No Stupid Questions

One other point that I think no one has mentioned yet is the importance of informed consent when treating people with otherwise fatal conditions. Surgery and other treatments e.g. chemotherapy for cancer incur a lot of pain and suffering in those going through it as well. A person can understand that all that suffering is for the greater good of extending their life, but for a pet that is far from the case, and they may in fact need to suffer more than if they weren't treated.

I love my dog with my whole heart, but I would never put her through chemo if she had cancer.

1. Pets are not intellectually capable of communicating their feelings or desires to humans, so it is up to us as humans to assess the quality of life of our animals in order to prevent them from needless suffering. There is nothing wrong with trying to treat animal illnesses, if you have the resources to do so and can make sure that the animal is maintaining a good quality of life--but that's sadly not always the case. We love our pets and we all want them to live happily forever after, but the sad truth is that they will eventually get old and sick and (unless they die suddenly) one of the most important acts of compassion that we owe them is giving them a humane end of life without suffering. It is sad. It breaks our fucking hearts. But it is our duty and our responsibility to them, and in a strange way, it is an act of love. We owe it to our pets to take care of them in life and in death.
2. Unlike pets, human beings are typically thought to have agency and the ability to express their own wishes regarding their end of life. We can't really decide that "ok, grandma is lives enough, time to put her down", because even if we can see that her quality of life has degraded, we understand that it is not our decision to make whether she can continue to try to live.
3. In some parts of the world, human beings do have the right to choose when to end their own life via physician-assisted suicide, especially in cases where they have some terminal prognosis where they know that their quality of life will not stay high if they continue to live. I don't envy being put in this position, and it's terribly sad to think about, but I do think that it's ethically the right thing to do to allow for that.

Jesus.

As someone else said: helping humans find a dignified death is legal in some countries.

Your second point is more complicated though: I don't know the laws in a lot of countries but where I'm from animals are strictly treated as property - emotional connection isn't taken into strong consideration at all when it comes to assessing their value when it comes to legal fights but they are treated like a distinct thing different from both humans and objects in a lot of other cases (e.g. dedicated laws like "unnecessary" animal cruelty is forbidden ).

About the reason you can discuss as much as you want, the two arguments I've stumbled across are:

1. there must not be a distinction in terms of value because that value must be purely subjective and cannot be assessed.

2. There is no objective way to classify animals based on emotional connection and therefore the law can't create categories.

Culturally we treat animals like different to humans all the time - even your dog is not treated "family" to the extreme a child would (think of child protection laws and what that would mean if they'd apply to a dog or a hamster). And now expand this to find a definition which covers both a cow someone has as a beloved pet or a meat animal.

Note that I'm trying to not say wether this is "right" or "wrong": morale categories and laws have some overlap but they are quite lose as soon as you get specific.

My primary source was an interview with a judge who went into an hour long discussion about how complex the relation between animals and the law is and how "emotional connection" and the need for the law to be objective and repeatable are an inherent contradiction.

In short:

It's a very tough question because there isn't the one correct answer. Law, morality and personal subjectivity collide and make a mess out of us.

I think

Democracy is, when the laws are NOT according to what you think.

Ideally the laws are according to what most people think, but this cannot be guaranteed. Therefore democracy is not the best possible form of government, but unfortunately no better one is known.

Like the Hammer Maniacs?

In my country they'll put people down for free as long as a doctor signs off on it.

This is a tough question. I've had to put down a dog and a cat. They were both basically messed up beyond any kind of reasonable care. Like we could have spent tens of thousands of dollars to keep them alive, but they would have been suffering. I haven't had a dog since that dog, and was almost brought to tears when I saw a dog like him last weekend, but it was cool because the owner let me pet it and it was super friendly.

Cats I honestly don't care as much about, I guess because cats don't really bond with people like dogs do. I see cats as more of a utility. You get a cat and it kills things. They're also way cooler, IMO. But cats like to get hit by cars, they're dumb as hell, you get another cat, it's fine. I guess dogs do too, they chase cars, they don't know any better. My dog was an inside dog (small breed). You can't do that with cats (or big dogs).

As for people... there are ways. I mean, once you're of legal age and if you aren't impaired, you can get a DNR (do not resuscitate) order. There are bracelets. Some people get it tattooed on them. If you're DNR and you go to the hospital, they can treat you with your consent, but if you cannot consent, they are not allowed to treat you. If they do, it's legally considered assault. So they won't do it. They will make you comfortable, but they will let you die. They won't do anything to quicken your death, either — except in some places where they will.

I believe anyone should be able to choose to have their life medically terminated, if they are suffering and of sound mind and body. I have no religious opposition to it. If someone I loved made that choice, I would be sad, but I would not tell them they can't. That's not for me to say.