the two secanrios different, though? In both cases, the issue is whether to help someone or something die in order to allow that person to ease into their final rest, without living out their final days an agony.

Certainly some will answer that we are "above" animals and therefore, are allowed to control their destinies, because they cannot free-think as we can (although, just because we do not speak their language does not mean they don't think). I find our status in the food chain to be irrelevant to this issue, however, because we treat our pets as more than mere animals. We treat them as family members.

Some people moralize the issue as a biblical one, while others believe God is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I happen to fall in the latter category.

Now, while losing a pet is often like losing a family member, people do not treat pets quite like they treat family. Aftyer all, people say, pets are not completely sentient. They cannot speak to us. Some even believe that pets really do not feel love for us at all, but rather they feel the devotion any living object feels towards the hand that feeds it. Perhaps this is why for some people, the decision to put a pet to sleep is an easy one.

Further, maybe for those same people, their decision is based somewhat on their own convenience. I imagine caring for a sick or dying pet in one's home is rather difficult. Fortunately, I have never had to endure this, but I imagine it takes a lot of work emotionally, physically and financially.

Why do we hold our human family members to a different standard, though? Why do we claim that love allows us to put our pets to sleep, yet in the same breath, claim it is murderous and immoral to euthanize a person so clearly in pain and without hope?

Is it because we do not have to care for them in our presence? For example, if the person does not live in your home, ignoring their pain is much easier than if you cared for them personally and carried the burden of their pain in your own emotions and wallet.

Or is it simply that we are all human - we are, by nature, selfish and cannot bear the thought of letting go of our loved ones, even if it means they endure pain for years before finally succumbing to their illness.

Certainly for many people, God plays a role in their decision making. I have to wonder, however, how much of their rationale is based on orthodoxy and how much is based on their unwillingness to let go. I have found that many people, when confronted with an emotionally grueling decision, become rather orthodox. Perhaps that is a way of making the decision easier. One cannot feel guilt, after all, for a mandate they never issued.

That is not to say they are wrong in their beliefs, not is it to say that selfishness is immoral and wrong. We ARE selfish creatures - we can't always control it. Our selfishness, ironically, sometimes reflects on our emotional awareness and compassion, I think.

I like to think that if one of my parents asked me to, I would allow them to pass in peace, but in actual practice, I could never pull the metaphorical trigger. Certianly the decision would be easy if, say, one was in a coma and surely never to wake. But if they suffered some painful illness and wished for me to give them one pill too many? I am not sure I could perform the act myself. Why? Because I love them too much to want to let go.

By the same token, I love them too much to ever want to see them suffer great pain, so where does that leave me? Square one.

Perhaps the difference with pets is simply that because they do not actually speak to us, we are able to pretend that our emotional bond with them is less than it is with other people. In some cases, it is a lesser bond, but not always. People grieve just as severely when losing a pet as they do when losing anyone close to them.

In the end, though, I fall squarely on the side of pro-euthanasia, though I do not think some of the cases Kervorkian took were worthwhile to the cause. A cancer sufferer who has two months to live and cannot live with the agony of hospital beds, chemo and their withering body anymore, without question should be allowed to end their life prematurely. Someone suffering from severe depression, however? Absolutely not.

Death and suicide is never and will never be an answer to anyone's problems. I don't think it should ever be used as an escape for easily treatable problems (that woprd being used in the loosest of ways) and I don't think people should give up.

Allowing someone to choose a peaceful, morphine-induced suicide to end the torment that WILL cause their death soon, however, really should not be an issue in my eyes. No one should have to walk that slow, painful path is they do not wish it. It's not as though euthanasia is a new thing, either. Undoubtedly, this has gone on for centuries and only recently became a popular issue because of the widely publicized Kervorkian cases. Do you honestly think there has never been a doctor who "inadvertently" advised his patient that X number of pills would be fatal? Or who even prescribed something that could be fatal and allowed the patient to go home, where they might die in peace?

While I did not agree with Kervorkian's bedside manner, I agree with his cause. I am not saying we should start thinking of our family members and loved ones as pets, but perhaps if we did, we might allow them the same compassion and mercy we show our pets at their time of death. Perhaps we would be able to let go of them and allow them to control their end in the same way we control animals.