Posted on 12/05/2006 10:20:22 PM PST by null and void
CATS can suffer from a feline form of Alzheimer's disease, Edinburgh scientists revealed today.
A study into ageing cats identified a key protein which can build up in the nerve cells in their brains and cause mental deterioration, similar to that in humans.
The research was carried out by scientists at the University of Edinburgh, as well as universities at St Andrews, Bristol and California.
Dr Danielle Gunn-Moore, of Edinburgh University, said: "We've known for a long time that cats develop dementia, but this study tells us that the cat's neural system is being compromised."
I was grateful for my vets advice. He took the time to talk to me on the telephone a couple of times about it. The thing that made the most sense is the issue of the quality of her life was terrible. She enjoyed going for a walk, but the rest of the day was endless anxiety. Making the decision was harder than the euthansia which was actually incredibly humane.
I would like the same choice over my own demise. The tricky part for humans is that once the Alzheimer's has gripped the mind, you can't remember that you don't want to go on like that anymore. Then you become someone else's problem. I have worked in the hospital with dementia patients. They all go through a stage of terror because they can still think, but can't organize thoughts to deal with all of their perceptions. I always wondered if it was humane to allow humans to suffer but make a separate case for our pets.
"Or video games, or cars, or bicycles."
Video games and bicycles don't require huge sums. Some cars do, but I'm not sure what the moral calculus is.
"Fact is, as stupid as I think spending money on pets is, how other poeple choose to spend their disposable income is not my business."
It may not be your business, but that doesn't mean that it's moral, or even morally neutral.
"I also am quite aware that, on this issue, I most definitely live in a glass house."
We have taken the maxim, "People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones," to mean that a person has no standing to make any moral judgments unless he is himself completely without sin. This misinterpretation serves only those who seek to evade the opprobrium rightfully accruing from their own misdeeds.
For instance, if one makes a habit of adultery, he is a hypocrite to pretend to virtue while criticising others for adultery. However, he is on solid ground if he wishes to say, "We adulderers are all acting immorally."
Likewise, should he see the error of his ways and reform, he is not a hypocrite to say, "I acted wrongly when I committed adultery, and people who do it today are also acting wrongly."
Unregenerate adulterers, of course, will wish to say, "You can't judge me; you have committed adultery yourself." I hope a moment's reflection on the above will show that this childish evasion has no logical or moral grounding.
I guess underarm deodorant and aluminum cans are NOT the problem
Last election cycle has kind of tilted the pro-people vs pro-animal viewpoint for myself at least:)
Are you logged onto the correct board?
One may choose to support medical charities......nobody needs to "justify" to you what they spend money on.
You are responding to things I did not say, nor mean.
What I mean is that although I can have an opinion on another persons actions, I should have no authority to modify his actions through force, unless his activities affect me. I don't claim to know what's best for others, only myself. I can tell them what the Bible says, and let them form their own opinion.
I am libertarian. I am against seatbelt, carseat, helmet, anti-smoking and other such laws passed by people who know what is best for us.
Or anywhere outside the inner circle of North Korea, or commie China, or East Germany, or...
"Where would you like your reasoning to end?"
As is the mode in the real world, it doesn't "end."
There is an area of things that are clearly okay, a gray area of hard calls, and an area of things that are clearly not okay.
Take your dog in for a rabies shot: clearly okay.
A $5,000 operation: hard call, lots of things to think about.
A $50,000 prosthesis for a dog that lost a leg: clearly immoral.
One thing is certain: the reductio ad absurdum is often abused in our day and age. Sometimes it is valid and applicable, but often, as here, it is not.
Be afraid. Be very afraid...
No wonder I'm finding cat poop in her food bowl.
"Are you logged onto the correct board? "
Since 1998. You sure *you're* in the right place?
"...nobody needs to "justify" to you what they spend money on. "
That's the leftist argument, phrased in such a way as to preclude a clear vision of the issue.
There's no question of anyone taking action to justify anything to anyone. The plumage don't enter into it.
The fact remains that in God's universe actions are either moral, morally neutral, or immoral, and we humans have a duty to know the difference.
Thanks.
My daughter has an older (exact age unknown) female, spayed Siamese cross who will spend literally hours trying to kill her tail. It is amusing for a time, but she is very serious and it becomes non-amusing. The frequency seems to be increasing for this odd behavior, which was rare but is becoming at least a weekly and day or two long incident.
LOL! That's a cat...
One of my cats sniffs the air whenever I walk into the room, as if I smell. Another cat, after I pet her, has to instantly clean herself, as if I put dirt on her. They are funny creatures. A co-worker of mine once said if cats knew how to operate a can opener, we would be out on the streets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.