From your post, it appears otherwise. We euthanize pets in terminal cases where quality of life is gone. That’s what you’re saying we ought to do, as that is the ‘care’ we provide pets in order to spare them a lingering painful death. No matter if you qualify it or not, the next part of your statement totally negates your qualification.
And this woman wasn’t even terminal, to try to compare a terminal pet to a non-terminal woman and use that argument to say ‘we ought to provide this for people’ - with a non-terminal case - is comparing apples to oranges.
And my mistake for calling you ‘guy’, it is here nor there in terms of what’s being discussed.
I guess if you want to continue to insist I was saying what I was not I can’t do much about it. I’ve twice corrected you, I’m done.