since chickens would not lay that much eggs if they would be in the natural habitat is it moraly right to let them die because egg laying problem... 300 eggs a year is too much and it doesnt seem like it is fair to let them suffer from liver damage egg peritrosis etc.
what do you think?
Side topics aside, I'm still not sure I'm really understanding the question. What do you mean by an "egg laying problem"? Laying too much? Too little? Or something like being egg-bound? I don't consider "too many eggs" to be a problem that warrants euthanasia. If you don't want your chickens laying more than is healthy, don't run lights in the winter and get a breed that isn't too overbred. But I wouldn't assume that laying an egg a day most of the year is a sign of suffering.
I had never heard of egg peritonitis but looked it up and it sounds like something that would warrant euthanasia, same with being egg-bound although I would probably try to treat the latter first as eggs can sometimes be passed.
It really depends on the ailment and the person making the decision, and as I've said before, while I think it is ethical do euthanize a suffering bird, that doesn't make it immoral to give it a chance to recover if you think it has a chance. Which is why I'm having trouble answering the survey question...there's no answer that fits my opinion.
The problem I often have is that it's really hard to diagnose a sick bird. I recently had a rooster who seemed to have an injured foot, and I was treating him for that, but as he got worse I started to suspect it might actually be Marek's or one of the dozens of diseases that look like Marek's. I spent a lot of time researching symptoms online and trying to figure out if he was a goner or just needed extra vitamins and time to recover but never got a clear answer. He was sick for less than a week, during which time he ate and drank and there were at least 2 mornings where he looked significantly better than the night before and I thought he was recovering. But in the end he rapidly deteriorated and died in less than 24 hours, leading me to believe it was an illness after all.
Was it morally wrong that I didn't put him down when he first showed signs of illness? I have seen chickens recover from worse symptoms, given time and TLC, and I noted that he was still eating, which is usually a sign of wanting to live. So I think I did the best I could with the knowledge I had, short of taking him to a vet, which is just not something I can afford. I'm sure not everyone would have followed my same course of action, but it's really hard to know when a bird is suffering with no chance of recovery, without a diagnosis from a vet or a really obvious injury.