Thursday, July 19, 2018

Les chiens tueurs et les mondialistes

Charles Danten




Signalons d’entrée de jeu la délirante affirmation de l’avocate propitbull, Anne-Marie Goldwater : « On utilise des mots péjoratifs pour identifier un certain sous-groupe de chiens qui ne forme pas une race. Tout comme les Noirs, les Latinos, les Arabes... ce ne sont pas des races. Il n’y a qu’une race, c’est la race des êtres humains. Il n’y a qu’une race, ça s’appelle des chiens : canis lupus familiaris. (1) »

Or, le chien est une sous-espèce domestiquée du loup, elle-même divisée en plus de 450 races ou variantes qui produisent des petits parfaitement conformes au phénotype de leurs géniteurs. Personne, en d’autres mots, n’a jamais vu un couple de terriers Staffordshire américains (pitbull pure race) produire une portée de caniches. 

La race chez les chiens, comme chez les humains d’ailleurs (2)(3), est une réalité indéniable et cette réalité ne se limite pas aux apparences, mais concerne aussi les comportements. 

L’inné et l’acquis


On dira : « il n’y a pas de mauvais chien, il n’y a que de mauvais maîtres. » Bill Bruce, par exemple, le rédacteur des règlements municipaux actuels sur les animaux de la ville de Calgary, est un adepte de cet adage fort répandu qui passe pour une vérité : « Nous pensons que l’agressivité canine est foncièrement un problème humain, et que, si nous réglons le problème à la source, le problème canin se résoudra de lui-même. (4) » 

C’est d’ailleurs cette solution que nos décideurs libéraux ont retenue : davantage de surveillance et l’obligation pour les propriétaires de garder leurs chiens en laisse, mais sans muselière. Autrement dit, ce n’est pas la peine de faire de la discrimination puisque tous les chiens se valent et que les races n’existent pas.

Or, l’inné joue un rôle important dans l’agressivité des chiens, même si l’acquis y fait également pour beaucoup (5). L’adage favori des propitbulls, un copier-coller de la théorie du bon sauvage de Jean Jacques Rousseau, est archi faux. Tous les chiens ne sont pas nés égaux. Les mauvais chiens existent. Tous les éleveurs sérieux vous le confirmeront ; en général, selon la race, ils choisissent dans une portée, dès la naissance ou peu de temps après, les plus dociles pour la compagnie ou les plus agressifs pour la garde. Les autres sont « jetés à la poubelle ».

Étymologie révélatrice


Ce qui ne veut pas dire que tous les pitbulls sont des tueurs potentiels. Un nombre indéterminé ne le sont pas (voir ci-dessous). Mais comme il n’existe pour le moment aucun test pour séparer le bon grain de l’ivraie, on serait bien mieux de les bannir complètement par mesure de précaution. Ces chiens qui servaient autrefois à combattre dans des fosses (pit) les taureaux (bull) ont un passé génétique très lourd, comme en fait foi l’étymologie de leur appellation. Ils ont été sélectionnés pendant des siècles pour leur agressivité et leur combativité. Ils sont en outre notoirement réputés pour l’imprévisibilité et la violence de leurs attaques.

Ces tueurs nés sont par ailleurs encore élevés en cachette pour leur agressivité par un certain nombre d’amateurs. De fait, même si les combats de chiens sont aujourd’hui interdits, ils existent toujours clandestinement, notamment dans les quartiers difficiles où la criminalité est répandue. Les moins performants sont vendus sur le marché ou pour la reproduction à des éleveurs légaux ou clandestins (usines à chiots) qui les reproduiront à des centaines d’exemplaires, sans aucun souci pour le comportement pourvu qu’ils soient plus ou moins conformes aux critères morphologiques de leur race. Les gens achètent ces docteur Jekill et M. Hyde sans se douter que dans leur gentil toutou peut se cacher un véritable monstre prêt à bondir à la première occasion.

