Is it ethical to use 1 Running head: IS IT ETHICAL TO USE GAS CHAMBERS TO EUTHANIZE ANIMALS?

Is it ethical to use gas chambers to euthanize animals? Charlotte Davis Queens University of Charlotte June 25, 2012

Is it ethical to use 2 Is it ethical to use gas chambers to euthanize animals? Since the dawn of civilization animals have been an important part of human life. Animals were domesticated about 18,000 years ago during the Stone Age (Sherry, 1994, pg. 130). They have helped us build cities; sow crops, and provided a means of food. For many years, animals were a necessity, a means of survival. We still need animals; in many places they still assist in the reaping of crops and are a major food sources for many people. In addition to that, animals are our companions. They serve us by keeping us company, and making us happy. If animals are intrinsically good, in that they make us happy, is it right to treat them poorly, even in their last moments of life? The issue of how we should treat animals is about as old as the use of animals themselves, but the idea that animals have inherent rights, similar to humans is a relatively new idea. The beginning of the animal rights movement can be traced back to the late 1800s and early 1900s in England and America (Favre & Tsang, 1993). The first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals in the United States was founded in 1866. There were several founded in England around this time as well (ASPCA). There are many ways to look at the animal rights movement. In his book Animal Rights: A reference handbook, Clifford Sherry cites a study by Doctors Nicoll and Russell who evaluated several books on animal rights to determine what issues were important in the movement. According to their findings, 63% of the writings on how humans use animals was devoted to research and education uses for animals, 31% of the time was spent on the use of animals for food, a little over 2% was concerned with animals as pets and in pounds and shelters, another 2% was spent on hunting, less than one percent was devoted to the fur garment industry and finally, less than one tenth of a percent was spent discussing animals in entertainment

Is it ethical to use 3 (Sherry, 1994, pg. 7). This breakdown shows how the animal rights movement involves many different components, but it also shows that the defining characteristic of animal rights is the question of whether animals deserve to be treated in ways that would be considered unacceptable in humans. The example of animals in research is a good example. If we do not feel that it is right to test humans because it is unsafe, then how it is it right to test animals when it is unsafe to them as well? Sherry asks, Do animals have rights? If so, the question is whether we violate these rights when we use animals for our own purposes (1994, pg. 3). Contrary to what the media and organizations like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) may portray, animal rights supporters do not all suggest freeing research animals from their cages, protesting in the street, or even being a vegetarian. The animal rights movement has a long history of supporting federal legislation. The earliest example of this was the passage of the Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876 in England. The law banned vivisection, the act of cutting an animal open while it was living (Sherry, 1994, pg. 73). Animal rights acts have been introduced steadily into law since then in both Europe and America. Another notable piece of legislation is the Animal Welfare Acts of 1976 (USA), which allowed the federal government to regulate animal testing in research and to set up humane processes for research (Sherry, 1994, pg. 74). Other animal rights acts protect animals from fighting (dog and cock fighting mainly), inhumane treatment of animals bred for slaughter, and endangered species (Sherry, 1994). When looking at all the legislation, it is easy to think that animals rights is a battle that has been fought and won, but todays animal rights activists would tell you a very different story. A simple search on Google pulls up over 180,000 news results for animal rights. These include circus protesters, activists calling for horse racing reform, and anti-hunting groups, among

Is it ethical to use 4 others. When searching for organizations that support the animal rights movement these numbers are also staggeringly high. Some say that by giving animals rights that used to only be available to humans, we are hurting the rights of humans and that humans should be able to use animals in ways that they do not use other humans (for food, as an example) (Smith, 2007). Because there are so many ways to think about animal rights, the movement has basically split into two major camps. The first camp still uses the name animal rights. These people believe that animals have the right to live as free individuals without the exploitation of humans (Smith, 2007). This means that humans may not use animals for food, entertainment, clothing, or recreation. This is the more extreme of the two sides of the animal rights argument. The second side now goes by the name animal welfare. This camp states that humans may use animals, but they have a duty to do so in a manner that is humane and respectful of animals (Smith, 2007). This ideology is the predominant one in the animal rights movement today. For the purpose of this paper, I will be using the second ideology, that of animal welfare, when examining the ethical question regarding the treatment of animals. One of the relatively new issues that has provoked the animal rights community is the use of gas chamber to euthanize stray animals in shelters. Activists claim this procedure subjected animals to slow and inhumane death (Tongish). Proponents of the use of gas chambers say that is cheaper, safer, and easier on the small staff (Tongish). This issue deals almost entirely with companion animals. In his book, Sherry cites the National Council on Pet Population Study, who found that 61 million dogs and 76 million cats in the United States. Sherry also cites the American Humane Society who states that anywhere from 6 to 8 million dogs and cats are euthanized each year in animal shelters (Sherry, 1994). These numbers show that this issue is relevant and far-reaching in the United States and the animal rights community.

