Raising our criteria for rescue

Thought-provoking article by Debbie Jacobs.  Are we really doing a kindness to all the dogs that we "rescue" from their awful circumstances?  This article, as well as my experience with a local shelter, has prompted me many times to think about this very question.  It is hard to find appropriate placements for many dogs, especially fearful dogs.  We don't want to leave them in the terrible situations that many of them are found in, but is re-homing them really the best alternative (thinking of the question from the point of view of the dog, and really considering the question of good welfare)?  Is the kindest thing to humanely euthanize them, if we can't find a home that really understands their needs, and is fully committed to the onerous task of working with them for their entire lives?  It's a very hard question to answer, but I think everyone who is concerned with animal welfare must consider it.

I know that this issue is very controversial and expect to hear comments.  Please remember to be respectful;  I am only raising this question out of concern for the lifelong good welfare of animals.

I think Debbie is right, though;  we must raise our criteria of what a "successful" rescue is.

Comments, thoughts, opinions?  I think a debate on the subject is healthy and important.