It's not 'like that'

Hi s.e., 

This is not a question about my pet, but it is adjacent to QOL questions and pets with medical issues in general. 

I have a relative who has a history of saying out of pocket stuff about other people, and recently this out-of-pocket commentary extended to pets. She filled out an adoption application for a six-year-old dog and the shelter did not respond to her application; she was telling me how glad she was that they did not respond, because she didn’t read the adoption description all the way through. (She also has a history of making impulsive decisions.) 

As it turns out, after actually reading the description, the dog she wanted to adopt has a lot of medical problems and costs associated with those issues. The dog needs to wear a diaper due to incontinence. My relative said that she believes that “dogs like that should be put down, after a certain point.” I tried to explain to her that for some pets, QOL needs to be considered and that you can’t always “tell” which pets “should” be euthanized due to medical problems, incontinence, or other things. 

My question: if something like this comes up again, how can I help her reconsider this type of black and white thinking without becoming exasperated or giving up because I am frustrated?

—Crabby in California

Dear Crabby, 

Man do I feel this one. Not all opinions need to be shared with the class and some people apparently skipped school on the day this was announced. Some people also seem to take joy in being loud and wrong. 

The tl;dr here is that what I affectionately refer to as the Miss Manners Pardon Me goes a long way. 

“Pardon me, I didn’t quite catch that/could you repeat that/I’m not quite sure what you mean” gives the other person a chance to consider whether whatever really wild thing it is they said is really worth saying again. 

There’s also the classic “pardon me, but it sounds like what you are saying is…” because sometimes repeating back a bizarre or hurtful sentiment is enough to make your point. 

·And, of course, “oh, what makes you think that?” is always an option. 

A single deployment is often enough to redirect a conversation, and if multiples are required, you get the side pleasure of playing it straight while the other person is flailing to justify themselves. Aggressively forcing someone to defend their position, rather than attempting to argue about it with them, can shift the dynamic of a conversation: You’re not entertaining it as a valid discussion that merits debate, but rather trying to get the offending party to do a little self-reflection. 

As you note, sometimes these conversations can be teachable moments for people to get them to shift their thinking, if you think they’re actually open to that and want to learn more. It’s usually pretty easy to tell if you’re interacting with someone who is simply going to continue thinking what they’re thinking no matter what, or with someone you might be able to reach over time because you interact with them regularly. I gotta be frank, when I get into one-off conversations like this I tend to pull the ripcord pretty early if it feels like it’s not going anywhere because it’s unlikely I’ll reach a stranger I will never see again if I engage in a protracted conversation.

In conversations like these, however, where it’s someone you are gonna have to talk to over and over again, I do find it’s sometimes helpful to start by making sure I understand what the other person means. Sometimes this can be a frustrating experience for them because they may not be used to hearing their views challenged and may assume that they are universal. That frustration might mean the person never brings the issue up again (win?) or simply stops engaging because you’re being “too difficult,” but I like to think that it keeps tingling along the edges of their consciousness, your voice lingering in their mind and resurfacing when they least expect it. 

For this person, what do “dogs like that” look like? Dogs that need to wear diapers? Dogs who need pee pads (and might occasionally miss them)? Dogs that have ongoing urinary health issues that might require more frequent veterinary visits and a special diet?

What level of “like that” does this person think rises to the level of a euthanasia decision? What is “a certain point”? Is that point defined by time? A dog that’s been in a foster or shelter setting for some number of years? Is it about level and cost of medical interventions?  Does this person thinks that each individual dog may have a different “certain point” or does she approach this like a scoring rubric at an annual review?

Does she think this about all dogs across the board, or is she thinking particularly of shelters and rescues? Some people believe that rescues shouldn’t “waste resources,” which is pretty cold IMO. What does she think about shelters and rescues that specialize in senior dogs and those with complex medical issues, often with a well-established network of adoptive and foster households who specifically want those dogs in their lives and have the resources to support them?

Is “like that” about the dog’s comfort level or the human’s? If she’s confident that she wouldn’t be able to take care of a dog “like that,” is she so sure that applies to other people? Has she ever actually cared for dogs “like that” and does she know what it’s like on a daily basis, rather than in the abstract? 

When it comes to disabled and ill pets, people often want to displace guilt over their personal limits—and I think it’s fine to say “I personally feel like I wouldn’t be able to take on a dog who wears a diaper,” it’s good to know that about yourself! But sometimes people fall into the trap of assuming that everyone feels the same way and this is an absolute rather than subjective matter. People who’ve never had the experience can also tend to think that they know what it’s like and could never take it on themselves—but might be surprised if their own pet, one they had a personal connection with, became “like that.”

