The Right to a Good Death: Bridging an Ethical Divide Between Veterinary Euthanasia and Medical Aid in Dying

Abstract

Does the ethical reasoning we extend to the animals we love offer a foundation for recognizing a human right to a dignified death? This paper argues that it does. Society routinely grants a “good death“ to suffering animals who cannot consent yet often denies that same mercy to adults who explicitly request it. This moral inversion exposes a persistent inconsistency in human end-of-life care, revealing how decisional capacity has become an obstacle to relief rather than a justification for it. Drawing on testimony from veterinarians, physicians, and end-of-life caregivers, the analysis examines how the ethical principles guiding veterinary euthanasia can illuminate contemporary debates over medical aid in dying (MAiD). Tracing a lineage of compassion from Mahatma Gandhi's 1928 defense of a suffering calf to the modern legal shift that redefines animals as family rather than property, this study highlights a shared moral trajectory. Without asserting species equivalence, it argues that the clinical and legal safeguards already embedded in human medicine – an “Infrastructure of Safety“ – provide a framework for reconciling mercy with autonomy. Ultimately, the capacity to request relief should strengthen, not weaken, the ethical case for granting it.