Dog faces death after owner's will states that he be buried with her

[Hum]

A healthy German shepherd in Indiana may be euthanized after his owner requested that his ashes be buried with her upon her death.

Connie Lay, who died on Nov. 25, mentioned in her will that she wanted Bela, her beloved dog, to be put down and have his ashes put with her own. The report pointed out that animals are considered possessions and the owner has the legal right to decide its fate.

A veterinarian agreed to put down the dog, but the news did not sit well with animal rights activists and a tri-state effort ensued.

An alternative to Bela's fate, as mentioned in the will, would be to send the dog to Best Friends Animal Society in Utah, a no-kill sanctuary, the report said. But the attorney said due to financial strains, that is not an option.

Best Friends Animal Society said, in a statement, that it wants Bela to end up at its sanctuary, but "the decision to send him to us (or) to have him put down and cremated is out of our hands."

The dog is currently held at PAWS of Dearbon County as he awaits his fate. Volunteers have offered to adopt the dog, but that is not in line with Lay's will.

more

[cork1958]

Man, that's just sad :(

 

It doesn't state how old the dog is any where though. If it was an old fart, it might not sound quite so sad. Doesn't look to old in the pic.

[Hum]

What a sick twisted, selfish owner.

 

There should be a law barring the killing a healthy animal, just because an owner died.

 

My aunt left instructions to have her cat euthanized when she died.

 

I stepped in and stopped it.

 

I adopted the cat, so she lived another 4.5 years.

[Praetor]

What a sick twisted, selfish owner.

 

There should be a law barring the killing a healthy animal, just because an owner died.

 

My aunt left instructions to have her cat euthanized when she died.

 

I stepped in and stopped it.

 

I adopted the cat, so she lived another 4.5 years.

 

the problem is that is most societies animals are considered property (possession), so the legal owner can decide what to do with them, including death.

yeah, it's sad. :(

[(Account no longer active)]

:cry:

 

They're beautiful dogs. It would be inhumane to let this go ahead.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Millions of healthy animals are euthanised each year in the US alone. It's hard to get worked up about a single animal. The likelihood is that it would have gone to a shelter and been put down anyway.

[Hum]

Millions of healthy animals are euthanised each year in the US alone. It's hard to get worked up about a single animal. The likelihood is that it would have gone to a shelter and been put down anyway.

Not really.

 

 

Many people stepped forward offering to adopt.

 

 

An alternative to Bela's fate, as mentioned in the will, would be to send the dog to Best Friends Animal Society in Utah, a no-kill sanctuary

 

[Intersect]

Not really.

 

 

Many people stepped forward offering to adopt.

 

if i lived in the same city as this poor dog i would offer to be the new owner. I think the owner is a little selfish here.

[FiB3R]

wtf!? Surely she meant if the dog was already dead?

[LimeMaster]

Doesn't sound too legal to me. :( Though, I guess animals have never really had much rights or protection, so the owner can basically treat the dog any way they choose, even if it means killing it.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Not really.

 

 

Many people stepped forward offering to adopt.

Only because it's got media attention. Where are the people offering to adopt the millions of animals euthanised each year? It's like trying to eliminate homelessness by giving a tramp a piece of bread.

 

That's without even considering the FIFTY-SIX BILLION animals slaughtered each year for food. People should save their concern for worthwhile issues.

[FloatingFatMan]

Only because it's got media attention. Where are the people offering to adopt the millions of animals euthanised each year? It's like trying to eliminate homelessness by giving a tramp a piece of bread.

 

That's without even considering the FIFTY-SIX BILLION animals slaughtered each year for food. People should save their concern for worthwhile issues.

 

There's a world of difference between unwanted animals and animals bred specifcally for food, and those who grow as much loved pets.

 

This will needs to be overturned.  She clearly DIDN'T love her pet, or she would want it to live on. She's just a selfish bitch.

[theyarecomingforyou]

There's a world of difference between unwanted animals and animals bred specifcally for food, and those who grow as much loved pets.

Is there, though? Humans don't have to eat meat?our dietary needs can be met from other sources?but rather choose to. The quality of life for those animals is often disgusting and should make any reasonable person ashamed. Further, does that mean you have a problem with people hunting their own food if it wasn't reared especially for human consumption? And again, millions of animals are euthanised each year because they're unwanted. Why does this one animal deserve special attention? The way I see it is that people have built distance between the animals being killed and the food they eat - few people rear animals to kill and eat themselves. That's different to pets, where they are seen as part of the family. But the difference is emotional rather than rational.

