Mere
Property or Next-To-Kin?
How
much money would it take to persuade you to give up your television
set? $3,000? What's that? You say you have a 53" high-definition
projection TV that costs more that $3,000? Okay, would you give
it up for $30,000?
Well,
the pet food manufacturer, Iams Co., a division of Proctor &
Gamble, commissioned a Gallup poll, which found that 66% of the
respondents would not trade their dog or cat for $1,000,000! (Dog
Fancy, May 2002 issue)
Here
are some more facts to chew on:
•An annual American Animal Hospital Survey found that 83%
of companion-animal guardians (dog and cat owners) "were
somewhat likely … likely … or very likely" to
risk their life for their companion animal; 70% said they would
spend $1,000 on treatment for a life-threatening illness or accident;
40% would spend any amount necessary.
•Two other studies found that between 44% and 76% of companion
animals sleep in their person's bed.
• Midland National Life Insurance Company gives a discount
on life insurance for senior citizens who have a dog, as it has
been shown that dogs reduce stress (high blood pressure), routine
visits to the doctor and, accordingly, medical expenses.
•In a study by Dr. Karen Allen, assistance dogs were able
to substitute for paid-human assistance to the elderly or physically
challenged in 68% of activities, saving a net-$13,000 a year in
costs.
"Dogs
aren't my whole life, but they make my life whole," wrote
the late Roger A. Caras, noted broadcaster, writer and editor.
Yet,
our laws still classify companion animals (domesticated non-farm
animals) as "mere property." In Great Britain dogs and
cats are considered sentient beings.
Constructively,
we are moving to recognize domesticated non-farm animals as beyond
mere property in law. Several states now allow dogs and cats effectively
to be heirs – via trusts set up for their care after the
primary guardian has passed away.
It
is time to declare companion animals (dogs and cats) to be "beyond
mere property" and recognize that they are not mere objects.
The value of the animal-human bond, and the companionship generated
by that bond, should be legally recognized beyond the depreciated
value of the cat or dog. This is not "whack-o animal rights"
but simple protection both for the companion animal and for the
guardian.
By
recognizing the value of companion animals to be "beyond
mere property, Next-To-Kin," the law could establish significant
civil economic penalties for the loss of that companionship through
cruelty – be it of the gut-wrenching variety or the silent,
systemic, willful acts of over-vaccination by smiling veterinarians.
What else would one call economically driven acts that result
in unnecessary suffering, illness, reduced healthy life span,
and death?
As
long as these $1,000,000 companion animals are legally considered
mere property, there are no deterrents to over-vaccination and
other types of self-serving, non-informed consent activities.
