The Last Lesson We Learn From Our Pets, Ctd

Ike's final days...

Readers continue to contribute to the popular thread:

Thanks for this post about Dusty. I had to put my very first dog down a few months ago, and it continues to haunt me. Ike started to have issues with the steps in my home, then couldn’t make it without my carrying him, then his system just starting shutting down. I sent my mom this picture [above] and she was on the next flight from D.C. to LAX.

I brought her to my home only long enough to pick up Ike, then go to the vet. There wasn’t much they could do, so the deed was done. I didn’t think I would weep like I did, and I find that when I see a death scene in a movie or TV show, it all comes flooding back. I really appreciate your affection for dogs in general and your beloved Dusty in particular.

Another advises:

There are vets who will come to your home to administer euthanasia. It’s much preferable to taking her to a vet.

Many readers chose that path:

I remember the day my wife and I looked at each other and recognized the day had come to “put down” our gentle springer spaniel of 14.5 years. Part of me desperately wanted to chicken out and not be there for it, but it’s really your duty to do so, after all the loyalty the dog has given you.  It helped that the vet arranged a house call. The kids, to my surprise, asked to be present and were. There was no great moment or storybook lesson, but it was peaceful, quiet and right. I won’t like it any better when our spry young rascal reaches his time, but I won’t dread it so. A lingering lesson, yes. Dang dogs.

Another reader who decided to have a peaceful death at home:

Our first dog, Wolfgang, was very special.

He had a strong sense for how we felt, and did what he could to comfort and console when appropriate.  He was diagnosed with lymphoma 15 months before he died.  We were not yet ready to release him and so spent a small fortune on chemo.  Mostly that 15 months was good; we treasure those times.  80% of the time he was the dog we always remembered, although easily tired.  He was not in any particular pain.  He nonetheless experienced “crashes,” about a week after a new chemo treatment, and each time we helped him through it.

The last time he crashed came before a weekend.  Weeks before, an x-ray disclosed that the lymphoma was back and spreading.  The vet offered to board him, but we wanted him at home.  On Monday, he would see a canine oncologist to administer another drug.  But Wolf stopped eating and drinking.  We did our best with a turkey baster to try to get some fluids and mashed up superfood into him. On Sunday afternoon, the sun was out, and I carried Wolf out to our backyard, where he had an hour of surveying his realm, poking his nose into the breeze, etc.  I stayed with him overnight, lying with him on the floor.  I started to lose it at one point.  Wolf kissed my hand and rolled over as best he could to get a tummy rub.

My wife relieved me at four in the morning.  Wolf died in her arms within the hour.  Wolf was waiting for her, as he was always a momma’s boy.

It’s not for everyone and every situation, but I’m glad we kept Wolf at home.  He died where he was happiest with the people he loved.  And we did not have to make the hard choice about inducing his death.  It’s hard to imagine a better passing.  It would have been different had he been in pain, but there was no evidence of that.  Yes, it demanded a lot of our time, but really, if you can’t spend time on those you love, what’s the point?

I experienced a far different death when I had to go to the vet’s and give the instruction to put my sister’s dog down.  The dog had collapsed and was in pain, and it was the right call.  Nonetheless, I was sad that my sister wasn’t there (she was on the East Coast) and that Sadie passed on in a clinic rather than at home.  I have since heard of at least a couple of local vets who will come out and administer a lethal injection in the home.  Clearly most vets will not do that, but I’d recommend finding one who does before the issue becomes critical.

Another:

Okay, I never thought I’d send you a pet picture, but for the sheer ridiculousness of this, here’s our beloved Bob:

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

As you can see, he was patient with my daughter’s dress-up games, as well as a loving “mom” to our cats (and us).  We were luckier than most of the readers who’ve posted on this thread, since we found a vet who came to our house to put him to sleep. And thank God for it; Bob just HATED the vet, and the thought of him spending his last hour on earth in terror was too much.  Our vet was loving and gentle, so Bob drifted away happy and comfortable as I held his head in my hands.