 

People are hypocrites. How can someone be okay with a cow being slaughtered for a tasty hamburger but object to a loving owner wanting to be buried with their life companion? We don't know the rationale for the decision - perhaps it was emotional, with the owner not wanting the animal to go through the stress and loneliness of being rehoused; perhaps it was pragmatic, with the owner knowing the animal was likely going to be put down anyway and didn't want it to be a burden on a family member. There is no evidence to suggest she didn't love her pet, her actions just differ to the way other people would handle the situation.

 

The owner has done nothing illegal, therefore her request should be honoured. Do I think it's the right thing to do? No, but that's not important.

[Mr.ed]

Is there, though? Humans don't have to eat meat?our dietary needs can be met from other sources?but rather choose to. The quality of life for those animals is often disgusting and should make any reasonable person ashamed. Further, does that mean you have a problem with people hunting their own food if it wasn't reared especially for human consumption? And again, millions of animals are euthanised each year because they're unwanted. Why does this one animal deserve special attention? The way I see it is that people have built distance between the animals being killed and the food they eat - few people rear animals to kill and eat themselves. That's different to pets, where they are seen as part of the family. But the difference is emotional rather than rational.

 

People are hypocrites. How can someone be okay with a cow being slaughtered for a tasty hamburger but object to a loving owner wanting to be buried with their life companion? We don't know the rationale for the decision - perhaps it was emotional, with the owner not wanting the animal to go through the stress and loneliness of being rehoused; perhaps it was pragmatic, with the owner knowing the animal was likely going to be put down anyway and didn't want it to be a burden on a family member. There is no evidence to suggest she didn't love her pet, her actions just differ to the way other people would handle the situation.

 

The owner has done nothing illegal, therefore her request should be honoured. Do I think it's the right thing to do? No, but that's not important.

 

Well, hypocrites? Got it.

 

And what would you have us eat instead of the poor little animals you are defending...? Please, don't tell me poor old plants!

 

I object to slaughtering poor plants for mere human consumption. Those poor LIVING things cant even protest and/or run away when the harvesting machines come.

 

Think of the poor tomatoes!! Oh, the humanity!!

[techbeck]

Connie Lay...what a bitch

[compl3x]

 

 

People are hypocrites. How can someone be okay with a cow being slaughtered for a tasty hamburger but object to a loving owner wanting to be buried with their life companion? We don't know the rationale for the decision - perhaps it was emotional, with the owner not wanting the animal to go through the stress and loneliness of being rehoused; perhaps it was pragmatic, with the owner knowing the animal was likely going to be put down anyway and didn't want it to be a burden on a family member. There is no evidence to suggest she didn't love her pet, her actions just differ to the way other people would handle the situation.

 

 

As usual, you are the only person in the topic with even a modicum of sense.

 

If the animal had no one else to care for it, and its fate was to be euthanised anyway, then what's the fuss?

 

As you said, people are only coming forward and putting their hand up because of the media attention. This happens a lot when you hear stories about some poor animal being the subject of cruelty.

 

 

Let's say, for arguments sake, someone does adopt this dog, are all the other people who also offered going to think to themselves "well, we didn't get to rescue this dog, but we can still do some good here. Let's go down to the local shelter and rescue some other animal who's about to be euthanised." I highly, highly doubt it.

[FloatingFatMan]

She *could* have stipulated in her will that all efforts to place the dog in a loving home, or a "no kill" sanctuary, were to be made. But no, instead she just said "Kill my dog and bury its ashes with mine".

 

Bitch.

[astropheed Veteran]

 

Only because it's got media attention. Where are the people offering to adopt the millions of animals euthanised each year? It's like trying to eliminate homelessness by giving a tramp a piece of bread.

 

So, we shouldn't care about an Animal until we care about all Animals? I think the first step is caring about an Animal, but, that's just me.

 

 

As usual, you are the only person in the topic with even a modicum of sense.

 

I think what you mean to say is, "As usual you are the only person in a topic I agree with". Currently what you said means everyone else in this topic is senseless and I don't appreciate that outlook. There is sense in the empathy a Person has even if it can be deemed hypocritical, any empathy towards anything makes a whole lot of sense to me.