Is it ethical to use 5 The American Veterinary Medicine Association Guidelines on Euthanasia gives a number of acceptable ways to humanely euthanize animals of all species. The use of carbon monoxide in gas chambers is one of these. In a study done to determine the viability of this process for euthanasia they found that after dogs are exposed to CO in the chamber it is difficult to determine when they lose consciousness, but there is generally about 25 seconds of agitation and vocalization before loss of consciousness occurs. The study said that it was difficult to tell if the animals were actually experiencing pain during this time. They cite three major advantages to using gas chambers: 1. CO induces loss of consciousness before death with little discomfort. 2. The animal does not seem to be aware of death (loss of consciousness). 3. Death occurs rapidly if the correct concentrations of gas are high enough. They also state some noticeable disadvantages: 1. Exposure to personnel can be dangerous. 2. Equipment must be explosion proof (high cost) The AVMA also states that is preferred mode of euthanasia is injection of sodium pentobarbital (AVMA). The personnel who work in these shelters are very important to this debate. As mentioned above there are health risks concerned with working around the gas chambers. American Humane describes a case in their Euthanasia Fact Sheet where a shelter worker was hospitalized in 2009, when the gas chamber door in a Lincoln County, NC shelter exploded open due to gas build-up. American Humane also notes that it can be emotionally distressing for shelter workers to watch the animals pass away in the gas chamber when they would rather hold an animal in there last moments of life (American Humane). If animals intrinsic value is that they make humans happy, then causing them undo harm is wrong because it damages human and animal life.

Is it ethical to use 6 In county animal shelters, where gas chambers are used most, the public pays for the care, control, and euthanasia of the animals that reside there. Due to this it is important to include the taxpayers as important individuals in this debate. To look at this group of people we must consider cost of the gas chamber versus euthanasia by injection. A study commissioned by American Humane in 2009 found that gas chambers are more expensive than EBI. The cost per animal when using carbon monoxide was $4.66 per animal, compared to $2.29 for EBI. The most prominent actors in this debate are the animals that are being euthanized. Of course, it is difficult to find hard facts on how animals feel or think about anything. First, we can look to science for answers. As stated above, the AVMA does recognize that animals show some distress before losing consciousness when in the gas chambers. In contrast the AVMA does not state that there is any distress involved with EBI (AVMA). With this assessment it is hard to deny the fact that animals are less stressed in their final moments of life using EBI. There have also been several confirmed cases of animals not dying in the gas chamber. One puppy in Davie Co., NC was only knocked unconscious by the gas and did not die, Shelter workers thought he was dead and he was disposed of in the city dump with 3 other puppies that had actually perished from the gas. He was found by a citizen of the community and saved from the dump (Gunning, 2005). There are no stories like this one about animals euthanized by injection. The final aspect of the euthanasia process that may allow some insight into the feelings of the animals involved is the individual nature of EBI versus the group nature of gas chambers. The AVMA cites that animals do seem calmer during euthanasia when they are being held by a person and spoken to in calm voices (AVMA). During EBI this is possible because there is no risk to the shelter workers health if they are near the sodium pentobarbital. A shelter worker holds each individual animal

Is it ethical to use 7 one at time during EBI. During gas chamber euthanasia the dogs are generally put in the gas chamber with other animals. There are several issues to consider when looking at the ethics of gas chambers in shelters. First, the health and well being of the shelter workers is a concern. There is definite cost benefit analysis to do when you consider the taxpayers who fund these shelters. Finally, the animals happiness and dignity in their last moments of life is a vital part of this issue. Benthams Utility theory is based of the idea that we as sentient beings are governed by pleasure and pain. According to him, the moral thing is the one that promotes the most happiness for the group, while producing the least pain (Sandel, 2009). In order to apply this theory to the topic of animal rights we must first determine whether or not animals are sentient beings. In his text, In defense of animals: The second wave, Singer explains why animals should be considered sentient. First, he explains, that pleasure and pain matter to those who can feel them. As such, it follows that we are obliged to consider the interests of all those who are capable of feeling pleasure and pain (Singer, 2006, pg. 17). He continues by stating that almost all scientists and doctors agree that animals do feel pleasure and pain, and therefore fall into this category. Furthermore, Singer contends that in accepting the sentience of animals we also accept that their interests are equal to our own. Utility theory assesses consequences to determine the right actors. In order to find the greatest outcome for the greatest number, consequences must be considered and weighed against each other to find the one that is most acceptable. First, consider the consequences involved in allowing gas chambers to be used for euthanasia in animal shelters. The shelter workers health is put at risk due to the danger of carbon monoxide toxicity. The shelter workers also experience pain emotionally, from having to watch the animals they have taken care of for some time in