Another reader:

I’m proud to say that we gave our dog Princess a good death.  It was the least we could do after her years of loving us. Princess was a 14-year-old German Shepherd / Border Collie mix that weighed 60 pounds healthy.  But in her last year, she dwindled down to 45 lbs.  She suffered from incontinence, hearing loss that led to anxiety, and frequent bouts of diarrhea.  I thought I cared about our carpets until she reached this stage of her life. I never imagined that changing a doggie diaper would be part of my daily routine.

About two weeks before, she simply stopped eating much of anything, then ten days later, she stopped following us around the house to spend all her time in her bed.  In Portland OR, we have a mobile vet service that specializes in in-home euthanasia.   When it was clear to us that it was time, we called them.

It was a sunny, warm day for October in the Pacific Northwest.  Princess died in her favorite spot on our front porch, in the arms of my husband while I stroked her head.  A week later, we planted her ashes in a bed of new daffodil bulbs. We still miss her very much, and we travel too much to have pets now, so she’s never been succeeded. Still, when my time comes, I hope that I have a death like hers.

Another:

A few years ago, our dog (a Westie) was in very rough shape. We had probably waited WAY too long to take this step, and he was suffering. Then, on a Sunday morning (when all the veterinary offices were closed), he could barely breathe, was panting in a panicked manner, and seemed to be pleading to us with his eyes. My ex-husband was beside himself and nearly in hysterics, so he was no help. I called a 24-hour emergency vet number and asked if it were possible to somehow put our dog to sleep at home, so as not to prolong his suffering (capped off by a traumatic car ride, which he always hated). The vet said something along the lines of, “Well, I cannot tell you how to euthanize your pet, because that would be illegal. What I can tell you, however, is that a strong dose of Benadryl has a narcotic effect of dramatically slowing down the heart and lung function. Best wishes to you.”

So that’s what I did. Two or three capsules’ worth emptied into a dab of wet dog food. We were able to snuggle with him until he relaxed and then simply, slowly, stopped breathing. The next day we took his body, which we had wrapped in a blanket with his favorite toys, to the vet so that he could be cremated.

Another:

Just read your post about Dusty and the inevitable question of “when.”  Two weeks ago we put down our much loved, nearly 17 year old chow, Sammy.  You recognize elements of the downward slide and you willfully shut out others.  But he didn’t operate on that plane.  He knew.  And he told us.  He stopped eating, even the beloved treats, and then started to fall down and was incapable of getting up.  To be blind to those calls would be willfully cruel.

We called an incredible vet, Hannah, who comes to your home.  She lets you sit on the floor with your pet’s head in your lap and the process begins.  She administered the shots, Sammy gave a final kick and with that said good-bye.  She has the pets cremated and scatters the ashes in an apple orchard.  There is great comfort in that scenario.  So if you can find a NYC vet who offers this service, Andrew, I cannot recommend it highly enough.  It soothes the human caretakers and I like to think it’s easier for beloved dogs.

Many readers are also sounding off on our Facebook page. One popular comment:

We help our dogs to die painless, dignified deaths when the time comes. Yet we do not allow the same for humans. A shame!

A Pro-Woman, Pro-Life Cause

Sterilization_states

Corey G. Johnson reports that California has been illegally sterilizing female prisoners as recently as 2010. Some inmates say they were coerced into the procedure, even while giving birth:

Kimberly Jeffrey says she was pressured by a doctor while sedated and strapped to a surgical table for a C-section in 2010, during a stint at Valley State. She had failed a drug test while out on parole for a previous series of thefts. Jeffrey, 43, was horrified, she said, and resisted. “He said, ‘So we’re going to be doing this tubal ligation, right?’ ” Jeffrey said. “I’m like, ‘Tubal ligation? What are you talking about? I don’t want any procedure. I just want to have my baby.’ I went into a straight panic.”

Eli Lehrer says conservatives ought to be appalled:

Pro-lifers probably should get mileage out of the observation that forced sterilization of the “feeble minded” harkens back to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century that Planned Parenthood Founder Margret Sanger helped to forward. It’s also perfectly legitimate to tie the casual acceptance of a clearly barbaric practice to a “culture of death” that also does so much to promote abortion.