Statistiques déficientes


En ce qui concerne les animaux du Québec, selon les conclusions du Comité de travail sur l’encadrement des chiens dangereux (CTECD), les statistiques sur les morsures de chiens sont actuellement un véritable trou noir pour les raisons suivantes : l’obligation d’enregistrer son chien est souvent inégale et incomplète puisqu’il n’est pas obligatoire de signaler la race de l’animal enregistré. En outre, les policiers, les médecins et les vétérinaires ne sont pas obligés de déclarer les morsures, sauf si la rage est soupçonnée. Ce qui n’arrange pas la situation, certains médias comme Radio-Canada refusent par ailleurs de nommer la race des délinquants canins pour ne pas faire de discrimination. Cette convention absurde est calquée sur l'interdiction chez les humains de faire un lien entre la race et le crime.

Or, sans savoir la population des races, le nombre de morsures de même que la race impliquée, il est impossible de calculer avec précision les races les plus dangereuses. Ces lacunes providentielles sont un frein substantiel à toute mesure de prévention efficace ; bien qu’elles soient bonnes pour les affaires, elles sont aussi dans les faits une fuite de responsabilité flagrante de même qu’un déni de la race et de l’importance des gènes dans le comportement. 

Le cas de Toronto


Heureusement, la situation est différente à Toronto où les données sont suffisamment étoffées pour faire la part des choses (voir le tableau ci-dessous). Est-ce pour cette raison que les quatre races les plus impliquées dans les morsures y sont bannies avec succès ? Évidemment !

Ville de Toronto, adapté d'une illustration de Eric Andrew-Gee et Joel Eastwood.
(3 octobre 2014). Pit bulls were Toronto's biggest biters, before the ban

On peut aussi se faire une bonne idée de la race des délinquants en consultant les revues scientifiques en médecine et en chirurgie. Depuis au moins les quarante dernières années les études épidémiologiques sérieuses – c’est-à-dire celles qui ne sont pas réalisées par les vétérinaires ou commanditées par les sociétés humanitaires et les associations propitbulls – sont unanimes : en Amérique du Nord, la majorité des morsures de chiens nécessitant une hospitalisation ou entraînant le décès sont infligées par des chiens de type pitbull (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15).

Ceux qui affirment que tous les chiens se valent prétendent que leurs idées sont étayées par la science. Or, rien n’est moins vrai. Aucune de leurs allégations n’est étayée scientifiquement. Elles s’appuient uniquement sur une autorité morale abusive. C’est d’ailleurs pour cette raison que ces personnes passent rapidement aux mensonges, aux insultes et à l’intimidation dès qu’on s’attaque à leurs convictions.

Conclusion


Malgré leur petit nombre comparé aux autres races beaucoup plus populaires comme le labrador, le golden retriever et le berger allemand, cette petite minorité visible compte parmi les chiens mordeurs les plus dangereux et les plus fréquemment impliqués dans les morsures. Ce serait par conséquent une bonne chose de les museler et de les enlever en fade out de la circulation. 

Mais le problème des chiens mordeurs ne sera pas réglé pour autant, tant et aussi longtemps que les problèmes de fonds suivants ne seront pas réglés : la surconsommation en zone urbaine des animaux de compagnie, les fausses allégations de la zoothérapie qui sont le leitmotiv de cette surconsommation inédite, le biais des vétérinaires qui sont complices par intérêt, l’humanisation outrancière des animaux de même que les vœux pieux. 

La compilation de statistiques valides est capitale, car sans connaître la population des races, le nombre de morsures de même que la race impliquée, il est impossible de mettre en place des mesures de prévention efficace. Refuser dès lors comme Radio-Canada de nommer la race des délinquants soi-disant pour ne pas faire de discrimination raciale est criminel.

Pour bien faire, il faudrait aussi que nos élus libéraux arrêtent de croire que les races et les comportements sont des constructions sociales. C’est faux. Ils ont du mal à l’admettre, car toute leur politique mondialiste s’appuie sur ces fausses notions. En d’autres mots, nos décideurs refusent de protéger le public pour de vulgaires raisons idéologiques qui n’ont aucune prise sur la réalité. 

