Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 26, 2010 at 11:26am

I have talked to breeders that will euthanize a puppy that is in very poor condition and is likely to die anyway or has no chance at a happy, healthy life. Others will let nature takes it's course. Even if a puppy is ill and fading, the breeder will let them pass naturally. They may intervene to try to save the puppy by bottle feeding, warming etc but will not choose to euthanize. I have read about breeders culling if a litter is too large for the mother to care for or if there are cosmetic faults and I don't think that is acceptable at all.

Permalink Reply by Joanna Kimball on January 26, 2010 at 1:42pm

Which documentary was this?

Culling is something that used to be done much more frequently when pet homes were nonexistent and food for dogs was extremely expensive. If you talk to old breeders who started out fifty or sixty years ago they'll tell you that everybody had to figure out the two or three puppies who were most likely to be worth keeping and the rest were put down. At this point it's very rare unless the breed has a known congenital defect and breeders are not supposed to pass those along to owners. Examples would be deaf Dalmatians or Ridgebacks with dermoid sinus. Boxer breeders used to be expected to cull white puppies because there is a much higher chance of deafness and other issues in those puppies; that has now changed to an expectation that the individual puppies be evaluated when they are old enough to BAER test and that they be placed for free or very little and without breeding papers.

I know there are breeders who will "let nature take its course" with sick puppies but I think they deserve to be hit upside the head with a board, and I think virtually everybody in the responsible breeding community agrees with me. Trust me, we know who's doing it and very bad words are said about those breeders. Most of the time that nice line is just code for "I don't want to pay for a vet." Every puppy deserves to have a life free from pain or confusion. If the puppy can't have that, it's our responsibility to send them to heaven.

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 26, 2010 at 5:11pm

I agree with you. The breeder is responsible for bringing those puppies into the world and they should also be responsible for making sure the puppies are thriving and not suffering. I too think that it is money that prevents the breeders from doing the right thing which would be to put down a puppy that is obviously not going to survive and is in pain in the meantime. They seem so nonchalant about it and say that whatever killed the puppy was just one of those things that could not be prevented which may be true but the suffering could be prevented. Any one of us would make the decision to euthanize our pet if their time had come and it seems sometimes breeders forget that these are pets and not a bad crop that you can just let go. It's very sad.

Permalink Reply by Beth on January 26, 2010 at 6:57pm

I'm curious as to when puppies feel pain? And does how fast they are fading come into the decision? I didn't think that individuals were allowed to keep drugs for euthanasia at home. I could be wrong. But it occurs to me that if a fading puppy has hours to go, pulling it out of its whelping box, putting it in a car, driving it to the vet, signing in at the waiting room and taking it back for an injection could be crueler than letting "nature take its course." (and I'm not talking about pups who are in obvious distress for many days or weeks at a time, just newborns that are apparently slipping away).

I truly don't know, just thinking out loud, but I know there is a small trend with elderly cats for people to let them die at home rather than euthanize them if they don't seem to be in pain. My parents' cat sort of slipped into unconsciousness and then just faded over a couple days and their vet said it would be more traumatic to the cat to bring it into the vet's office than to let it go at home.

I find it morally confusing that humans are expected to die natural deaths yet it's considered cruel to let an animal do the same? Not all dying animals are suffering or in pain. Just a thought. I don't think I'd hold it against a breeder if he or she let a fading puppy continue to fade at home rather than outright kill it. Until a relatively short time ago, that was after all the only option any animal had, and when people had indoor-outdoor pets they would frequently go missing when their time came.

Permalink Reply by Joanna Kimball on January 26, 2010 at 8:12pm

"Fading" doesn't mean they just get tired and sleepy. Fading means they scream in pain for hours or days until they die. It's often herpesvirus and it's attacking the internal organs. So no, I would never let a "fading" puppy go on his own. A puppy who had, say, pneumonia and was warm and in oxygen so I knew it was as comfortable as possible, I would consider.

There are ways to put puppies down at home but I don't think this forum is the place to talk about them. I would also much rather have my vet do it because then I would know it was as painless as possible. But if I had to, I could do it humanely.

Permalink Reply by Beth on January 26, 2010 at 8:27pm

I have never bred dogs but know from humans and horses and all sorts of other animals that there are lots of ways young creatures "fade." Some are born with painful conditions and sure I agree they should not be allowed to suffer. But there are those who are too weak to nurse, those who lost so much oxygen during birth that they are born very nearly dead already, and a host of other issues. Those are the sorts of things I was referring to.

Permalink Reply by Joanna Kimball on January 27, 2010 at 6:38am

OK, that makes more sense. There is a specific thing called "fading puppy" and it's a real disease and very painful. We would not generally refer to a puppy who was simply weak as a fader. If you hear somebody refer to a puppy that "faded" or "is fading," they mean what I was talking about, which is screaming and slowly dying.

Most of the time we don't accept either weakness or loss of oxygen as a reason to lose a puppy. You can get puppies through both of those issues pretty well. Puppies are EXTREMELY tolerant of oxygen deprivation and you can usually bring them back even if they're born hypoxic. Once they have some decent air intake they're fine. Puppies who are weak are given sub-q fluids, glucose, and put under oxygen and heat. They perk up pretty fast, and if they're still too weak to nurse we tube them. Those kind of interventions are absolutely expected by breeders, and most of us have the equipment to do them at home (I have everything but oxygen, and that's just because we knew we were going to do a c-section and the vet has oxygen).

The kinds of things that we might leave would be pneumonia, if such had already been diagnosed by the vet, or (in rare circumstances) an obviously deformed or dying puppy while the others were being whelped. Sometimes you can't leave the mom to go get the puppy taken care of. But that's rare. Most of the time you would no more leave a puppy to die than you'd leave a child to die; you may not fight as hard to save them as you would a human, but you get them under care and get a real diagnosis and do your very best.

Oh, and puppies have an intact pain response from birth. It's one of the things that is used to diagnose viability, actually.

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 27, 2010 at 12:09pm

The ones I have in mind did not fade pleasantly. They were in pain for at least a day but usually more and were probably very confused and in distress and I'm sure the mother becomes distressed as well. If it were a matter of a puppy passing away peacefully in it's sleep that would be different but these puppies are in pain and should be euthanize. Many breeders have vets that do home visits so in this case there would be no trauma from racing the pup to the vet's office. As far as I know you cannot keep these drugs in your home so yes, a vet would need to be there to administer it.

I know exactly what you mean about the difference between ending an animal's suffering but not a human's but unfortunately with people you are dealing with something much more complicated when you take into account who would make that decision, would it be abused, who would administer and so on. Look at how complicated and costly it is to enforce a death sentence. When we get into humans ending another human's life, it gets very sticky. If it were me though and I were dying of cancer, rather than being heavily drugged to ease my suffering until I pass I would rather be put to sleep. It will never be an option though.

Permalink Reply by GoGoRainbow on January 27, 2010 at 2:44pm

"I know there are breeders who will "let nature take its course" with sick puppies but I think they deserve to be hit upside the head with a board"

OMG, I had to read this 3 times. At first, I thought you said the puppies should be hit upside the head, as a form of putting them down quickly. phew!

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 27, 2010 at 3:20pm

LOL, can you imagine?

Permalink Reply by Wind Dial on January 27, 2010 at 5:26pm

I had to re-read it too, it finally clicked that she was talking about the people and not the puppies. Glad I wasn't the only one.

Permalink Reply by Bev Levy on January 26, 2010 at 3:16pm

This is a very old fashioned way of thinking. I can not imagine a reputable breeder doing it now days. 50 years ago when my father raised beagles he talked with disgust about breeders that practiced it.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page