Is it ethical to use 8 distress in their final moments of life. The one positive consequence that could be derived from the gas chamber for the shelter workers is that the process is less time consuming than EBI, which makes their workday more efficient. The taxpayers would not necessarily suffer from continuing to pay the same rates for gas chamber euthanasia, but it may cause them pain to know that there is a cheaper method, which could lower their taxes (or at least spend them on different things). The members of the community who find gas chambers to be inhumane are caused pain in knowing that this issue still continues in their shelters. Finally, the animals need to be considered. Now it is fair to say that they are going to die whether they are euthanized by gas or EBI, but lets focus on the moments before death, when these animals are still sentient. There has been documented distress of animals in the gas chambers and they are denied they calming effect of being held in their last moments of life. When looking at the consequences of continuing the use of gas chambers it is not difficult to determine that the cost far outweighs the benefits. There is little happiness caused by the use of gas chambers for any of the key actors. This system mostly causes pain to animals, shelter workers, and the public who is pay more than they have to for this procedure. Now, lets consider the consequences of not using gas chambers. First, the shelter workers would not be at risk of explosion or inhalation of harmful gases. EBI is a much safer process for the workers. The shelter workers would also be able to console the animals as they are being euthanized, which could improve their emotional well being. They would have to undergo training on EBI injection and the process would be slowed due to the individual nature of EBI. The taxpayers would benefit from the decrease in cost for euthanizing shelter animals. Their taxes may go down or may be used to fund other public welfare projects. They would also be happy knowing that animals are being euthanized in a humane and dignified way. The

Is it ethical to use 9 animals would gain pleasure and have reduced pain by the lack of distress associated with gas chambers and the ability to be held in their final stage of life. The consequences associated with not having gas chambers are beneficial to the community as a whole because they cause more pain than pleasure, so by removing them from animal shelters the communitys pain would be lessened. After analyzing the differences in cost and benefits of having gas chambers in animal shelters compared to not having gas chambers the answer seems fairly clear: ending the practice of using gas chambers would bring far more pleasure than pain and would cause the greatest good for the greatest number. With that said, when using Utility theory as a lens, the use of gas chambers in animal shelters for euthanasia is unethical. When Aristotle set out to make the Greek society he lived in a better place, he did so by ascribing virtue to peoples actions and explaining that in order to live a good life one must strive to be a good person. Moral virtues are learned by repetition and reasoning. By repeating the virtue of an action, or what he calls the mean, you learn to be a good person and once you are a good person you can be happy and flourish at your duties in society (MacKinnon, 2012). Unlike, Bentham and Mill, Aristotle makes it clear that animals are not capable of virtue and therefore have little part in his theory (Regan, 2001). That said, this theory is still relevant to the topic of animal rights because it asks what the virtue or vice of harming animals or causing them pain is for the human who does this action. When looking at ethics through Virtue theory we must look at the character of those involved and what virtues are upheld or denied by the action taken. We also must determine what allows everyone in society to flourish. Finally, we must find the mean virtue, between the extremes of too little or too much action.

Is it ethical to use 10 When looking at the shelter workers, it is important to determine what virtues allow them to flourish, or be the best shelter workers they can be. A shelter workers job is to care for animals that reside in the shelter on a daily basis. If we say that flourishing means giving the best care, then we must ask what virtues are upheld by good care. The virtues of compassion and kindness and selflessness seem to be in line with the ideal of good care. Next, we need to consider if using the gas chamber to euthanize animals upholds these virtues, which allow shelter workers to flourish. The virtues of compassion and kindness are not upheld by gas chambers because there is no way to alleviate the distress caused by the gas when the workers cannot touch the animals. The virtue of selflessness is not greatly affected by the use of gas chambers. Overall, shelter workers are not able to flourish when using gas chambers for animal euthanasia. The final groups of people involved are those in the community. Now, it is difficult to name all of the virtues that go into to being a good community member and these change depending on the area and time period in which the person lives. With that said, the virtue of non-malfeasance, not doing undo harm, has long been upheld by communities all over the world. If we consider that to be a main virtue of society then people cannot flourish while gas chambers are being used in animal shelters because it does cause unnecessary distress for the animals that are euthanized in this way. EBI is still an acceptable practice under this virtue because it causes no pain or distress to the animal, unlike euthanasia by gas chamber. When considering all of these different pieces of virtue theory combined it seems that more virtues are upheld by ending the practice of using gas chambers for euthanasia than by letting it continue. For this reason, Virtue theory leads us to the conclusion that the use of gas chambers in animal shelters is unethical.