En définitive, la société doit choisir entre mentir pour des raisons financières et idéologiques et dire la vérité pour protéger le public.

Références

1. Thomas Gerbet (21 septembre 2016). L’avocate Anne-France Goldwater défend les pitbulls à Longueuil. Radio Canada.
2. Steven Pinker (2002). The Blank Slate. The Modern Denial of Human nature. Penguin Books.
3. Steven Pinker (2012). Fear of Race Realism and the Denial of Human Differences. Conférence sur YouTube.com (vidéo consultée le 19 novembre 2016).
4. Barbara Kay (11 août 2015). Pit bulls are disproportionally dangerous. Why is Calgary importing more of them? The National Post.
5. Mark Derr (6 février 2001). It Takes Training and Genes To Make a Mean Dog Mean. The New York Times.
6. Michael S. Golinko, MD, MA, Brian Arslanian, MD et Joseph K. Williams, MD, FAAP (2016). Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution. Clinical Paediatrics. 
7. Mark A. Prendes et coll. (2016). Ocular Trauma From Dog Bites: Characterization, Associations, and Treatment Patterns at a Regional Level I Trauma Center Over 11 Years. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg: 32(4).
8. Garvey et coll. (2015). Morbidity of pediatric dog bites: A case series at level one pediatric trauma center. Journal ofPediatric Surgery: p. 50, pp. 343-346.
9. O’Brien et coll. (2015). Dog bites to the head and neck: an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment. Am. Journal of otolaryngology – head and neck medicine and surgery: p. 36, 32-38.
10. Prendes et coll. (2015). Ocular trauma from dog bites: Characterization, associations, and treatment patterns at a regional Level 1 trauma center over 11 years. Ophthalmic Plastic Reconstructive Surgery.
11. Bini, J.K., et.coll. (2011) Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs. Annals of Surgery; 253 (4).
12. Ricky L. Langley (2009). Human Fatalities Resulting From Dog Attacks in the United States, 1979–2005. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine; 20 (1):19-25.
13. Jeffrey J. Sacks, MD et coll. (2000) Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States Between 1979 and 1998. Renters for Disease Control and Prevention.
14. J. J. Sacks, R. W. Sattin et S. E. Bonzo (1989). Dog Bite-Related Fatalities from 1979 through 1988. Journal of the American Medical Association; 262:1489-1492.
15. William G. Winkler (1977). Human Deaths Induced by Dog Bites, United States, 1974-75. Public Health Reports; 92 (5):425–429.



Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Chaleur de bête et froid de canard: Vies et morts d'une vétérinaire par Dominique Lange. Le zèbre volant. 2017.


Charles Danten, ex vétérinaire*


Courez vite vous acheter ce merveilleux petit livre d'une vétérinaire française. Le sujet est certes un peu triste, il y a en effet beaucoup de drames dans la vie et la mort professionnelles d'une vétérinaire, mais c'est dit sobrement, avec une plume d'écrivain, voire de poète.

Madame la doctoresse a en effet un talent fou. Elle manie le verbe aussi bien que le bistouri. Le lecteur en sortira les émotions à vif, mais enchanté par le style et ce qu'il apprendra non seulement sur les animaux, mais sur les gens. Car ce récit vécu est aussi une histoire d'hommes et de femmes. Et cette histoire n'est pas toujours drôle surtout lorsqu'on est paysan à Saint-Pierre, à Tahiti ou en Corrèze.

Le métier de vétérinaire, hélas, est difficile. Cœur sensible, abstenez-vous. Surtout si vous commencez du mauvais pied en pensant être l'amie des bêtes. Ce n'est pas tout à fait vrai.

Si le vétérinaire est bel et bien tenu de protéger la santé des animaux, c'est toujours au profit de ceux qui le rémunèrent. Ce qui veut dire en terme clair, à quelques exceptions près, comme le cas atypique de cet âne que la Dre Lange doit soulager de ses souffrances, que le dernier mot revient aux propriétaires des animaux que vous soignez.

