I was reading in the East Bay Express that two lawyers are looking to change the laws that make pets "property".
They used to have a little dog named Austin, who they believed had a condition that a vet at the Berkeley University Veterinary Hospital misdiagnosed. This condition eventually let to a cancerous condition that cost them $20,000 in chemo before the little guy had to be euthanized.
They want to sue the vet that made the misdiagnosis for $50,000. Ordinarily, vets are protected by lawsuits like this by laws that prevent people from suing for emotional distress over the loss of property.
If they win this case, my guess is that vet bills are going to o from their present level of "through the roof" to "distant galaxy" levels as vets have to pay for human-doctor-level malpractice insurance.
Of course, thre are a lot of questions that should be begged by the people in the article: if the dog's condition was so obvious, why didn't they seek a second opinion? Plus, the fact that they are flegdling lawyers who may be looking for a name-making case makes me think twice about these people. However, there is another question that needs to be begged: in a period of time where pets often are surrogate children, should the loss of one be treated like the loss of a child?
I'm a pet lover. I prattle on about them, have a million photos of them, I buy that expensive scientifically-formulated food for them and all that jazz.
But pets aren't people, and shouldn't be treated as such. No matter how attached you are to your pet, the loss of one is not akin to the loss of a child, sibling, or parent. If it is, some professional help should probably be sought.
11:19:31 AM 
|
