Your dogs aren't your kids, and here's why that's a big deal

Yeah, many dog owners (though perhaps not as many as cat owners with "fur babies") like to talk about their pets as their kids or similar.

And, of course, that's not true. You're their owner, no different than John Calhoun or Thomas Jefferson owning slaves.

And, this is important.

Slate reports on a new drug that purports to extend dog lifespan. (I assume that, if the FDA approves, a similar drug for cats is next, if this one won't already to the trick.) 

The problems? Going back to the Greek myth of Tithonius, lifespan extension is no guarantor of lifespan quality extension, first. And second, moving forward to today's world, in both philosophy and law, your dog cannot give consent, or deny consent, to such drugs. 

Even if it could? If your dog were as smart as a chimpanzee and had been taught American Sign Language like chimpanzees? Your dog, under law today, would still have no legal right to deny consent. Attempts to give even actual chimpanzees legal rights similar to humans have failed.

Let's dive in with some quotes:

No one understands the desperate plea for more time more than Daniela Korec, a veterinary oncologist who focuses on helping her patients maintain quality of life while undergoing cancer treatments. “Getting more time is the No. 1 thing I hear from people,” Korec, who has treated more than 4,000 animals in her career, told Slate.

But Korec says it is important to differentiate quantity and quality, especially when it comes to lifespan. “Just because you have a living creature—and by living I mean drinking, eating, peeing, and pooping—is that an animal that actually wants to be here, and is enjoying their life?” Korec said, adding that it’s easy to lose sight of that as a devoted pet owner, herself included.

Exactly, per what I said above, on the first part.  

Here's the real kicker:

Yes. 

Jessica Pierce, a bioethicist who focuses on the ethical implications of biomedical sciences in human-animal relationships, agreed. She told Slate that there is no real benefit for the dogs in the conversation of prolonging their natural lifespan.

“These drugs are not about dogs or dog welfare. They’re about humans and what humans want,” Pierce said, adding that she believes Loyal sees the financial gain in developing and marketing a drug that capitalizes on the emotional framework of humans. “It’s not for dogs, and we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that it is.”

The bottom line, Pierce explained, is that animals being given these drugs cannot consent, and unlike in parenting a human child, there are no guardrails for pets about what can—and cannot—be done to them.

“Dogs don’t have any choice in the matter—and that’s problematic for dogs,” she said, adding that she worries about the ability of pet owners to make realistic quality-of-life assessments about their pets. The Colorado-based author also underscored that a difference exists between drugs that help dogs live healthier, more comfortable lives—such as a thyroid medication—and those that tout life extension.

Though the article does not quote Peter Singer (excesses and all) any GOOD modern utilitarian philosopher will tell you that and more. That said, I referenced him myself in a similar post a dozen years ago. One short quote:

I would approach the issue from an angle somewhat like Singer might, re the dog, myself. The amount of attachment Dr. Aronson shows to her dog is cruel.

It's also selfish. She cares more about her attachment to Byron than she does for Byron itself.

That about sums up my take on this issue.

I don't own dogs in part because of issues related to this. Other than costs of owning a pet? I live in an apartment and work fairly long hours. It's unfair to a dog, even a small one, to keep it cooped up that long. Many pets "love" their owners and masters because they're bored out of their skulls cooped up and so go crazy when the humanoids come home.

This sets aside the issue of what legal rights, other than current animal cruelty laws, animals should have. A full decade ago, I opposed an attempt to get a habeas ruling for chimpanzees. It also sets aside the issue of degrees of consciousness (along with degrees of theory of mind and related issues). Per that? Sure, a dog is conscious. Even if it knew ASL and could use it, though, is it conscious enough to understand the idea of informed consent? Conscious enough to be able to BE informed to give informed consent. Surely not. Singer would almost certainly claim something different, and be wrong.