Is it ethical to use 11 The Judeo-Christian Bible has always been used to support the idea of human despotism, or the notion that humans were placed on this Earth by God and that everything else on Earth was placed there for human use. In his text, Defending Animal Rights, Regan cites this verse from Genesis to support this claim, And then God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle and over all the earth (Gen. 1:26) (Regan, 2001, pg. 7). This scripture contends that humans have the right to treat animals as they wish, but Regan proves from other verses with in the Judeo-Christian Bible that Gods intention was not for us to use animals and the earth, but to protect them because they are a gift from God. If we use Regans idea of stewardship, then humans are to care for animals because they are good independent of the human presence (Regan, 2001, pg.8). Regan cites the verses of the Bible that promote stewardship, such as the idea that humans did not eat other animals in Eden, or that animals and humans were both created on the same day and that Noahs covenant with God included animals (Regan, 2001). Through these verses we find that the Judeo-Christian faith would uphold the idea that we are protectors of animals and should not cause them harm. If we apply this religious ethic of stewardship to the use of gas chambers in animal shelters, we find that the answer once again comes down to the pain and suffering the animal endures upon its death when placed in the chamber. If God intended us to be stewards to animals and protect them from harm then we do them an injustice by allowing them to be euthanized in a way that causes noticeable distress. If we must terminate an animals life, then we must remember that as stewards our job is to protect animals from harm, and act in accordance with this belief. From a Judeo-Christian stewardship outlook gas chambers are unethical because they cause undo harm to a creature that God expects us to protect.

Is it ethical to use 12 From the information gathered in this paper it is apparent that the use of gas chambers for euthanasia in animal shelters in not an ethical practice. The costs are too high from a utility perspective. Few virtues are upheld from Aristotles virtue theory, and the Judeo-Christian view of stewardship is denied in continuing this practice. In this situation the best solution seems to be for lawmakers to make the practice of using gas chambers for euthanasia illegal on the grounds that is morally wrong. If that were to happen all animals would be euthanized through the process of euthanasia by injection, which allows them the dignity of dying peacefully, without distress, in the arms of a compassionate human. Euthanasia of companion animals is a difficult topic because many people feel strongly about the sanctity of life. Some shelters have chosen to do away with the practice of euthanizing stray animals and instead attempt to adopt all pets into loving homes. These shelters are called no-kill shelters and are becoming more popular in the animal rights world. These shelters have been heralded as the most humane way to deal with the problem of stray animals, but they may not be very realistic. According to the ASPCAs website, Approximately 5 million to 7 million companion animals enter animal shelters nationwide every year, and approximately 3 million to 4 million are euthanized (ASPCA). It is difficult to imagine finding homes for up to 7 million animals a year and still being able to give all of them quality care and adequate space. It may be that euthanasia is the only way to handle the pet overpopulation problem. In my opinion, the best way to combat animal overpopulation, and thus the euthanasia of millions of animals a year, is to spay and neuter companion animals. In doing so we will slowly began to lessen the animal population, which will lower the amount of stray animals. In her lifetime one female cat and her offspring can produce 420,000 kittens. In one dogs lifetime, she can produce up to 67,000 puppies (ASPCA). These astounding numbers are the reason that pets

Is it ethical to use 13 are euthanized in mass quantity every year. By spaying and neutering dogs and cats we save them from being unwanted and potentially euthanized in an animal shelter.

Is it ethical to use 14 Reference:

American Humane. (n.d.). Humane Euthanasia on Shelter Animals Fact Sheet. Retrieved June 12, 2012 from http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/pdfs/animals/adv-ebifactsheetpdf.pdf ASPCA. (2012). About Us. In ASPCA. Retrieved June 11, 2012, from http://www.aspca.org/About-Us. AVMA. (2007). AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. Retrieved from http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf Favre, D., Tsang, V. (1993). The development of anti-cruelty laws in the 1800s. In Animal Legal and Historical Center. Retrieved June 11, 2012, from http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusfavrehistcruelty1993.htm Gunning, M. (2005). Puppy survives euthanasia attempt, trip to dump. Animal Shelter News: North Carolina (Davie Co., NC). MacKinnon, B. (Ed.). (2012). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing. Regan, T. (2001). Defending Animal Rights. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Sandel, M. (2009). Justice: Whats the Right Thing to Do? New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Sherry, C. J. (1994). Animal Rights : A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. Singer, P. (2006). In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Company. Smith, W. J. (2007). Four Lees Good, Two Legs Bad: The Anti-human Values of "Animal Rights". Human Life Review, 33(1), 7. Tongish, D. (2012, February 21). Texas animal advocates push for law to ban "gas chambers" to euthanize shelter animals. KDAF-TV (Dallas, TX).