Would they seriously question it?

ladyt25

ladyt25

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 November 2007
Messages
7,792
Location
Leeds
Visit site
Just seen on H&H news page

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/282072.html

Would they really question whether the treatment and care gievn to an animal should differ depending on what it is considered it's worth?

Surely an animal is an animal and should be given the same basic care regardless of what the considered value is?!

If that even came into it does that mean the same would apply to dogs, cats etc etc?! No animal should suffer needlessly surely
confused.gif
 
That flies in the face of all the efforts over the years by animal charities etc to ensure a good standard of care for all animals.

And where does that end - do we ignore a horse in a field with no water cos its ' low value'.

I hope the defense are clutching at straws here. It would make a mockery of any welfare progression made in the future.
 
Yes I agree and if I was a customer of that vet I would be moving my business elsewhere. I thought vets trained to help animals. Maybe he is being paid a huge ' consultancy' fee
smirk.gif
 
Vets main role and to preserve life until it breeches the animals walfare and then it is to end the animals suffering with dignity.

Lou x
 
Phew! Glad I am not the only one who though WTF?!! As long as that is the general viewpoint normal members of the human race would take then with any luck they'll never be able to use that as any sort of argument/justification in this case!
 
I am just putting my teeth back in after spitting them everywhere reading that comment. The Animal Welfare Act makes no distinction as far as I can see in terms of welfare standards for animals of different "values" and says that all animals need to be looked after in accordance with "good practice" and good practice can in turn be measured to an extent by considering the 5 freedoms that should be available to all animals. A horse can be an ancient family pony of no financial value, but much loved. Should we expect lesser care there? I would say the opposite and that it's the weaker and more vulnerable animals that need more help.

Imagine if we applied this to humans and hospital treatment - sorry, you're old, poor or scruffy, so we'll not be bothering with anaesthetic; so expensive, you know and can you share this bed with 3 others - we're saving on sheets, so it's just a grey blanket between you, sorry. Food? Nah, you'll be out of here in a day or two, you can last till then, I'm sure....
 
If they rule in his favour, does it mean I can beat my cat up? She was free so technically has no worth. I am certain the judge isn't as dumb as they obviously think he is, and if I was that judge I'd be sorely tempted to take offense at it...
 
Can everyone be very careful not to prejustice the case please. I think this thread should be removed for this reason.
 
I am certain the judge isn't as dumb as they obviously think he is, and if I was that judge I'd be sorely tempted to take offense at it...
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Lets hope so but as we know the law can be a strange beast and some judges defy belief in their rulings. If it goes the wrong way we'll have to start a petition to have it overruled.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Can everyone be very careful not to prejustice the case please. I think this thread should be removed for this reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. We all have our view on this, but let's keep it to ourselves...at least until the case is over.
 
Does that mean that as my horse insnt worth mega bucks I dont have to see to his feet more than say, twice a year, and that I dont have to worm him etc etc?

UM NO!

They cant rule that it is correct as if it does it will open up a massive argument and also question any animal welfare acts - basically rubbishing them..................and also would it not possibly give people already convicted possible ground to have their convictions overturned etc?
 
Madness if you cant afford to or are not willing to offer an animal basic care then you should not have them simple as!!

welfare depending on worth is madness and if the judge rules for that hes gonna undermine all the welfare laws...
 
The thread is not specifically about the court case it is merely commenting on a quote taken from the H&H news page about something that appears to have been stated. My comments/thoughts are solely regarding on how anyone could use or consider to use an argument like that.
 
Id have spend all th emoney inthe world to mke Ted better, even though his only worth about 50p

But Id have spent a million pound on him if i could i really would of done.

Lou x
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top