Re-thinking euthanasia for stray dogs: compassion or convenience

In an Indian Express newspaper article dated 07 January 2026, Rian Lobo proposed that euthanasia for unwanted dogs is a compassionate solution to end unnecessary suffering. This bleak understanding of the lives of voiceless animals is deeply inhumane. The assumption that their lives do not hold intrinsic value is unexpected coming from humans, who claim moral reasoning and empathy.

This article deeply examines and argues that euthanasia is an act of cruelty against animals. It takes away their life and, with it, their very source of happiness. While arguing, Rian Lobo assumes that the lives of stray dogs are full of suffering; however, this assumption overlooks the reality of their lived experiences. Stray dogs demonstrate responsibility by nurturing, loving, and protecting their young. A mother dog caring for her puppies is a common sight in public parks and neighbourhoods. Stray dogs have sources of happiness such as food, sunlight, and giving and receiving affection from human companions. Stray dogs running up to people for affection can be seen across societies. They are voiceless, but not emotionless. They find happiness in daily interactions and form meaningful human–dog as well as dog–dog relationships. Life, even in its imperfections, holds value for them.

No life form has the moral right to decide the fate of voiceless animals. The act of euthanasia against dogs can therefore be categorised as an act of cruelty. Such an act is unconstitutional under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which aims to protect animals from unnecessary suffering. Acts such as stabbing, bullying, killing, or caging are visibly cruel; however, euthanasia represents an invisible form of cruelty. Taking away life without consent, separating animals from their parents or offspring, or prematurely ending moments of joy are all acts of cruelty rather than compassion.

Normalising euthanasia sends a dangerous message—that problems can be solved by eliminating those who are vulnerable. This sets a harmful precedent not only for human–animal conflict but also for human–human relationships, which are built on interdependence, empathy, and coexistence. Choosing eradication over responsibility weakens the moral fabric of society.
Humane alternatives must therefore be prioritised. Problems such as overpopulation, fear of disease, and human–animal conflict can be addressed through ethical and sustainable measures. Stray dogs can be transhipped from highly overpopulated urban areas such as Delhi to less populated regions, reducing conflict and strain on resources. Comprehensive vaccination and sterilisation drives should be implemented to control disease and population growth. Dogs requiring medical attention must be provided veterinary care rather than being put down. These measures protect public health while respecting the dignity and right to life of animals.

Compassion cannot mean ending life for convenience. A truly humane society resolves conflict through care, coexistence, and responsibility—not through erasure.