Sandy wrote:
Should owners have the right to collect pain and suffering compensation for the loss of a pet through negligence of a vet?
Our pets become such a part of our families that the first inclination would be to answer that question with a resounding YES!!! However, the issue is not black and white --
a monetary award won't bring our beloved pet back and it won't ease the grief, and it may come at a price we don't want to pay in the long run. I can't even imagine the cost of going to a vet if veterinarian malpractice insurance is instituted. for one thing.
Sandy
Click here: Vermont's high court considers pets' special value - May 15, 2008I think it should be no different than what the courts allow for humans, as Pets are, for many, as you mentioned, an extension of ones family and when we take a pet to a veterinarian, we should be able to have a measure of confidence that the certificate on the wall matches the skills for which it was given, just the same as a human medical doctor.
That having been said :
Malpractice insurance is certainly an option, but it would also drive up the medical costs as whole too. It is a catch 22 ~
Malpractice insurance will not prevent serious accidents from happening, as we can see from the human field of medicine and what will it do for our loss! What does it really do for the human medical field ?
I wonder how I would feel if the death of our beloved Lil-lea brought monetary gain as result of her death by malpractice. As I used that money, to better my life.......... how would I feel about that? As I think about it right now, a bit of a guilty feeling falls over me. If Lil could talk, I am sure she would want us to be better off as a result of her demise, but that still leaves me with my own feelings.
I think it might be similar to what I would feel (as a female) if I received malpractice compensation for my husbands death. A necessary evil in this case, in this day and age, and because they have taken away my provider from me, due to their negligence and one should be compensated.
Then there is the other side, the husband's losing a mate and gaining malpractice compensation. He, perhaps has lost a second income as well as losing his best friend.
With a pet ......... that is not the case. Does it all boil down to being compensated for ones emotional loss, for which one is compensated financially and can then live at best a life monetarily equal to, and at most a life monetarily better than his or her life was before? In the case of pets, could be or would be *equal to* a loss of child, for many people.
And that is what the money is really all about? Humm, lots to think about here!
What do you all think?
