Have you ever had a family pet that you had to make that decision for?
[...]
I'm guessing you haven't been there before.
You are right. I haven't.
First of all, I'm not saying that people shouldn't kill their pets if that is the most cost-effective or merciful option.
If you have to choose between your pet suffering until it dies and killing it immediately, or if you have to choose between repairing your damaged pet and putting food on the table for your family, then I guess the correct solution is pretty obvious.
My only objection is to the psychological soft-footing which gets applied to things like this. Folks try to come up with a way to face the problem without having to address it head on. It's like meat at the supermarket. Everybody eats it, but half of the city folks who buy meat wouldn't have the stomach to kill and dress an animal if it wasn't delivered to them prepared with a bar code on it.
Case in point: The guy whose dog reawakened admitted that he wasn't sure what he would do in the aftermath of the failed killing. This proves his inferior mental condition. If it was logical to snuff the dog out yesterday, what makes it less logical to snuff the dog out a second time today? Obviously, he wanted to get the job done without having to face the reality of what he was doing. There is emotional compromise at play here, and the way I see it, the concept of mixing killing and sympathy together is ridiculous and embarassing.