A year ago my little Jack Russell Terrier, Sharkey, was overdosed by a pharmacist and nearly died. It’s a long story, but suffice it to say the pharmacist was neither concerned nor did he offer an apology. Instead he first denied he had done it, secondly made a snarky comment about the dog being alive so it hardly mattered, and third put another pharmacists initials on the label violating several federal and state laws. The national grocery store chain that owns the pharmacy, one that prides itself on it’s public service image and customer care, made no move to call or compensate until after I filed a complaint with the proper authorities. Sharkey suffered liver damage and has taken a year to recover.
But this article isn’t really about what happened to Sharkey. It’s about the fresh perspective I have about the rights and welfare of animals. To be certain animals are sentient beings capable of feelings and returning love and affection. In truth my little dog Crusher gave me more emotionally than my alcoholic second husband, but that’s another story altogether. The issue of compensation for the pain and suffering of animals is wrapped around the emotional issues of the owner, the big corporate businesses having to do with pets, and insurance for veterinarians and other people entrusted with the care, custody and control of our pets. You wrap those three highly charged issues together and suddenly things aren’t as clear cut as we would like to think.
Insurance companies as well as most state laws declare that animals are mere chattel such as a toothbrush or an old tire. Being such they are not worthy of compensation for pain and suffering. None of this really surprises me. First of all because the nasty insurance attorneys, whose job it is to defend the money that really isn’t even rightfully theirs, would stoop as low as the sewer system rather than have to pay – even for something legitimate and clearly an error on the part of their insured. That aside, it’s an insurance company, enough said. The national grocery store chain instantly hid behind the pharmacists insurance company with a letter stating they would take no responsibility. Again enough said. It always comes down to protecting the shareholders and bottom line rather than doing what is right.
As I watched Sharkey suffer I was outraged. She neither understood that she might not recover nor why she was made to endure the agony in the first place. She continued to be by my side, even when it was obvious that just moving was agonizing for her. Some days were better than others. I was often in tears just watching her.
So my question is this; what would happen if the courts recognized animals as the sentient beings they are, and what would be the domino effect in the industry? If laws were changed so that animals received compensation for their suffering, how should that money be allocated, in other words, should there be a maximum for the pain and suffering or death an animal incurs from those responsible due to negligence?
Stay tuned for part two!