Stop calling it that

It's not "euthanasia"

There is a proven set of lifesaving animal shelter programs. It's called the No Kill Equation, and it has enabled hundreds of communities to end the killing of almost all animals. It needs an update based on all we’ve learned since Nathan Winograd coined the term, but we have the basic blueprint to shelter and place the vast majority of animals who need a shelter.

So why and how do pound directors and supporters reject it and continue killing? I don't know why they choose to kill, but here's an answer to how they continue to choose killing...through what psychologist Albert Bandura termed "selective moral disengagement."

Mechanisms of moral disengagement include:

Moral justification--for example, saying that killing is the kindest, most humane course of action.

Euphemistic labelling--calling a pound a "shelter," calling killing "euthanasia," "euth," "putting to sleep," "PTS," etc. Some of these examples are euphemisms for the euphemisms.

Advantageous comparison--excusing bad behavior by saying it's not as bad as it used to be, or it's not as bad as what someone else is doing; for example, a pound that kills 20-25% of animals defends itself by comparison with when it killed 50% or 70%, or defends itself by comparing itself with other pounds that kill more animals. A pound that kills thousands of healthy and treatable animals defends itself by comparing with pounds that use gas chambers to kill.

Displacement of responsibility--blaming the "irresponsible public" for pounds' choice to kill, even though hundreds of shelters have stopped killing without waiting for the public to achieve a certain level of responsible pet ownership, and in fact, those shelters put programs in place to help owners meet their responsibilities to their pets.

Diffusion of responsibility--compartmentalizing responsibility within a pound so that no individual is responsible for the decision to kill.

Disregard or distortion of consequences--dismissing the importance and irreversible nature of killing with statements like the one about dead animals strewn across the floor of a pound, "They are just empty shells."

Dehumanisation--in this context, dehumanisation should perhaps be re-named "devaluing" of those killed, except that the devaluing is often linked to dehumanisation of the people associated with those animals most often killed. The devaluing statement, "Pit bulls are a dime a dozen," with the implication that killing any individual animal labeled a pit bull doesn't matter, is associated with stereotypes about owners of pit bulls and stereotypes about those people's lack of value. Dehumanising the animals, and the people stereotypically associated with the animals, allows pounds to kill those animals and still claim to be "good."

Attribution of blame--blaming the "irresponsible public," linked to displacement of responsibility, or even blaming critics of the pound for the pound's choice to kill.

Once you recognize these mechanisms of moral disengagement, you can stop being distracted or silenced by them. Speak up against killing, and speak up for lifesaving leadership and shelter reform.

Start by practicing: when you see the word “euthanasia,” ask yourself if it is being used to describe true mercy killing, which means ending suffering where there is no hope of recovery, or whether it is being used to soften the moral impact of taking the life of a healthy animal. If it’s the latter, call it killing.