Ainsi, si un maître choisit de faire piquer son animal au lieu de le faire soigner, vous devrez obtempérer. Si vous devez envoyer à l'abattoir une vache que vous pourriez sauver, vous devrez vous y résoudre. 

Si vous ne le faites pas, vous êtes tout sauf une vétérinaire. C’est ainsi, et ceux qui vous disent le contraire vous font du cinéma. 

Et puis, c'est dur par moment. On voit parfois des choses atroces, des chiens abandonnés qui croupissent dans des fourrières sordides, des hommes qui se pendent au bout de leur désespoir. Il y a beaucoup de routine aussi, un vétérinaire ne passe pas son temps à soigner des animaux malades. Et si vous travaillez avec les animaux de ferme, vous serez souvent livrée à vous-même avec un minimum de moyen. 

Bref, tous les vétérinaires en herbe devraient lire, Chaleur de bête et froid de canard: Vies et morts d'une vétérinaire, avant de se lancer dans des études longues et difficiles. Ça leur évitera beaucoup de malentendus et de frustrations. 

Avec ce témoignage sorti tout droit du cœur, la Dre Lange a rendu un grand service non seulement à son ancienne profession, mais au public.


* J'ai employé le féminin pour décrire les vétérinaires, car cette profession est devenue depuis peu un métier de femmes.



Sunday, July 15, 2018

Krishnamurti and the Compassionate Face of Animal Cruelty

Charles Danten, former veterinarian


Virtue-signalingexpression or promotion of viewpoints, behaviors or actions, that are especially valued within the social group, done primarily to enhance the social standing of the person employing them.
***
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 
Matthew 7:17

Krishnamurti with one of his pets
My whole trajectory in the years that led up to my book, Slaves of Our Affection. The Myth of the Happy Pet, was very much driven by Krishnamurti's philosophy in the spirit of the following quote, which was intended to be the opening exert of my book: “When you negate that which is not love, then you know what love is.” 

So writing my book was basically a process of negation whereby I enumerated chapter after chapter why the human-pet bond everybody is so proud of is as cruel if not more by its hypocrisy and sophistication than factory farming or vivisection. After going through this process of elimination, my reader, I hoped, would be left naked like in Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen’s tale, “The Emperor's New Clothes.”

Unfortunately, I found out later that Krishnamurti did not live up to his own principles, in a big way, as you can see in the attached picture. Although he professed kindness and love towards animals, saying things like, ”animals are man’s slaves,” he was an avid pet owner and animal buff all his life. 

I don’t know what he did with his pets when he left on one of his numerous and lengthy globalist propaganda trips around the world, but it seems odd that someone such as himself, a true vegetarian - with a major sweet tooth that killed him eventually, he died of a pancreatic cancer - would be a proponent of affection-slavery or of domestication for that matter when you know that domestication is by definition the negation of the true love he claimed to embody. Seeing a dog tethered at his feet is quite bizarre if you know a bit about his philosophy and the contradictions inherent in having a pet (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12) 

Proud pet owner and Affection-Slavery advocate
Gary Francine virtue-signaling with his pets.

The same can be said about Gary L. Francione, the leader of the animal abolition movement. He’s not only the happy owner of one or two dogs like most normal people, but of five. Unfortunately, even though he gets his pets from a shelter, by displaying himself in public with his beloved animals, he is implicitly condoning and promoting what he purports to abolish: All forms of animal exploitation and abuse. Which makes him part of the problem rather than the solution. The same thing can be said about all the leaders of the animal liberation movement, Peter Singer, Ingrid Newkirk, Oprah Winfrey, and Paul McCartney, to name but a few. By embracing the pet culture with all their might, they are all accessories to the fact. 