This shifts the conversation to your note about quality of life and how it can look radically different for different animals. This requires understanding that animals are their own autonomous, individual beings with their own thoughts about the world, which some people really seem to struggle with. Culturally, we tend to act upon animals as objects and that’s often where these kinds of judgmental comments come from—especially if someone thinks that an “object” is difficult, as in the case, perhaps, of an incontinent dog who sometimes makes a mess even while trying their best. Just because you don’t have the capacity to care for an animal doesn’t mean that animal can’t be cared for and live a great life.

For one dog, having to wear a diaper could be traumatic and intolerable, and a lifetime of diapering could be uncomfortable and stressful no matter how hard you try to make it work. Another dog might genuinely not care, or could adapt to diapering and do just fine. Another might be okay with diapers, but could have serious behavioral issues that make it really challenging to go to the vet and keep up with followup care, which could mean missing additional health issues or diagnosing them late, which complicates their long-term outcome. 

This person may not be super receptive to this, but it may be worth asking whether she thinks animals can communicate about their wants and needs—if she’s been around any animal ever she probably knows that animals are pretty good about telling you when they’re hungry, and that many dogs will indicate when they’d like to go outside on a walk or to take care of some personal business. If animals can communicate about basic daily needs, perhaps, you might say, by extension, they can show us whether they are in pain, stressed out about something, or generally not having a good time, which is a much better indicator of that particular animal’s quality of life than a rundown of symptoms. 

If this person has never experienced any personal challenges ever, it can be hard to bring up parallels with their own life, but this tack can be worth it sometimes too. Ask them what good quality of life looks like for them, and if they’ve ever been in a situation where someone assumed that something about their life was an unimaginable hardship when it was actually just fine, or something manageable. Or if they’ve experienced a big change that required a lot of adjustment, and it was maybe scary and frustrating at first, but once they got through that initial period, they were able to move forward with their life. Animals are incredibly resourceful and resilient, and things that seem like big deals to us don’t necessarily feel that way to them, as my three-legged cat and innumerable numbers of diapered pets can testify. 

Pet of the week: Sophie

Sophie is a beloved fixture at the Mendocino Coast Humane Society in Fort Bragg, California, where I volunteer. She's been at the shelter since 2022, when she was surrendered due to her owner's health. At almost ten, she keeps getting overlooked, and while the dog staff and volunteers adore her, we think she deserves to go home already! If you're local, contact the shelter to learn more and meet Sophie. If you're not, sharing in your networks might help her find her person. If you have a pet of the week nomination from a shelter or rescue in your area, you can email POTW at allmydeadcats.com.

Learn more about Sophie

I’d also note that you can, of course, bring out the nuclear option, especially if this person is in a relationship to you where you might be culturally, socially, or personally expected to provide or arrange for caregiving, if prior conversations haven’t suggested that they think humans should be euthanized when they’re “like that” too, which is certainly an opinion people have and are not shy about communicating. 

Is this person aware that many people experience some degree of disability as they age? That it’s not improbable they will wear diapers, have complex medication regimens, and experience other needs that require lifestyle changes, and in some cases, a caregiver to help them perform tasks they cannot do on their own? That this is commonly expected as part of life as you age, and, like people, animals often develop medical needs later in life? That, like people, animals can abruptly acquire disabilities? Should we toss people in the trash when they can't live independently?

People and animals aren’t the same, they may say, and of course they’re not arguing that elders who wear diapers should be euthanized, but there is an important parallel here. Humans and animals are both sentient, and people make assumptions about quality of life for both based on their own lives and how they think they want to live, rather than allowing them to speak for themselves, or come to know them as individuals and understand their lives.

Ultimately, though, I think it’s also valid to come down on this: What does someone else’s interest in and ability to care for a dog “like that,” who is prepared to do so, can do it, and genuinely wants to, have to do with her life, anyway? If she doesn’t feel up to it, there are plenty of people who do and they’ll joyfully adopt that dog and give them a fantastic life. 

“I know we've have this conversation before and you seem pretty set in your beliefs. I think it's fine if you personally don't feel up to caring for disabled animals or those with complex medical needs, but I disagree with making that decision for other people, and I don't really see the point in talking about this again.”

Tell your relative I said…

Keep your eyes on your own paper!