Yesterday’s post attracted a number of comments and emails. (What was the number? Sheesh! Don’t get so bogged down in details! It was a number, OK?)
Another of my alert readers drew my attention to the following article in USA Today on March 14, 2005.
The article begins:
“The patient had dental surgery, there were complications, and he died. Now his family members are accusing the doctor of negligence and claiming that the episode caused them emotional distress.
It's a typical medical malpractice case — except in this 3-year-old dispute, the patient was a sheepdog named Lucky.”
Ok, if that got your attention like it did mine, go HERE to read the article.
A key sentence in the article is: “In a reflection of the special place that pets have come to hold in Americans' hearts, U.S. courts are bucking centuries of legal decisions that have defined animals as property.”
Well, yeah. Pets DO hold a special place in the hearts of their owners. That’s why I cried when my canine companions died.
But even an old softie like ME realizes that there are limits when it comes to how much I’d spend to help a pet get well. And on how much I would award (were I to be seated on that jury) for mental anguish when a pet died.
There are those who will immediately think of all the children and other humans who desperately need medical care, and deplore the fact that (as the article points out) tens of thousands are spent to prolong the life of a pet.
I don’t know the answer. But I’m glad that in America I can spend my own money on what I think is important. Well, except for the part of it that the government collects as taxes and spends in any way my representatives vote to spend it.
But that’s a political diatribe and the subject for some other post.
Any opinions on that article?