I must admit, the stifling nature of the human-animal bond is not obvious for several reasons:

Dissociation between cruelty, pleasure, and affection

In our culture, we usually keep cruelty and domination dissociated from pleasure and affection, and this, more than anything else, makes the connection hard to see. (13) 

Yet, manifest or hard cruelty is not the only form of abuse and cruelty especially in more democratic societies, where hard violence is severely punished. The cruelty in a person cuddling a pet is much less apparent, but its effects on animals and nature in general are nevertheless as devastating if not more so than the more visible types of cruelty such as vivisection or industrial farming.  

Hard cruelty is episodic and punctual, it can be stopped as soon as
Deceased Animal Rights ideologue Tom Regan 
virtue-signaling with his obese cat and two dogs
 it’s detected, but not so with soft cruelty, precisely because its effects are not immediately obvious. To see them, reason, a special revealing agent, is mandatory. Thanks to this special “flashlight,” it becomes possible to see through cruelty declawed by affection, a form of soft cruelty much more perverse by its subtlety and hypocrisy than the more obvious forms of cruelty which are the bread and butter of animal advocacy.

In his book, Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets, Professor Yi-Fu Tuan of Yale University shows how affection, a latent form of domination, is used as an instrument of power: 
Love is not what makes the world go around. […] There remains affection. However, affection is not the opposite of dominance: rather it is dominance’s anodyne – it is dominance with a human face. Dominance may be cruel and exploitative, with no hint of affection in it. What it produces is the victim. On the other hand, dominance may be combined with affection, and what it produces is the pet. […] Affection mitigates domination, making it softer and more acceptable, but affection itself is possible only in relationships of inequality. It is the warm and superior feeling one has towards things that one can care for and patronize. The word care so exudes humaneness that we tend to forget its almost inevitable tainting by patronage and condescension. (14)
Slave descendant, Oprah Winfrey, loves affection-slavery:
“What dogs? These are my children, little people with fur
who make my heart a little wider.”
In more explicit terms, here is how Italian ethnologist, Sergio Dalla Bernardina, sees this barbarism with a smiley face:
If slavery was abolished a long time ago, a large portion of the population keeps in their homes completely servile creatures. Through this relationship, any one, even the humblest and most self-conscious individual, can bath in the pleasure of being a master […] Those who like total submission prefer dogs or horses. Proponents of light submission prefer cats. (15)
In her disturbing book, The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery, Marjorie Spiegel, even more to the point, says the following:
We might look at the relationship between a dog and his master as just one example of what is sometimes a modern slave/slave-owner relationship. The dog is considered by his owner to be a “good dog” if he walks to heel, displays no great interest when nearing other dogs, doesn’t run except when allowed, doesn’t bark except when required, and has no emotional needs except when desired by his master. Many dogs spend their entire lives in isolation, chained to a slab of concrete or a tree in their master’s backyard. If a dog wished to do something other than what pleases his master – play with other dogs (socialize), for instance – he may be beaten or otherwise punished. All independent actions are thus discouraged, and the dog learns that he will win approval – and avoid future beatings and other punishments – by suppressing his own desires and conforming to those of the omnipotent human who legally owns him. If at any point, the master grows tired of his slave, he can simply be turned over to “the pound,” which euphemistically means that he will be quietly and secretly killed.” […] In short, “the owner of a slave destroys two freedoms - that of his slave and that of himself. (16) 
A way of seeing things – allow me to insist, perceptions are so
Pamela Anderson:  “I love something soft and warm
to touch anytime I want. I'm such an affectionate person.
I like to have something loveable around me all the time.”
 difficult to change – shared by psychiatrist Hubert Montagner, from the French Institute of Medical Research (INSERM):
Man does not hesitate to control every aspect of his animal’s existence. He tampers with its appearance. He confines it to spaces under his control, imposing exclusive or near-exclusive proximity. He limits his communication with others like it. He selects for behaviors that meet his expectations and conditions his animal to follow rituals. He imposes his whims and self-serving decisions. He encloses it within his own emotions and projections. (17)
And beautifying this unpleasant truth with various shows of affection, such as hiring a professional dog walker, using high-sounding words like companion, love, and child, getting your pet vaccinated each year, having it treated for cancer, defending it, putting boots and a coat on it, decorating it with jewels and ribbons, giving it rights, lifting them all onto the podium of humanity whether they like it or not, does not make things right. The problem is in the very concept of pet.

