Veterinary malpractice, cont’d

by Walter Olson on August 27, 2006

Mike Cernovich makes the case against “loss of companionship” damages (Aug. 23). Earlier coverage: Dec. 29, 2005, etc.; see also May 25, 2006.

{ 2 comments }

1 Ross 08.27.06 at 2:49 pm

From a pet owners standpoint, many vets have started marketing products for pets as if the pet is a member of the owner’s family. The pet care industry is partially responsible for this trend with the “doggie daycare”, “owner’s night out”, and other marketing ploys that are designed to part the owner from their money. Now I am a fan of parting people from their money and there is nothing wrong with doing so in an ethical manner. But don’t complain about Fido’s owner thinking he is a member of the family when you keep enriched yourself by telling the pet owner that little Fido is a part of the family who deserves the very best care regardless of cost.

2 Deoxy 08.29.06 at 10:17 am

**I** am complaining about it, and I haven’t enriched myself one jot. As a person who stands the risk of being sud if I were to run over a pet (who was running loose through no fault of mine, I might add), I believe I have reason to complain.

Comments on this entry are closed.