"Put down" or "put to sleep"? Killing animals

[Geoff Bannister]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Alex Hogan <predigirl1 at ...> wrote:

Carol earlier:
> <snip>
> > > (I was once criticized by a twenty-something for saying that an
> animal was put to sleep; the "correct" term--IOW, the new term used by
> her generation--is "put down." No understanding whatever of the
> concept of linguistic change, not to mention respect for her elders,
> but, oh, well!) 

 Alex:
> "Put to sleep" is a ridiculous term meant to make it "OK" to kill animals. They just go to 
sleep. Yeah, right. They are killed. Rather nastily. Go to your local pound if you do not 
know what goes on there. They should have happy lives, not a doomed future. Get your 
animals spayed and neutered before they create more little lives that have to be snuffed 
out. And if you want a pet, get one from a shelter, they are so thrilled and happy to be 
with someone who wants them! They are the best! Especially cats. Sorry, my personal love 
of kitties is a bit much.

Geoff:
As the owner of two dogs and a megalomaniac 18-year old female moggy(!), I have no 
quibble with either term.

The phrase which /does/ jar with me occasionally occurs in newspaper reports usually 
when there has been some sort of unfortunate incident when a dog has attacked a person:
"The animal was destroyed".

That I do dislike.