The use of animals as pets, massively condoned by groups like PETA, which have become the ultra-sophisticated promotional instruments of the pet industry, is thus a soft form of domination of the same essence as the harder forms which are practiced on other categories of animals like farm animals. This domination, which takes on various forms within these two poles, hard and soft, but of the same nature, is thus the negation of true love and empathy. Judging by the popularity of pets in Western societies, love is not the dominant sentiment but various forms of cruelty, its negation.

Ignorance

Few people know enough about animals to be aware of the harm being done to them under the guise of love and compassion. As reported in animal behaviorist Karen Overall’s textbook on the subject, only 1% of the public is versed in the biological needs and normal behaviors of the animals in their care. (18) 

How then can anyone see beyond appearances? Many people have written about the toll on animals, every animal lover has heard of puppy mills and pounds, but few people have seen the Big Picture. (19) When you finally put all the pieces together, the whole pet business is bleak, very bleak, not only for animals and nature but for people as well, as they are all interlinked. 

There is no winner in affection-slavery.

Conspicuous compassion

Love of animals, a sentiment that expresses itself in various forms of vegetarianism, animal activism, animal rights, anti-specism, veterinary care, or the mere ownership of a pet is a source of pride for most people. It was Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason who said: “Everything of cruelty to animals is a violation of moral duty.” (20)(21) For the Christian Church of the 19th century, to love animals as did the saints St. Francis of Assisi and St. Cuthbert was perceived as a way “to establish the pure reign of charity among men,” says French sociologist, Éric Baratay.  The idea was to eradicate “the taste for blood and cruelty, to improve Man for his brothers and thus to protect humanity itself.” (22) 

Slaughterhouse designer Temple Grandin: 
“Animals make us more human.”
Many influential people such as Temple Grandin believe to this day that pets make us more human. (23)(24)(25) Even Steven Pinker, one of Harvard’s brightest stars, sees in Animal Rights and America’s historically unprecedented fondness for pets a giant moral step for humanity. (26) 

Bad Boy Waka Flocka loves animals
Many more people wrongly presume animals to be better judges of human character than humans themselves. As a result, some people want to love and be seen loving animals specifically for the purpose of showing off their moral superiority. Celebrities, salesmen, bad boys and girls, and politicians are especially good at using animals, and children, too, for that matter, to boost their public image and to compel prospective donors, fans, clients, or voters to trust them. What they are really saying through this public virtue-signaling is the following: “trust me, I’m a good person, you see, I love animals.” (27) 

To question this love is a serious attack on the social progress associated with it, as well as an attack on those who have made a career out of defending animals on the surface. This explains in part why there is so much denial, anger, and resistance every time you even mention this topic. 

Scotoma

To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job or self-esteem depends on not
Animal liberation advocate
Pau McCartney virtue-signaling with his pet
understanding it. We have a built-in ideological immune system that automatically protects us from ideas that can put our survival or self-confidence at risk. While our eyes capture the world as is on our retinas, our brain performs an editing job in the shadows, a cut-and-paste operation, to adjust reality to fit our pre-existing ideas of it. Anything we see, read, or hear is unconsciously revised to accommodate notions we already have and take for granted. This phenomenon called “scotoma” is the unconscious exclusion of a reality exterior to the field of consciousness; a denial of reality; a psychic mechanism by which unacceptable representations are rejected even before being integrated into the subconscious of the subject, unlike psychological repression, which deals with something which is already embedded in the mind. This is another reason why some of the most absurd and destructive traditions are so hard to change. 

I say “absurd” because you don’t become a better person simply by “loving” an animal or being loved by one. Children raised with animals, for example, are not necessarily destined to become better human beings for it. At least one decent study has shown the contrary. (28) Many serious authors have also debunked this notion. (29)(30)(31) This is a touchy subject matter, so much so that many animal lovers consider it taboo to even mention the fact that many a hardened criminal has also been an animal lover. So I won’t mention Charles Manson, Pol Pot, and Jim Jones for fear of being pilloried and dismissed completely. 

