I normally don't post on stories such as the one below, but this story represents a much larger and growing trend in this country. Here is a poor old man who loves his dog and was trying to help his beloved pet in the only way we was able too. Then along comes big brother, the state, and charges him with a crime. More and more our rights are being usurped by the state---local, state and federal. I love dogs and have one I would do anything for. I just don't think its the states business how I care for my little pet. The state is steadily sticking its ugly nose into what should be our personal affairs. It doesn't seem to worry most people until it happens to them. Only then will they protest and hollow foul. Does your beloved pet have rights, you bet he does---the ones you give him not the ones the state claims to give him. We must assume that most people know how to handle their pets and the state should not trample on the rights of all because of a few bad apples. I want the government to stay out of my house, away from my pet and frankly out of my life. Our elected officials are not smarter than us, are not wiser than us, and we didn't elect them to change our diapers and walk our dogs. They are there to serve and not to control our lives and the sooner voters realize this the quicker we can remove those nanny state people from office.A Rhode Island man who says he couldn't afford veterinary care for his dog has been charged with illegally operating on the pet.
Alan MacQuattie recently removed a cyst from the leg of his 14-year-old Labrador mix. The dog was operated on again by professionals to deal with an infection from the first surgery.
MacQuattie, 63, who says he is disabled and living on Social Security, said Friday he used local anesthetic to operate on the cyst and removed it on his own since he doesn't have money for a veterinarian.
"In the economy as it is right now, especially in Rhode Island, who in the hell is going to give you a little extra helping hand?" he said.
E.J. Finocchio, a veterinarian and president of the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, called the surgery a "heinous crime." read more from AP via FOX News
18 comments:
As an example, my dear cat developed a bladder stone around 4 years ago. At least that is when it came to our attention. After having treated her several times for a bladder infection, we decided on an x-ray and $800.00 later she was home and recovering. Yep, $800.00 later. My vet for two decades said, "Well, you have insurance for her don't you?" Well, no, I didn't.
At the same time I had brought a little Maltese puppy into our home. Two weeks after his "well puppy" check up, he had and still has pet insurance. Wouldn't leave home without it. I took the expected life-span of my new friend and multiplied by the insurance premium with added increases in the rate as he aged, and decided pet insurance was the only way to go given that eye surgery can be over $2,000 and a hip replacement can be $1,800 + depending on the size of the dog and the extent of the surgery.
For your story, I believe I should be able to operate on my pet for a cyst or such that is visible and I would. I'd do the same on myself and have.
The picture attached to the story is horrible in that it shows the duplicity. I have always had a hatred for bull-fighting because the bull doesn't have a chance. Sometimes he wins and gets to gore the matador but those times are seldom.
Tacos...
How wonderful. Next, we'll be getting arrested for cutting our own grass because we don't have money to hire a lawn service that employs illegal Mexican aliens.
When it said "operating" on his own pet, I had visions of cutting open the abdomen or something. Sounds like what the man did was just fine. Yes, the nanny state wants to make all our decisions for us.
Beach Girl: We went through the same thing with our Beagle, bladder infections, finally diagnosed with bladder stone the size of a silver dollar. Surgery, post surgery problems, then found out she had heart problems and had to put her to sleep. We couldn't let her suffer any longer. We don't have pet insurance, but I might have to check into it.
Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
yikes and they will decide what flavor ice cream were allowed for dessert...egads!!
What if this guy needed to put the dog down? A vet will charge $200 to do the job.
An owner that chose to and owns a gun could do it for less than $20.
If my dog was very old and ill and I could not affort to put him to sleep do you think I am going to let him suffer? I am sending him to doggy heaven first the humane way they did it in "Old Yeller."
This is not cruel. Cruel is letting an animal suffer unecessarily. This man should fight these charges and ten sue the State of Rhode Island for interfering with this man's property.
hey Ron..thanks for the vis to WHT!..will add ya to my blogroll too..Keep up the good fight!!
You've got it right Dave---I couldn't put down my own old dog, but I have friends who could do it for me. Frankly I don't believe in mercy killing of any kind but thats another story for another day.
I agree Ron. Animals have no rights at all.
We have RESPONSIBILITIES towards them, but there is no such thing as animal rights. The concept of animal rights is another weapon that the PC left to restrict our freedoms. And as Der Fuhrer said...
"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."
I agree Ayrdale, our freedoms are dying the death of a thousand cuts.
"heinous crime"? He operated on the dog to save it. This man acted to treat the dog. He did not just sit back, do nothing, and let the dog suffer. This is absurdity of the worst kind. This is becoming the Government Police States of America-a nanny state.
They'd rather the dog die from the cyst than have the owner do the right thing, or at least try.
And you are quite right about big government, this is how the bastards operate. The chances of ending up in this sort of situation are extremely high when big government is involved. Here's an example of whats happening here in Australia.
Recently we tried a whole bunch of raghead jihadists here for terrorism, all up it cost the taxpayer 10 million and still counting. However if someone like me with a job were to be charged with some crime that i am innocent of, because i have a job and some money, i'm not eligible for state help, so i must bankrupt myself to fight the charges and only when i'm flat-broke will they step in to help. This has happened to people here, so in summary, the jihadist and crackhead get free legal aid, the worker gets shit.
This is the type of bastardy that goes on when you have big, socialist government running things.
And you didn't even touch on rights for plants. No joke. There are nations that have already given the right to sue on behalf of trees.
The only crime is the that the
state is going after this guy.
Our vet would have done this
pro bono and refuses to let
any animal suffer.
"What if this guy needed to put the dog down? A vet will charge $200 to do the job.
An owner that chose to and owns a gun could do it for less than $20."
If an pet owner does this:
once word got it, if it did,
this same state would likely
come after this loving pet
owner all the same.
I love animals and think they should be treated well, but they are not people. Another thing that bugs, me is these rich people paying thousands for animal surgeries. There are thousands of people in other countries, that are dying because of lack of medical care.
As the owner of several pets, I find this story horrifying.
The man was just doing the best that he could to take care of his beloved dog!
Let's get something clear: pets are owned by humans. In other words, pets are property.
Now, I despise those who are cruel to pets. But what this man did wasn't cruelty. Rather, he was attempting to help his beloved dog.
Damn the Nanny State for calling the man's attempts "a heinous crime"!
Remember Obama's Czar, Cass Sunstein, wanting animals to have the right to sue humans?
I think things like pit bull fights, and any kind of overt cruel treatments to animals, like not feeding them, should be shutdown. Other than that, government needs to stay out of our homes, where our animals are our private property.
Back through the years, farm people had to do what this man did. They either tried to alleviate the suffering, or had to put the animal down.
I accidently stumbled in....
Great post, great comments.
Some random thoughts:
Animals have no rights because the do not have free will.
When we take on the responsibility of owning an animal for pleasure or labor, we have a responsibility to treat it humanly within our means.
The nanny state does not like to recognize property rights or individual rights but wants to grant rights to animals? (Oh I get it now! The state wants to grant rights! That at least makes sense.)
Would the state let me lance my own boil? What if I used untaxed moonshine sterilize the wound? What if I used untaxed moonshine to anesthetize the surgeon/patient?
OK, I am sorry guys, I'm trying to rationalize absurdity.
Post a Comment