From ANIMAL PEOPLE,  November/December 2011:

Letters

Euthanasia

I am responding to the letter by Doug Fakkema in the
September 2011 edition of Animal People concerning “euthanasia.”
Without in any way impugning Fakkema’s motives and sincerity,  he is
either in denial or is unaware of the definition of the word.  I do
not argue that the death must be “good,”  as stated by Fakkema,  but
his definition leaves out the most important aspect:  the death
should be in the interests of the individual dying.  Of necessity,
this means that the individual dying would benefit from death by
ending a situation that is causing intractable suffering.  Ideally,
the individual would be able to indicate that he or she prefers death
to continued life.  In the case of cats, dogs or other nonhuman
animals,  this may not be feasible because of our inability to
communicate with the individual.  In these situations,  it becomes
especially important that the person ending life must be clear on her
or his motives which must derive only from a sincere belief that
ending the life will end suffering that cannot be relieved otherwise.
Using a defense that one is somehow preventing future suffering does
not even warrant consideration, being patently absurd. Read more