PETA CEO Ingrid Newkirk

Sometimes, it is indeed cruel to be kind. As stated by Ingrid Newkirk, the CEO of PETA, all forms of exploitation and abuse are wrong, but even she fails to acknowledge that having pets is one such form. (32) As the following quotes demonstrate, she did when she first started off but when she realized that her donors were pet owners, she changed her mind radically:
Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles – from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it. (33) 
The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats ... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind. (34)

References

1. Michael Schaffer (2009). One Nation Under Dog. Henry Holt: 41.

2. Charles Danten (2015). Slaves of Our Affection. The Myth of the Happy Pet. Amazon. 

3. Stuart Spencer (2006). History and Ethics of Keeping Pets: Comparison with Farm Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics; 19: 17-25. 

4. Leslie Irvine (2004). Pampered or Enslaved? The Moral Dilemmas of Pets. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy; 24 (4): 5-16.

5. Swabe Joanna (1998). Animals as a Natural Resource: Ambivalence in the Human-Animal Relationship in a Veterinary Practice. Animals, Disease, and Human Society. Human-animal Relations and the Rise of Veterinary Medicine. Routledge. 

6. Marjory Spiegel (1996). The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery. Mirror Books.

7. J. L. Vadakarn (1994). Parle à mon chien, ma tête est malade. Albin Michel.

8. Michael W. Fox (1990).Inhumane Society: The American Way of Exploiting Animals. St. Martin’s Press.

9. Yi-Fu Tuan (1984). Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets. Yale University Press.

10. S. Wolfensohn (1981). The things we do to dogs. New Scientist: 404-407.

11. Yi-Fu Tuan. Animal Pets: Cruelty and Affection. Dominance and AffectionWork cited.

12. Sergio Dalla Bernardina (2006). L’éloquence des bêtes. Métailié. 

13. Yi-Fu Tuan (1998) Escapism. The John Hopkins University Press.

14. Yi-Fu Tuan. Dominance and AffectionWork cited.

15. Sergio Dalla Bernardina (2006). Work cited

16. Marjorie Spiegel. Work Cited.

17. Hubert Montagner (1998). Un élément de qualité de vie. Rencontres à Nantes, éditions AFIRAC: 5. In Talin, Christian (2000). Anthropologie de l’animal de compagnie: L’animal autre figure de l’altérité. Paris: L’Atelier de L’Archet.

18. Karen L. Overall (1997). Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals. Mosby.

19. Charles Danten (2015). Work cited.

20. Katherine C. Grier (2006). Pets in America. A History. Harcourt. 

21. Kathleen Kete (1994). The Beast in the Boudoir: Petkeeping in Nineteenth-Century France. University of California Press.

22. Éric Baratay (1995). Respect de l’animal et respect de l’autre, l’exemple de la zoophilie catholique à l’époque contemporaine. Des bêtes et des hommes : un jeu sur la distance; p. 255-265. 

23. Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson (2009). Animals Make us Human. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 

24. Nathan J. Winograd (2007). Redemption.  

25. Karine-Lou Matignon (2000). Sans les animaux, le monde ne serait pas humain. Albin Michel. 

26. Steven Pinker (2009). The rights movement. The better angels of our nature. Vicking: 462.

27. Patrick West (2004). Conspicuous Compassion. Why Sometimes it Really is Cruel to be Kind. Civitas. 

28. Beth Daly and L. L. Morton (2003). Children with Pets Do Not Show Higher Empathy: A Challenge to Current Views. Anthrozoös, 16(4): 298.

