a vet who came to our house--I kept rooting for Snownose to expire on his own. It seems like it would have been better that way. It was unfortunate for those who love him to have to play any role in his death.
One thought that kept running through my mind, in the 24 hours just before the Dr. Westbrook came to our door, is that cancer had already taken away Snownose's future. When he was euthanized, he had maybe a day or two left, if that. We took away only that brief time, and only to prevent suffering. Does that even deserve to be called "killing"? Can you really be a killer, and thus responsible for a death, when a disease is already wholly responsible for the death? I'd be prepared to say "no" except what about this? Evil nurse or vet sneaks in and injects the dying patient with a poison, just for kicks. Now you want to talk about "killing" again, despite the disease being wholly responsible.
And so--OK!--taking away one day of life, even out of mercy, has to be killing. Or could a case be made that "euthanizing" is a different sort of thing from killing, because of the motives involved? Is this one of those unusual cases in which motives matter to the kind of act performed? (And now I regret that I have not yet read Motive and Rightness, by my colleague and friend Steve Sverdlik.) In fact, the phrase "mercy killing" has gone out of fashion, and certainly vets don't use the "k" word. They "put down" animals (at least here in Texas), or at worst euthanize them; they don't kill them. Maybe (big maybe) the practitioners are onto something and these aren't just euphemisms.