The organisation that took care of ‘Freddie’, the seal who was attacked by a dog on the banks of the Thames in London and had major injuries, claims that the seal’s welfare must be put first, and since they have a policy against putting animals into captivity, Freddie needed to be ‘euthanised’.
➡️➡️ Should disability of a ‘wild’ animal – because they most likely cannot survive in the wild on their own anymore – be a death sentence? Why the negative association with dependency?
I suspect the animal’s welfare is not really the core issue here, but the economic impact of caring for Freddie – and numerous other animals who humans have disabled.
An indiscriminatory policy of placing ‘no animals in captivity’ leaves no room for nuance, tailored to the individal’s needs.
QUOTE
“We would be unable to release a seal back into the wild with one flipper, if amputation was an option, as we have a firm policy on not putting animals into captivity, and the seal’s welfare must be put first and foremost.“
LINK POST: British Divers Marine Life Rescue
0 comments on “The ‘euthanasia’ of Freddie the seal”