TLDR : yes but (Wished it was for the greater good only, ie. respect and help people decide how they end their lives but capitalism will use it with its own vision and how it values human lives -not much-)

In addition to the usual religion + human life being supposedly more valuable than pets /many other animal, there’s the “utility” angle.

Someone here already mentioned the “is grandma Suzanne still valuable as an asset to society ? Aaaww she had a good life then. 'K bye” and it’s actually pretty huge : in a world where governments are cutting more and more social welfare budget (well, when there was one to begin with at least), promoting the right to die must include the stories of people that don’t benefit from proper care and who are way more susceptible to go with the legal way out of euthanasia. And this number, with the budget cuts, older population, whatever incapacitating fuckery that might happen will grow quickly if not properly safeguarded (and I dont trust anyone in power right now to safeguard it).

I used to be completely in favour of euthanasia as a proper, respectful ending for people in pain : we had this story in France with Vincent Humbert that encapsulated all the reasons why it should be legal.

And then, capitalism kept happening and this idea of euthanasia, as beautiful as it is if properly set, increasingly became in my mind a tool to stir the masses towards global productivity/efficiency, with a few happy yet sobbing endings.

So yeah, I’m still hesitant on this matter, and I wished it could be implemented to relieve the many persons who just want a little more respect for how they wish to die. But at the same time, if nothing more is done to increase social welfare budgets, welp. We might end up with the suicide booths from Futurama 😅

Much of it comes from Christian theology.

Suicide has long been considered one of, if not the, worst possible sins in Christianity. At least in the Catholic tradition, sins can be forgiven by confessing your sins to a priest and having them absolved. But you can’t do this with suicide. Per Christian theology, even a murderer or child molester can some day repent, beg forgiveness, and be forgiven of their sins. They won’t be absolved from the earthly consequences of their actions, but they’ll be forgiven in the next life. That is a core message of Christianity - no actions are truly irredeemable as long as you still draw breath.

But with suicide, this isn’t possible. You can’t confess your sins after you’re dead, and suicide means that your last act on Earth will be a mortal sin. I suppose you could maybe do confession along with assisted suicide. Maybe you have a priest on hand, swallow the poison, and then immediately confess your sin. But most religious scholars would likely argue that doesn’t work. Your contrition has to be genuine for it to count.

Anyway, pardon the digression. But this really is the root of it. Even in modern Western societies. Even among people who aren’t themselves active Christians. Even among those who’ve never stepped inside a church. Secular Western society is still heavily influenced by Christian philosophy. A strong aversion to suicide in any form is a part of this. For most Christians, voluntarily signing up for euthanasia is the easiest direct path to eternal damnation that one can achieve. The only quicker more direct way would be a murder-suicide. We’ve never had that same worry with animals. Christian theology doesn’t assign souls to animals. And even if it did, they would have no moral blame for us choosing to put them down.

You have noticed that there is a difference between humans and pets, haven’t you?

because of WW2 and the experiences made there.

if euthanasia was legal, it would be immediately used against some kind of disadvantaged group, which is why it’s kept forbidden.

Religions and doctors “vowing to protect life.” Especially religious doctors “vowing to protect life” even when the life means just pain and suffering that can’t be properly eased with pain meds either, because you know, the dying person might get addicted to the meds. That’s obviously worse.

In my country, when an elder person is too sick and “ready to be euthanized”, they just stop giving them water and let them dry to death. It can take weeks. They do give some pain medication, but there is no way of knowing what amount is enough. You’d imagine that dying that way is pretty damn painful yet they don’t have a way of communicating that. But if they OD’ed, it would be murder so better let them suffer!

But also, euthanizing animals is becoming more taboo too. Many pets live in pain, relying in “pet mobility carts” and medications. Antidepressants for cats, epilepsy meds for dogs… Vets prolong the suffering for money, for people who can’t accept facts and do the kind and right thing. Animals have no way of communicating about side-effects from medications. Endless rehoming is thought to be better than letting go.

Because we value humans much higher than animals.

There’s more profit to be made off a sick person slowly dying over years than a one-time procedure.
What the general population thinks rarely matters since our politicians are bought by the owning class.

At least in the States, I believe it’s for religious and financial reasons. Correct me if I’m wrong, but allowing someone to off themselves could be condemning them to hell. Also, to be cynical, medically assisted “checking out” is the easier, cheaper way out, instead of burning through money in a hospital.

Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with ending the suffering of a terminal illness. Prolonged suffering is unnecessary, and a person should have the right to go out on their own terms.

Short answer: religion.

“Only God can take a life”… except when it an heretic, a non believer, a sinner, …

Killing believers = sin

Killing non believers = " the work of God"

And pets are animals and “you can do as you please”.

Society is not that sick to let animals to suffer

Lets be honest, most humans do not view pets as equals to a human. Valuing our own species over others is just part of our biology. (not saying that I agree with this view)

If people had the legal responsibility to keep paying thousands or tens of thousands (or potentially more) to keep a pet alive at its senior years, then like… I bet like 50% of pet owners will either become bankrupt or go to jail for animal cruelty.

Laws are just written with humans prioritized… I mean… humans have healthcare¹, pets do not.

A human in an emergency situation arriving in a hospital, and they are legally required to give treatment even if the person cannot pay at the time¹, a vet can legally refuse to treat a pet in an emergency until the owner pays (not saying that would refuse, but they could).

(¹restrictions apply, varies by country)

One could argue that if euthanasia is legal, then there would be situations of: “Hey, granny is kinda taking too much resouces… maybe we should just pull the life support?” or “Okay my child has cancer and takes up too much of my money, and all this money would be wasted if the treatment fails, I’m gonna talk to the doctor and end this parasite once and for all”