I'm not sure that an organization like PETA would be hypocritical on something like this, unless a story told us how they were taken over by uncaring people. So I went to the PETA web site, and found what appears to be a response: Why We Euthanize.
If they are not hypocritical, then it could be that those who attack them do not understand or simply are not on the same page when it comes to what the organization means by being "people for the ethical treatment of animals" (and if it sounds like I am trying to be initially forgiving of the journalism, it is because I am.) It looks like PETA does not have "shelters" as such or as we know them, but will do the job or euthanisia, in order that this would be done "ethically".
If you are looking to bring your animal to a shelter, they send you down the road to a shelter. Last fall, I adopted a cat from the Lowell Humane Society. Bella was brought there by the the previous owners in hopes that someone like me would come along. This is nothing that PETA provides, and so answers the question of why they would euthanize such a great percentage of the animals they take in. That's what they do.
Will we find cases where they dropped the ethical ball? Dealing with so many animals, I would think that that would be the case. So I don't fault the expose or the press for looking hard at them. It's not a bad idea for the press to ensure high ethical standards, especially when "Ethical" is in the organization's name.
But when an article ends it first sentence by pointing out that PETA "killed more than 95 percent of the pets in its care in 2011." The author is coloring the story, as if we are to believe that people brought their animals in as if PETA was a shelter and not there to provide the service of euthanisia.
Hi Rus, I think they dropped the ethical ball when their cohorts broke my butcher's window because he sells game. And exactly how is it ethical to kill most of the animals placed in your care? Why take them into your care if you don't have the means or facilities to care for them. And exactly where, under such circumstances, do you get off claiming any sort of moral superiority? The sanctimony alone, in my view, warrants the hypocrisy charge.
They only take animals in to kill them. The animals must be sick, like the ones on the photos in the article. They do not take animals in to care for them. That's what shelters are for.
And this is the problem with the article. You don't go to a euthanization facility and say that they are unethical for killing the animals.
Hi Rus, Well, maybe I did rush to judgment. Iooked at the PETA site, and if this is largely true, and not just a selection worst cases, then I stand corrected.
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that an organization like PETA would be hypocritical on something like this, unless a story told us how they were taken over by uncaring people. So I went to the PETA web site, and found what appears to be a response: Why We Euthanize.
If they are not hypocritical, then it could be that those who attack them do not understand or simply are not on the same page when it comes to what the organization means by being "people for the ethical treatment of animals" (and if it sounds like I am trying to be initially forgiving of the journalism, it is because I am.) It looks like PETA does not have "shelters" as such or as we know them, but will do the job or euthanisia, in order that this would be done "ethically".
If you are looking to bring your animal to a shelter, they send you down the road to a shelter. Last fall, I adopted a cat from the Lowell Humane Society. Bella was brought there by the the previous owners in hopes that someone like me would come along. This is nothing that PETA provides, and so answers the question of why they would euthanize such a great percentage of the animals they take in. That's what they do.
Will we find cases where they dropped the ethical ball? Dealing with so many animals, I would think that that would be the case. So I don't fault the expose or the press for looking hard at them. It's not a bad idea for the press to ensure high ethical standards, especially when "Ethical" is in the organization's name.
But when an article ends it first sentence by pointing out that PETA "killed more than 95 percent of the pets in its care in 2011." The author is coloring the story, as if we are to believe that people brought their animals in as if PETA was a shelter and not there to provide the service of euthanisia.
Hi Rus,
ReplyDeleteI think they dropped the ethical ball when their cohorts broke my butcher's window because he sells game. And exactly how is it ethical to kill most of the animals placed in your care? Why take them into your care if you don't have the means or facilities to care for them. And exactly where, under such circumstances, do you get off claiming any sort of moral superiority? The sanctimony alone, in my view, warrants the hypocrisy charge.
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteThey only take animals in to kill them. The animals must be sick, like the ones on the photos in the article. They do not take animals in to care for them. That's what shelters are for.
And this is the problem with the article. You don't go to a euthanization facility and say that they are unethical for killing the animals.
True. But if you do, the facility should refuse to take the animal and explain the matter to the pet owner.
ReplyDeleteHi Rus,
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe I did rush to judgment. Iooked at the PETA site, and if this is largely true, and not just a selection worst cases, then I stand corrected.