But these points, while legitimate, miss a deeper lesson that all conservatives should take to heart: prison officials’ efforts to justify forced sterilization reflect an attitude that people in prison are sub-human. The major reason to force people to give up their reproductive potential (among the most natural of all rights), as California did, is a determination by the state that their crimes deprive them of even the most basic of rights. It’s the same thinking that results in the casual acceptance of rape behind bars and dozens of other horrible things. And this casual type of dehumanization, in turn, undermines the most fundamental teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

No need to pull a Jonah Goldberg. This ties together two causes: the autonomy of marginalized women and openness to the creation of human life. But I wonder if the pro-life world really cares about the former.

(Photo: Exhibit depicting the status of compulsory sterilization legislation in the United States in 1921.)

Whence The Scrotum? Ctd

Scrotum_humanum

A reader writes:

Dude. I mean … I get it. You are independent now and can do the blog that you want, but for those of us reading at work, having a random close-up of a scrotum is problematic. I read in an RSS reader and it just shows up with no warning.  Luckily, this time no one was walking by, but it makes it less and less likely that I’ll be reading you during the day (which means it is less and less likely that I’ll read you at all) when stuff like this keeps randomly popping up.

It was a simple illustration of the issue discussed. If bloody corpses are kosher, why not a simple and abstracted view of the human anatomy? Maybe it was too early in the morning. If so, check out the, er, megalosaurus bone above, known colloquially as the scrotum humanum. (I love Wiki.) Another reader:

I know it’s just anatomy; I know that pic isn’t meant to be salacious or prurient, but commonplace corporate sexual harrassment policies don’t require that to be so to create the dreaded “hostile work environment”!  If one of my female coworkers saw me looking at that post it might just be enough to get me canned, and I assure you that my workplace isn’t unique in that respect.

I’m sorry. How nannying corporate America has become. Another reader:

Luckily I work in academia which has a very high tolerance for Not Safe For Work content, but this is a bit over the top even for here. You could have just as easily used a photo of a chimp or baboon and not run into the issue at all.

On that note: “I don’t know anything about the purpose of the scrotum, but here’s a monkey with a bright blue one.” But humans’ scrota are bigger! Not everyone was put off by the pic:

I genuinely laughed out loud when your blog digitally tea-bagged me over coffee and eggs this morning.  I’m sure there will be those who are offended, but what good is having a privately run blog if you can’t define it with your own sensibility instead of kow-towing to those who are most easily offended. I appreciate that you still know how to make your readers laugh and keep us on our toes.

Spreading The Link Love

cartoon-scratcher

A reader writes:

Regarding the disproportionate traffic the Dish sends to other sites versus traffic sent to the Dish from elsewhere, I’m quite sure the vast majority of your readers behave like me: the Dish is the first, middle, and last thing I engage on the web on a daily basis. I stop in first thing to see what’s going on, then move on to other sites. I check it to see what your editors have updated, then review the review as I wind down. So please don’t be discouraged about the relative lack of traffic reciprocity, because for me and most other readers, the Dish is the summit of our daily web and everything else is downhill from here.

I’m proud to support your pioneering efforts via the only method that truly supports your enterprise: subscription.

Cheers. I guess that may have come off as whining. It isn’t. We benefit from linking to others, many of our posts are curated or aggregated, making them less linkable by others, and we understand that we’re thereby becoming more of a web-hub than an occasional destination. That’s our goal. I just thought the stats might interest readers; and we’re all about transparency here.

And of course, our reader is right. We love links but our only source of income is subscriptions, making us less likely to give you ADD pageview mania and more likely to give you a high signal-to-noise, calm and balanced guide to the web conversation. Join our reader by subscribing [tinypass_offer text=”here”]. I know it can be a hassle in the office, but if you value what the Dish does with so few people every day and hour of the week and weekend, just get your credit card from your wallet or pocket or purse and [tinypass_offer text=”take two minutes”] to pay less than $2 a month to keep us alive.

And if you are already a subscriber, you can support us further by getting a gift subscription for a friend, family member, or just someone you want to offend with a photo of a scrotum at 8.02 am. And, yes, you’re welcome. Where else?

