More on the legal push across the country to reclassify humans as “guardians” rather than mere owners of pets, and the related-but-different push to expose veterinarians to sky’s-the-limit liability for the emotional significance of Fluffy and Snowball, rather than just the token damages that would be agreed to in virtually any imaginable contractual agreement they might reach with their paying human customers. (For earlier items, see Jan. 30-31, 2002, Feb. 12, 2003, and our animal-rights coverage generally (pre-6/03)). (“Malpractice Cases Spike … for Pets”, Christian Science Monitor/ABCNews.com, Jul. 29). Reader Sam Gaines comments: “I am deeply involved in the animal welfare/rescue movement here locally, but I see grave danger in this move — the potential for worse, not better, conditions for abandoned animals based on such initiatives is tremendous. Just as laws requiring fees for unneutered pets generally backfire into even more homeless animals than before, this feel-good meddling will simply drive vet costs further off the scale, and the animals will ultimately suffer.”

Filed under: animals