 

 

Now as for what I believe. I believe it's within this persons lawful rights to make this request and that it should be honored. That doesn't mean I agree with it, but it's not up to me.

[compl3x]

So, we shouldn't care about an Animal until we care about all Animals? I think the first step is caring about an Animal, but, that's just me.

\

 

It's about consistency. The suffering of one animal, when amplified by the media, seems to matter more than the suffer of animals all day, everyday, everywhere. I get your "every journey starts with a first step" idea, but I find it ridiculous that people are flipping out over the fate of one animal when we all know many animals are suffering all the time. It's hardly a secret.

 

 

I think what you mean to say is, "As usual you are the only person in a topic I agree with". Currently what you said means everyone else in this topic is senseless and I don't appreciate that outlook. There is sense in the empathy a Person has even if it can be deemed hypocritical, any empathy towards anything makes a whole lot of sense to me.

 

No, I say what I mean and mean what I say. You can't assume to know what I mean any more than I can know what you mean.

 

Actually, I've been critical of theyarecomingforyou's (tacfy) views many times in the past; we're hardly of one mind. His (I assume he) opinions are usually much more thought out and considered than most of the reactionary opinions you find online. Even when we disagree I appreciate that some level of thought or conscience has went into his post.

 

I don't think people have been sensible in their reaction, that isn't to say I think people who have commented are stupid or incapable or offering a valid opinion. Tacfy made entirely valid arguments about how it is unreasonable and inconsistent to show this particular animal so much compassion, yet show so many other suffering animals so little, if any at all.

 

 

It's probably also worth pointing out that I think German Shephards are the most beautiful dogs in the world. They are my favourite breed. It's a side point, but if I was going to be sympathetic, you'd think I would be more sympathetic to the breed I adore the most.

[RichardK]

She *could* have stipulated in her will that all efforts to place the dog in a loving home, or a "no kill" sanctuary, were to be made. But no, instead she just said "Kill my dog and bury its ashes with mine".

 

Bitch.

No, she is being responsible and actually stating what should be done with the animal.  Most people don't put things like this in their will, if they have one at all.  I say, Good for her for thinking about her pet.

[FloatingFatMan]

Yes, good for her. She thought "I will kill my loving and loyal pet, because I don't want it to be happy with anyone but me".

[JustGeorge]

Let the dog live its life and when its dead, reunite them. 

[theyarecomingforyou]

 

Let's say, for arguments sake, someone does adopt this dog, are all the other people who also offered going to think to themselves "well, we didn't get to rescue this dog, but we can still do some good here. Let's go down to the local shelter and rescue some other animal who's about to be euthanised." I highly, highly doubt it.

Exactly. The chance is about zero.

 

She *could* have stipulated in her will that all efforts to place the dog in a loving home, or a "no kill" sanctuary, were to be made. But no, instead she just said "Kill my dog and bury its ashes with mine".

 

Bitch.

That's your perspective. As I pointed out, there is no reason to suspect she had anything but the best intentions according to her own perspective. There is no implication that her intent was malicious and your extreme hostility towards her is entirely disproportionate and somewhat concerning. You're reacting emotionally rather than logically.

 

So, we shouldn't care about an Animal until we care about all Animals? I think the first step is caring about an Animal, but, that's just me.

I'm simply asking people to keep things in perspective. People seem to be overly concerned about this one animal and are incredibly hostile to the deceased owner yet have nothing to say about the billions of animals slaughtered each year or any of the people involved in that trade. I don't see such hostility directed at butchers or workers at abattoirs, nor any shop worker who sells animal products.

 

There is some serious cognitive bias going on her. But let me be the first to say that I eat meat and am a hypocrite myself. If I was a better person I wouldn't eat meat and maybe that day will eventually come. I just want people to acknowledge that it is irrational to seek to save this one animal over the billions of other healthy animals killed each year because of human desire.

[FloatingFatMan]

I've been to several abattoirs, and at every one I've been too, the animals have been well treated.  Why should I show hostility towards the workers there, that treat the animals well and kill them quickly and painlessly?  This is what those animals are bred for.

 

Pets are not bred to be killed for food. They're bred as companions for people, and shouldn't be killed just because they person caring for them, dies.  Certainly, they shouldn't be killed just on the dying whim of that person; it's inhumane.

[Sadelwo]

The owner seemed to have been thinking like the ancient Egyptian pharos.