Quote For The Day

eddy-dusty-rocks

“We who choose to surround ourselves with lives even more temporary than our own, live within a fragile circle, easily and often breached. Unable to accept its awful gaps, we still would live no other way. We cherish memory as the only certain immortality, never fully understanding the necessary plan,” – Irving Townsend.

Will We Cut Egypt’s Aid? Ctd

Elliott Abrams supports suspending aid:

Some argue that a suspension of aid, which is clearly required by U.S. law when there is a coup, is foolish right now because we need to stay close to the Egyptian military. Others say the vast majority of Egyptians rose up to throw the Muslim Brotherhood out, so an aid suspension would insult and enrage them. Still others say there was not really a coup, because what the military did responded to the millions of Egyptians who went to the streets to eject President Morsi. …

Look back at all those things we want for Egypt, and the answer should be obvious: We will do our friends in Egypt no good by teaching the lesson that for us as for them law is meaningless. To use lexicographical stunts to say this was not really a coup, or to change the law because it seems inconvenient this week, would tell the Egyptians that our view and practice when it comes to law is the same as theirs: enforce the law when you like, ignore the law when you don’t. But this is precisely the wrong model to give Egypt; the converse is what we should be showing them as an ideal to which to aspire.

But the illegal occupation and settlement of the West Bank? Not a problem. I’m with George Washington: in favor cutting all military aid to both Israel and Egypt. From the other end of the political spectrum, Egyptian writer Nawal El Saadawi seconds the motion:

On July 5, I watched a group of American men on CNN threatening to cut off aid to the revolutionary Egyptian people. And I laughed out loud. I hope that they cut off this aid! Since the time of Anwar Sadat in the 1970s, this aid has destroyed our political and economic life. This aid helps the U.S. more than anyone else. This aid goes directly into the pockets of the ruling class and corrupts it. This aid has strengthened American-Israeli colonial rule in our lands. All that the Egyptian people have gained from this aid is more poverty and humiliation.

Brad Plumer considers what would happen if we cut off aid:

Probably not much at first. Military aid to Egypt for 2013 was already disbursed back in May, and there likely wouldn’t be another round of funding until next spring. But cutting off aid would certainly reshape the U.S.-Egypt relationship — and mark a big break from the past 65 years.

Back in 2012, Shana Marshall doubted that the US would cut aid to Egypt, partially because, although “domestic interest groups are rarely invoked in the debate over military aid to Egypt, the $1.3 billion in annual assistance represents a significant subsidy to U.S. weapons manufacturers.”

More Dish on the debate over Egypt’s aid here and here.

No To Comey (And To Torture)

James Comey Hearing

His only claim to fame is that he prevented a completely lawless surveillance program – rooted entirely in the executive branch – from being imposed on a sick attorney-general. That’s not heroism. It’s part of his basic duties. And while he yesterday said he opposes waterboarding, he was an active member of a war criminal administration, with respect to interrogations of prisoners. How on earth does re-appointing him not legitimize those war crimes – and represent the latest sad repudiation of the Geneva Conventions by Obama?

Let us now acknowledge a steaming pile of bullshit:

Mr. Comey said that the government’s statute on the [waterboarding] issue at the time was vague, complicating the ability of government lawyers to determine its legality. He said that despite his authorization of the opinions in 2005, he had urged senior Bush administration officials to end the use of the practice. “Even though I as a person, as a father, as a leader thought, ‘That’s torture — we shouldn’t be doing that kind of thing,’ I discovered that it’s actually a much harder question to interpret this 1994 statute, which I found very vague,” Mr. Comey, 52, said at the hearing.

Give me a break. No court – domestic or foreign – had ever found waterboarding not to be torture in 2005 as surely as 1905. There is nothing vague whatsoever about it. Nor is there anything vague about the very broad anti-torture laws that the US enforced before the war criminals of the last administration got their hands on total power. And Comey has the gall to call himself a leader! He was not a leader; he was following orders. And he has not repudiated the many other torture techniques that were in place before his departure in 2005. Any government figure who has that amount of contempt for the law, that amount of confusion about clear legal rules, and that amount of tolerance for torture has no place in any public office, let alone the FBI.

