Headshot

Author: Paavan Atluri | Major: Philosophy, Spanish | Semester: Spring 2023

During the spring of 2023, I received an honors college grant and conducted philosophical research about euthanasia and our relationship with pets with my mentor Dr. Jenna Donohue, who specializes in normative ethics and medical ethics.

As a philosophy major that has an interest in pursuing medicine, the field of philosophy that has always been most attractive to me is bioethics. I wanted to contribute to the field and become a better philosopher, and research was a great way to do this. Philosophical research was something that was very different to what I have done in the past in terms of academic research. I’ve worked in lab settings doing Alzheimer’s research and the experiences from those projects did not translate over to how I should go about conducting philosophical research. Experimental design, constructing biological assays, and data collection were worlds apart from the type of rigorous analysis skills needed to construct a philosophical argument.

I reached out to my department chair, Dr. Erik Funkhouser, and he recommended approaching Dr. Donohue about being a potential mentor for a research project. Dr. Donohue is a new professor at the University of Arkansas and she specializes her research in the fields of both bioethics and normative ethics. After meeting with her, I talked to her about pursuing a project in euthanasia and I wanted to draw some parallels to veterinary ethics as well. She was very supportive and was an immense help during this project. Dr. Donohue recommended a variety of literature that helped me understand the current legal standing of euthanasia in the United States as well as different ethical approaches to valuing animals.

After reading some of the existing philosophical literature and talking to Dr. Donohue, I had decided on a project. My project makes the argument that pets are in a separate class from other members of the animal kingdom because of their relationship to humans. Because we treat them differently, I want to argue that there is an inconsistency to approach euthanizing them as merciful, whereas deeming the act as illegal and inconsistent with human values in most of the United States. Part of the reason that I chose this argument was because of the abundance of literature that exists about bioethics about patient autonomy, defining the role of the physician as a healer, and distinguishing merciful killing with murder. I wanted to make an argument that appealed more to the pathos of the reader, so I wanted to focus on our existing relationships with something people around the United States love, their pets. By making the conversation into something that is more approachable like our own relationship to pets rather than more abstract concepts like the role of a physician in medicine, I want this argument to be convincing to the general public rather than just people that specialize in philosophy. Laws are created for the people, so arguments for their health and wellbeing ought to as well.

One of the most influential pieces that Dr. Donohue recommended during the course of my research journey was, “Eating Meat and Eating People ” by Dr. Cora Diamond. This piece helped clarify a thought process I wanted to elucidate more in my paper about distinguishing pets from other animals and how human convention and systems we have in place can be used to demonstrate evidence of their exuberated class. The majority of my research process was literature review and reading works in the field of veterinary ethics. I do not have much experience in veterinary ethics, so it was very important to have a good background of information before writing my paper. Right now, I am currently in the process of writing my paper and have a draft of it by the end of the next semester.

I would say that the most challenging part of this research was weighing counterarguments and being generous with how much charity to give them. Unlike scientific issues that can be clarified with data and statistical figures, many philosophical issues are based on the disposition and subjective perceptions of those who put them forward. When arguing about the role of a physician as a healer with regards to euthanasia, the two positions are juxtaposed to two polar opposite extremes. When writing, it is challenging to weigh how much to include in my paper when I feel that the argument isn’t very convincing personally. To counter my bias, I try to the best of my ability to flesh out counter arguments as much as possible to be representative of both sides and allow the reader to pick which argument was most convincing to them.

I hope that in my research, I can push the conversation forward in regards to legalizing euthanasia in the United States. It is upsetting to me that terminally ill patients request for their suffering to come to an end, but are not allowed to do so. I hope that this piece can be a step in that process. The Honors College Grant allowed me the time and academic freedom to research this topic and I am grateful to have received funding. I would also like to thank Dr. Jenna Donohue for her guidance during this project. It would not have been possible without her.