[Leica] Slides the cat has gone to kitty heaven

[s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal)]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adam Bridge" <abridge@mac.com>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Slides the cat has gone to kitty heaven


> On 4/15/04 <sam@osheaven.net (Sam)> thoughtfully wrote:
>
> >To some, the death of a pet is akin to the death of a child, and to
> >others the emotional resources and money spent on animals is a  scandal.
> >If the time and energy spent taking care of pets was expended on
> >visiting the abandoned sick and aged, or the money spent on having a pet
> >operated on was paid into the medical account of an uninsured sick and
> >needy human being, so much suffering could be alleviated. It baffles me
> >when someone fains concern (many times via documentary photography) for,
> >example, a bloated, fly covered, starving African child, and then rushes
> >in the Volvo to the Vets to have the dog operated on for cancer at a
> >cost of $5,000. Vanity pets have no place in a world of suffering human
> >beings.
>
> I understand what you're driving at Sam, but I think the equation is quite
> different because for many of us our pets are family members. We know
them, we
> love them, they fill a part of our lives that is clearly built into our
species.
> I see that what appears to be a pet was buried with a human being as early
as
> 5000 B.C.
>
> It's LOGICAL to say "yes, the right decision is to not spend this money."
But
> the emotional equation is quite different.
>
> When our dog Wags was so ill we made the choice to keep her comfortable
rather
> than expend a vast quantity of money for a short life extension and
perhaps a
> life filled with an unknowable amount of pain.
>
> This decision was just as hard for me as the one I made a few months ago
for the
> treatment of my severely retarded sister who at age 60, with no
communication
> ability, no real ability to express pain, was discovered to have an
operable but
> difficult condition. I elected to treat that condition with surgery even
though
> the physicians who were treating her gave such different points of view
that I
> couldn't believe they were talking about the same patient. AND, after the
fact,
> they were unwilling to aggressively treat her for pain, which I found
> intolerable and almost neglectful.
>
> And it was similiar to the decision my wife and I made for our first child
after
> she "survived" a drowning in a fish pond but who was so severely
brain-damaged
> that she was unable even to recognize the existance of an outside world.
>
> These were hard choices. They SHOULD be hard choices. But they are HUMAN
> choices. Some of us have the where-with-all to treat our pets, our
non-human
> family members, with compassion and caring and money. We would no more
neglect
> the care of our family, in favor for a stranger far away, than we would
shoot
> them.
>
> Now that's me. That's me defending my family, pets and children and spouse
and
> the more extended members as well. But I submit it's human and has every
bit as
> much rightness to its decision as that of the person who puts down his dog
and
> writes the check to save an unknown person.
>
> It's not about vanity. It's about family and compasion. Vanity isn't a
part of
> it.
>
> Adam Bridge
>
I don,t think the argument is  logical.
Even though as humans we value the child more then the cat .There is no
proof that it is immoral to spend money on the cat iso on the child.
Logically one might have to spend an equal amount on the two .
simon jessurun