An Open Reply to Ms V's Question about Animal Euthanasia. By Dr Chapman Chen
Ms V, a participant in our free online course, Vegan Theology, raised the following question about euthanasia for animals (paraphrased from our discussion):
“God is the creator of life. When we reach a stage where an animal is in a really, really bad condition, is it okay to take his or her life through euthanasia? But everything in the Bible, such as ‘Thou shalt not kill’, seems to say no. My struggle comes down to this: God is the giver of life. Surely, if an animal's life should come to an end, God Himself will take that life. We should not be playing God.”
My reply is as follows:
1. Life Ultimately Comes from God
Each life, whether human or animal, has its own intrinsic value, its own mission, and its own meaning. God's creation is inherently good (Genesis 1:31), and God's compassion extends to all creatures (Psalm 145:9). Jesus teaches that not even a sparrow is forgotten before God (Luke 12:6). Their worth, therefore, cannot be reduced to their usefulness, health, economic value or convenience to human beings.
2. Compassion Cannot be Judged by Intention Alone
A compassionate motive does not necessarily justify deliberately causing death. Proverbs 12:10 warns that even apparent mercy may conceal cruelty, while Jesus and James stress that mercy is a fundamental moral principle: “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13; 12:7; cf. Hosea 6:6); “For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment” (James 2:13, KJV).
3. Vulnerability Strengthens Rather Than Diminishes Our Responsibility to Care
The biblical image of the good shepherd is one who tends the sick, rescues the lost and protects the weak (Ezekiel 34:4; Isaiah 40:11). Jesus himself invokes the rescue of an animal in distress as an example of morally appropriate action (Matthew 12:11).
4. Pain Itself Can Have Meaning.
Job in the Old Testament experiences unspeakable suffering, including physical pain due to various ailments and psychological pain arising from his feeling of alienation from God. Yet through his suffering, Job learns that animals can be our teachers (Job 12:7–10). God then shows Job a zoo-centric view of the plurality, diversity and magnificence of the universe (Job 38–39).
5. Three Preliminary Steps
Before contemplating the euthanasia of a suffering animal, we should seek to understand the animal's wishes (“But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee” [Job 12:7, KJV]); pray earnestly for God's guidance through the Holy Spirit (“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” [James 1:5, KJV]); and exhaust reasonable possibilities for compassionate care (“A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” [Proverbs 12:10, KJV]).
Neither the animal's apparent wishes nor our perceived divine guidance should automatically be interpreted as permission to terminate a God-given life (“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” [1 John 4:1, KJV]).
6. Don’t Play God
This also addresses Ms V's concern about playing God. It places humility and responsibility at the centre of the decision (“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” [Micah 6:8, KJV]), rather than assuming that human beings possess an unrestricted right to determine when an animal should die (“The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein” [Psalm 24:1, KJV]).
7. An Open-ended Question
There remains, however, a difficult theological question: What if we sincerely pray, attempt to understand the animal, and provide every available form of care, yet the animal continues to experience severe, irreversible suffering?
Our two proposed practices—seeking to understand the animal's wishes and praying for God's guidance—may help guide moral discernment, but they do not by themselves settle that final question. Meanwhile, relieving the animal's suffering remains an immediate responsibility.
I think this unresolved issue would make an excellent subject for a future session on Animal Pneumatology (the systematic theological study of the Holy Spirit's relationship with animals) and Animal Communication.
Comments