CLAIM:
While we mercifully euthanize pets to end their suffering, we deny humans the same right to a dignified death. Assisted suicide represents a humane option for those facing inevitable death, allowing them to exit life on their own terms with the same compassion we afford to our animal companions.

REBUTTAL:
A Biblical Perspective on Animals
Animals were created before humans (Genesis 1:20-25). Authority, however, was assigned to humans over the animals (Genesis 1:28; 2:19-20).

Animals served an important utilitarian role. Following the Flood, God establishes that animals can be used for food (Genesis 9:2-3). Animals were worked (Proverbs 14:4). Animals represented God’s blessings to his people, which were then sacrificed for God’s honor (Leviticus 1-7).

Animals were to be cared for as blessings. The Sabbath instruction for rest extended to animals (Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14). Proper animal care was the mark of a righteous person (Proverbs 12:10).

Animals also could serve as a testimony to the providence of God (Matthew 6:26; Psalm 147:9) and exemplary models of diligence (Proverbs 6:6-8) and loyalty (Isaiah 1:3).

Animals also can become beloved companions (2 Samuel 12:3).

A Biblical Perspective on Humans Compared to Animals
As I stated, humans have been assigned dominion or authority over animals (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 8:4-8). Humans are declared to be more valuable than animals (Matthew 10:29-31; 12:11-12).

Contrary to evolutionary thinking, humans are biologically distinct from animals (1 Corinthians 15:39) and cognitively distinct from them (Psalm 32:9; 73:22; Jude 10). Even the most intelligent animals lack human reasoning and communication skills.

This human distinction is most evident in both the creation and redemption events. At creation, humans are created in the “image of God” (Genesis 1:27), a distinction not held by any other created thing.

At redemption, God sent his Son, Jesus, to die for human beings (John 3:16; Romans 5:8) to restore the lost image of perfect holiness (Colossians 3:10).

All this points to the incontrovertible biblical evidence that humans and animals are different. There are similarities, but they are not the same. Nothing in the pages of Scripture suggests that humans are a higher or more developed version of animals. And therein lies the problem.

Evolution and the Changing Worldview
The American experience with animal treatment began in December 1641, when the Massachusetts General Court enacted a legal code mandating rest and refreshment for cattle. This code reflected the predominant Puritan faith in Massachusetts at the time, as expressed in Proverbs 12:10, and the value of being good stewards of the essential resource cattle were for farming the land. The utilitarian perspective began to fade as evolutionary thinking rose in popularity.

The French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) wrote a 44-volume series, Histoire Naturelle, completed posthumously in 1804. In it, he criticized some prevailing notions about evolution but provided insights that were later adapted into evolutionary thinking. Evolution was already a topic in academia.

Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), the grandfather of Charles Darwin, wrote Zoonomia (1794-1796), in which he proposed that all warm-blooded animals arose from a “single living filament.” Again, evolution was getting increased attention.

The big push came in 1859, when Charles Darwin published his seminal contribution to the theory of evolution, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Within a decade or two, Americans began shifting their thinking about the origin of life that challenged the uniqueness of humans.

In 1866, Henry Bergh (founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [ASPCA]) submitted a bill to the New York legislature that was passed stating that any person who neglected, violently mistreated, or killed an animal, either in their possession or someone else’s, would be found guilty of a misdemeanor. This legislation was expanded the following year to outlaw blood sports and abandonment.

Over the next decade, many states acted similarly and expanded laws, shifting the focus to preventing cruelty rather than just preserving a farming asset. While still deemed “exceptional,” human life was increasingly considered as little more than a “higher order” of animal life.

Mercy Killing
As society became more “anti-cruelty” minded, humane solutions for animal suffering raised a dilemma: even the brightest animals could not adequately communicate their suffering. The treatment options become more perplexing because there are so many different animals.

A professor of veterinary medicine once told me that the demands of being a veterinarian are, in many ways, more complex than those of being a physician for humans. Human beings are a single species, despite some differences between them. The animal world contains many species, each with its biology and inability to tell you where it hurts.

Because of the increased guessing in diagnosis, treatment options could antagonize the suffering. Terminating the animal’s life became the presumed merciful option, which is why it became known as “euthanizing” the animal. Euthanasia means “good death,” and it was deemed preferable to the suffering caused by the malady or guessing as to other treatment options.

The Difference with Humans
Human beings are special. They were created in God’s image, and when God sent Jesus to die for the sins of the world, he did not come as an animal but as a human being. Scripture, on the one hand, permits killing animals and eating. On the other hand, it forbids terminating the lives of human beings without God’s command.

While we are not to end human life, we are to care for it, protect it, help it, heal it, and ease suffering (Luke 10:25-37; 2 Corinthians 1:3-4).

We live in a culture that measures life often by utilitarian standards. The late Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, while advocating for assisted suicide, made the infamous comment that the aging “have a duty to die” so that they cease being a burden on others. Such happens when we are busy trying to create paradise on earth. Despite God’s promises to work all things out for the good of his people (Romans 8:28), we surmise it is easier to “end the suffering” through death than treat the suffering through extra effort.

Human beings are not animals. They are a singular species, redeemed by the blood of Jesus, who promised to bring good from it even in the worst circumstances. While there is no escaping death, we cheapen the grace of God by reducing human beings to the status of animals. We shirk our responsibility to think of others ahead of ourselves (Philippians 2:3-5) when we advocate for death before comfort. We rebel against God to presume that we can terminate life (Deuteronomy 32:39).

In a later installment, we will discuss making sense of suffering and hardship in deeper detail. For now, focus on comfort and caring rather than killing. Killing may be the expedient thing to do with ailing animals, but humans are much, much more than that.

Historical Sources (accessed 2-3-25):
https://www.euthabag.com/blog/our-guardian-angels
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9913502/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8402858/
https://www.animallaw.info/intro/animal-euthanasia
https://www.oah.org/tah/november-2/the-history-of-animal-protection-in-the-united-states/
https://blogs.uoregon.edu/jotani14/