29. Yi-Fu Tuan. Work Cited

30. Sergio Dalla Bernardina. Work Cited.

31. S. Wolfensohn. Art. Cited.

32. Ingrid Newkirk. Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

33. Bryant, John (1983). Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic. PETA.



34. Newkirk, Ingrid. PETA. (These quotes are available on the Internet.)

Saturday, July 14, 2018

The Truth About Animal Healthcare

Charles Danten, former veterinarian

It is a case of wishful thinking to imagine that a pet can understand and appreciate whatever good intentions are behind veterinary medical care. It is simply above and beyond their cognitive possibilities. From their point of view, a veterinary hospital is indistinguishable from a pound.

How can we be so blind to the true needs of those we love? Or, do we only pretend to love pets? After all, we cause their diseases in myriad ways on the one hand, then play dumb and profit from them on the other. This schizophrenic absurdity suggests that our concern for pet health has much more to do with trying to meet our own needs than with anything else.

Generally, sick animals cooperate as little as possible when hospitalized. The unfamiliar odours, noises, colors, and the presence of strangers and other animals of different species scare patients to varying extents depending on their degree of socialization. Although cats, birds, and exotic species are more sensitive, dogs are also deeply affected. In particular, those that rarely leave the security of their homes are overwhelmed emotionally by this experience, an immensely traumatic one from their point of view. Hyper-excitation, distress vocalization, uncontrollable urination and defecation, fear, excessive submissiveness, and manifestations of dominance and aggression are the norm in what the animal perceives as a chaotic, hellish, and life-threatening environment. Restraint is often mandatory and badly trained animals are a serious challenge. The veterinarian and his staff are exposed daily to bites, clawing, and episodes of aggression. When things get busy in such an environment, the tensions are palpable on both sides of the species divide. (1)(2)(3)

Veterinarians and pet owners often rationalize this subtle form of self-centeredness with the paediatrician argument: “Our own children don’t understand medicine either, but they have to undergo treatment for their own good, whether they like it or not.” Veterinarians see themselves as paediatricians of sorts, but the comparison is completely invalid. Parents are more often authorized to stay with their children while they are being treated; they can even sleep over in some cases. They can reason with their children and explain what is being done to them. Eventually, kids can be convinced that the procedures are necessary if they want to get better. They are rarely left unattended and without care for long hours, even whole days and nights, like animals are. Veterinary clinics and hospitals that pay staff to keep watch over patients overnight, on weekends, and on holidays are the rare exception. Furthermore, when a treatment becomes too inconvenient or expensive, parents do not get rid of their children by dropping them off at a pound (euphemistically called a “shelter”) or by having them euthanized for a pittance by their paediatrician. Pet owners like to think of themselves as the parents of their animals, but they overlook the fact that the children they claim are not their own. They are rather children that were abducted from their biological parents, from species that were abducted from their natural communities. And yet this attitude is so trite as to seem perfectly natural and legitimate.

In conclusion, pets dislike being muzzled, tied up, penned up, injected, bandaged, pilled, groomed, or subjected to often-excruciating cancer treatments or a kidney transplant. Even when bearing positive results, therapeutic egotism must be counted as one more abuse added to the end of a very long list. After all, is there any other way in which animals could possibly interpret medical procedures? This, in turn, begs the question, whom does animal healthcare really aim to please? Obviously, owners and veterinarians are far more satisfied than the patients themselves. How could they know that we want to care for them and cure them? Our egocentric drive to make them better allows us to remain blind to their deeper needs…and in very old or sick pets, it can add a twist of cruelty to the end of a life that was spent at the service of man.

Children are subjected to our unnatural affection and solicitations for their entire lives, and we forget far too easily that they never asked for any of it. We give it in a misdirected attempt to meet our own needs, and this exploitation is at the root even of the medical care that we kind-heartedly administer to them.

References


1. Joanna Swabe (1996). Animals as a Natural Resource: Ambivalence in the Human-Animal Relationship in a Veterinary Practice. Amsterdam School for Social Science Research.

2. Joanna Swabe (1996). Animals, Disease, and Human Social Life: The Human-Animal Relationship Reconsidered. Onderzoekers.


3. Sanders Clinton R. (1994). Biting the Hand that Heals You: Encounters with Problematic Patients in a General Veterinary Practice. Society and Animals; 2(1): 47-66.