Sani's resumed spraying, but mildly. That is to say, he's not returned to the bad old days when we contemplated euthanasia because he was spraying throughout the house, but he is spraying again. It may be because we reduced his dosage for a few days. Not a good idea, but Memorial Day Weekend & his 'script refill overlapped. We chose to administer at a reduced dosage, over skipping a few days entirely. His resumption may also be an effect of putting the drug into his food. Historically, he rejected food that contained amitriptyline. He doesn't reject alprazolam-laced food, but he isn't wolfing-it-down like he was before the Holiday, either. In some cases, he doesn't consume all the food/drug. That alters how the drug affects him. We'll resume shoving a pill down his throat, and see what effect that produces. But, bottom-line, I'm back to worrying about whether or not I'll be euthanising a cat. If he continues to increase the frequency and locations of his spraying, we won't be any better-off for having switched to alprazolam.
This leads me think about other things. Vets don't really understand what causes Sani's condition. The closest thing to an explanation I've heard is that his brain possesses an abnormally strong stress-response. He's constantly stressed by the presence of other cats and India, and the natural response to stress is to re-enforce his perceived security. He does that by marking territory as "his" -- i.e., spraying. I can't reassure him. I can't explain how his behavior actually severely increases his danger, because it leads to me killing him.
I understand that the civilized world, certain North American countries excepted, holds it immoral to punish or execute an insane person. OK -- but why? As I understand the argument against punishment, it rests on the willful nature of an offense. Infants, for example, aren't generally disciplined for "flippin' the bird" at their parents, because 1) they haven't learned that that gesture is offensive, yet; and, 2) they aren't actually gesturing, because they don't have control over their hands, yet. Punishment, then, is reserved as a negative-reward for behavior that is understood to be offensive, and under the control of the offender. An insane person, being either uncontrolled, unaware, or both, should then not be punished.
But, an offender actually did harm to someone. (Yes, I know there are lots of offenses that don't actually harm others. I'm not thinking about those, here. I could argue that they shouldn't be considered offenses, but this post is long enough, eh?) That means the offender has objectively demonstrated a capacity for harm. Further, the offender is incapable of preventing additional harm. That leaves two options -- remove the offender from the possibility of committing future offenses, or leave him be and accept any future harm as the cost of not engaging in pointless punishment of an insane person. Option 1 reduces to execution or imprisonment. Both of those are generally considered a form of punishment. So the attempt to avoid punishment results in punishment. Option 2 fulfills the requirement to avoid punishment, but it leaves everyone else exposed to future offense. (This is where I am with Sani, right now. Although I can still hope that the drugs will change his behavior.)
For me, personally, this is where I part company from the civilized world. I think the magnitude of the possible offense can be sufficient to merit either execution or incarceration. On the other hand, I also think that the magnitude of the offense can merit turning a blind-eye. If we're talking about an exhibitionist, then so what? Let him go; the time, effort, and money spent executing or incarcerating him far outweigh any possible harm he might do. Back to the first hand, if he's a serial rapist, then he is likely to hurt people again. In that instance, I think we incarcerate or execute him. (Yes, I know I picked extreme cases, and that the difficulty lies in the middle.) Granted, it won't get him to change his behavior. But we've already concluded he's insane -- he won't change his behavior, regardless. What I'm doing is the only thing I can do to change his behavior. The irony here, is that we're avoiding punishing him by engaging in exactly those actions that would otherwise be used to punish him.
Returning to the original context of Sani & spraying, this means I'm nearing the point of irrationality with his condition. If the drugs don't work, then either I must irrationally execute him, or irrationally allow him to destroy my house. Is there such a thing as a "Crazy Cat Gentleman?"
This leads me think about other things. Vets don't really understand what causes Sani's condition. The closest thing to an explanation I've heard is that his brain possesses an abnormally strong stress-response. He's constantly stressed by the presence of other cats and India, and the natural response to stress is to re-enforce his perceived security. He does that by marking territory as "his" -- i.e., spraying. I can't reassure him. I can't explain how his behavior actually severely increases his danger, because it leads to me killing him.
I understand that the civilized world, certain North American countries excepted, holds it immoral to punish or execute an insane person. OK -- but why? As I understand the argument against punishment, it rests on the willful nature of an offense. Infants, for example, aren't generally disciplined for "flippin' the bird" at their parents, because 1) they haven't learned that that gesture is offensive, yet; and, 2) they aren't actually gesturing, because they don't have control over their hands, yet. Punishment, then, is reserved as a negative-reward for behavior that is understood to be offensive, and under the control of the offender. An insane person, being either uncontrolled, unaware, or both, should then not be punished.
But, an offender actually did harm to someone. (Yes, I know there are lots of offenses that don't actually harm others. I'm not thinking about those, here. I could argue that they shouldn't be considered offenses, but this post is long enough, eh?) That means the offender has objectively demonstrated a capacity for harm. Further, the offender is incapable of preventing additional harm. That leaves two options -- remove the offender from the possibility of committing future offenses, or leave him be and accept any future harm as the cost of not engaging in pointless punishment of an insane person. Option 1 reduces to execution or imprisonment. Both of those are generally considered a form of punishment. So the attempt to avoid punishment results in punishment. Option 2 fulfills the requirement to avoid punishment, but it leaves everyone else exposed to future offense. (This is where I am with Sani, right now. Although I can still hope that the drugs will change his behavior.)
For me, personally, this is where I part company from the civilized world. I think the magnitude of the possible offense can be sufficient to merit either execution or incarceration. On the other hand, I also think that the magnitude of the offense can merit turning a blind-eye. If we're talking about an exhibitionist, then so what? Let him go; the time, effort, and money spent executing or incarcerating him far outweigh any possible harm he might do. Back to the first hand, if he's a serial rapist, then he is likely to hurt people again. In that instance, I think we incarcerate or execute him. (Yes, I know I picked extreme cases, and that the difficulty lies in the middle.) Granted, it won't get him to change his behavior. But we've already concluded he's insane -- he won't change his behavior, regardless. What I'm doing is the only thing I can do to change his behavior. The irony here, is that we're avoiding punishing him by engaging in exactly those actions that would otherwise be used to punish him.
Returning to the original context of Sani & spraying, this means I'm nearing the point of irrationality with his condition. If the drugs don't work, then either I must irrationally execute him, or irrationally allow him to destroy my house. Is there such a thing as a "Crazy Cat Gentleman?"
The idea that we might support policy to incarcerate people in order to help prevent future crimes seems horrifying to me (ie. let's intern all of the Japanese-Americans so they don't spy on us in WWII).
Even considering various viewpoints on why we sentence people for wrongdoing (punishment, rehabilitation, etc.) insane people (who either cannot tell write from wrong, or cannot appreciate the "nature and quality" of their actions) merit special treatment. It's not really punishment if they cannot understand what they did, and incarcerating or executing them does not rehabilitate them.
I do enjoy your false dichotomy (where you ignore the possibility of rehabilitation or treatment for mental illness).
Of course, you're really talking about your cat, and the mental processes of animals are not necessarily directly comparable to humans (especially with _my_ cats). Sani has shown a persistent pattern of unacceptable behavior and you have gone to great lengths to modify that behavior.
And not that you need blessing from me, but I think either decision (to continue to deal with the behavioral problems in any way you can think of, or to have Sani put to sleep) is rationally defensible.
Also, I think they prefer the term "Male Crazy Cat Lady".