What worries me most is that this is just the latest evidence of Obama’s weakness in the face of the torture-enforcers of the past. Bringing those complicit with past torture into the Obama administration helps legitimize war crimes. John Brennan, for example, has been promoted and is now doing all he can to prevent the Senate Intelligence Committee from telling the truth about his above-the-law organization’s dark recent past.

If this president refuses to enforce the Geneva Conventions as clearly as his predecessor, he might do better than what is, in this instance, giving the finger to international law and human decency.

(Photo: James Comey, nominee for FBI Director, is sworn in to his conformation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Dirksen Building. By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty.)

Kill Bill, Vol 3

Yesterday, in a post titled “Kill The Bill,” Lowry and Kristol came out against immigration reform. Lowry defends his position in the above video. There’s nothing new in what he is saying. It amounts to the same arguments as the past (enforcement won’t happen, even after a bill that ladles resources into that under an administration that has deported illegal immigrants at record rates) and the same Kristol view of politics as the past: total warfare at all times against anything that might get signed by president Obama.

I have to say I am unsurprised by this. Lowry basically said (above) he’d be happy for next-to-no legislation to ever pass the Congress, regardless of the underlying problems. Notice too that for Lowry, the actual plight of the undocumented workers and their families is completely absent. And this is what, to my mind, rightly affects Latino voters. Lowry and Kristol cannot see past intellectual categories and Village pyromania to empathize whatsoever with close to half the country. They think the problem was this:

During the debate over immigration in 2006–07, Republican rhetoric at times had a flavor that communicated a hostility to immigrants as such.

They don’t even hear themselves, do they? As for the Latino vote, how’s this for communication of hostility?

At the presidential level in 2016, it would be better if Republicans won more Hispanic voters than they have in the past—but it’s most important that the party perform better among working-class and younger voters concerned about economic opportunity and upward mobility.

Whites First! How Douthat sees the Lowry-Kristol op-ed:

The core of the Lowry-Kristol thesis isn’t that the G.O.P. should necessarily resign itself to a Romney-esque performance among Hispanics in 2016 and beyond; it’s that a conservative party with an appealing, populist-inflected economic agenda will ultimately probably win more white votes and more Hispanic votes (and, for that matter, black votes and Asian votes) than a conservative party whose idea of rebranding is just a headlong rush to put President Obama’s signature on an immigration bill.

Notice that the motives include nothing of any substantive policy concern and are entirely about differences over partisan interest. And if Ross believes the current GOP is going to adopt any of the populist economic policies that could be attractive to working class white voters, he’s looking at a different party than I am. Repealing universal healthcare will reassure economically insecure whites? Gutting Medicare will do the same? Who is proposing anything but steep austerity and yet lower taxes in the GOP?

First Read wonders whether Republicans in favor of immigration reform have any cards left up their sleeves:

Given the growing conservative opposition to immigration reform, here’s a question worth asking: Can pro-reform Republicans strike back?

Today from his presidential library in Dallas, TX, George W. Bush will be delivering a speech on immigration. But is this going to help convince conservatives or make them even more resistant? Remember, the modern conservative movement hasn’t been too friendly to Bush’s policies or presidential agenda. The GOP-leaning American Action Network is up with a $100,000-plus national TV ad campaign, urging Republicans to support the Senate’s immigration reform bill. But is $100,000-plus enough? And GOP immigration supporters have released a poll showing that Republican primary voters want to fix the immigration system and prefer an imperfect solution to no solution. But is releasing a poll going to do the trick? Right now, the Republicans who want immigration reform to pass have been VERY QUIET lately. Does that change?

Dickinson considers the risks of killing immigration reform for Republicans:

Waiting for 2015 … means Republicans will have to live with the collapse of immigration reform for the next year or so. Perhaps voters will applaud that Republicans didn’t rush a bill that was bad policy. But given Congress’ approval ratings and willing Republicans ready to point fingers, it’s also just as possible that the independent voter might conclude that the GOP cannot apply reason to the problems of the day to find a workable solution.

How could any voter not see that?