Cats at risk of Alzheimer's

Scotsman.com ^ | Tue 5 Dec 2006

[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."

[null and void]

Yeah, I suppose so...

[derllak]

Lay of the cookies, Nully, you're getting a little too excited there. :P

[Pontiac]

I would certainly not argue that everyone must take a vow of poverty and contribute everything to the poor. However, in my opinion of this moral question, a person who is well-to-do and spends lavish sums of money on pets instead of contributing to charity – I have recently heard of six-figure vet bills –is acting wrongly.

Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been when I said:

“The nice thing about living in a free country is not having to justify what we do with our own property.”

But to me that is a moral issue as is taxing me to pay for another’s health or welfare. Although I hold to the axiom that I am my brother’s keeper I also hold that fulfilling that axiom is a totally voluntary matter.

From reading your post 29 I understand that you were not advocating the forced confiscation of funds to fulfill your moral ideals and I apologize for incorrectly lumping you in with the “loyal opposition”.

I will say that morality is (in this case of charity) a personal matter that one can not judge another on. You can not judge another on how much he spends on his pet compared to how much he gives to charity.

I will agree that to spend hundreds of dollars on the health care of a pet is obscene but it not my place to judge that individual. Had I known those individuals I would have wished them and their pet well.

I consider my self a Christian and as a Christian I believe that Christ calls on us to give charitably to those in need. How much and to whom is a personal choice. I can not make these choices for another nor be the judge of whether they chose correctly.

[The Westerner]

Lol! You won't believe this but it was a big "Thank you!" for putting the senile doggy to sleep. The old pooch paced unstoppably, sniffing endlessly at doors, unless I was home. Noisy, nervous pacing. Not good for doing homework. I firmly believe that whatever process occurs with dementia, whether the Alzheimers kind or multi-infact kind, it obviously can happen to animals. Maybe they get Mad Cow disease from the meat they eat?

[dsc]

"I also hold that fulfilling that axiom is a totally voluntary matter. "

I agree completely with that.

"From reading your post 29 I understand that you were not advocating the forced confiscation of funds to fulfill your moral ideals and I apologize for incorrectly lumping you in with the “loyal opposition”.

Thank you very much. Apology not required, but appreciated all the same.

"You can not judge another on how much he spends on his pet compared to how much he gives to charity."

Au contraire, mon frere. Such judgements are an absolute, inescapable moral duty imposed on us by God.

"Had I known those individuals I would have wished them and their pet well."

Certainly, but wishing them well does not require that one fail to note the immorality of their choice.

"I believe that Christ calls on us to give charitably to those in need. How much and to whom is a personal choice."

Couldn't agree more.

"I can not make these choices for another"

We cannot, I agree.

"nor be the judge of whether they chose correctly."

There I disagree. It might not be necessary that you do anything about it, or perhaps even say anything about it, but it is your duty to judge the morality or immorality of it insofar as it comes within your awareness. Unless, of course, you don't have enough information, but usually you will.

[Ignatz]

Ah! Your kids must be old enough to know the difference between putting the the dog to sleep and being sent to bed!

[little jeremiah]

I'd have to agree with you.

Also add that some cats are bad, some are good, some evil, some mentally ill; just like human people.

I've got a whiner, a nutcase paranoid, a tough old dude with serious idiosyncracies, and one who is convinced he's human. His goal is to be worn like a scarf.

[SFConservative]

Chocolate's still OK?

Of course not!!

[RobRoy]

>>Some pets make far better companions than some people.<<

Animals are not made in God's image. Jesus did not die for animals.

Pet's make better companions because humans have more of a mind of their own. They are autonomous. Animals are not.

People who prefer animals to people are simply narcissistic. They like being the ultimate "alpha dog".

[Victoria_R]

How can they tell?

I have to admit that was the first thing I thought.

[RobRoy]

>>If there are children in the world not receiving medical care, how can one justify spending huge sums on animals?<<

Or video games, or cars, or bicycles.

I basically agree with both of you, but I am just playing devils advocate.

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. I also am quite aware that, on this issue, I most definitely live in a glass house.

[MarkL]

I feel that all the resources devoted to veterinary medicine for pets in the Western world is somewhat evil. Those same resources (EKG, EEG, MRI, X-Ray machines and the attendant personnel) would be better spent on treating human beings that currently receive little or no medical care. I'm sure that won't be a popular opinion, but sometimes one has to speak his mind.

Let me see if I've got this straight, and maybe you can explain your position a bit better.

Are you saying that there can only be so many resources in the world, "(EKG, EEG, MRI, X-Ray machines and the attendant personnel)" and that if a vet hospital has one of those devices, there's a human hospital that doesn't? Are you saying that people who pay for medical care for their pets should instead spend that money paying for other peoples' medical care? Should they volunteer that money, or should the government just take it? Are you saying that veternarians should treat humans? Are you saying that the vet techs should be working as nurses instead? Are you saying that veternary clinics should clear the animals out of the kennels to make room for human patients? And finally, should all those services currently being "wasted" on animals just be given free to "human beings that currently receive little or no medical care?"

Mark

[MarkL]

I've been working for Republicans since I handed out leaflets for President Nixon in 1972. I didn't tell anyone how to spend their money,

Nixon was one of the most fiscally leftist presidents the US has ever had... Remember price controls?

Mark

[MarkL]

He has always drank water from the sink. In the last year he just gets done and gets right back up for a drink again. He never used to do this.

Especially in an older cat, this could be a sign of diabetes.

My cousin gave insulin shots to her cat, who also went blind due to the diabetes. She just couldn't bear losing the cat, and when she finally died, my cousin was absolutely devastated. Then again, she grew up with that cat: She was 6 when she got the cat as a kitten, and the cat was 17 when she died. I think that she actually saw the cat as a sibling, since she was an only child.

Mark

[null and void]

Actually I look more like this...

[null and void]

That's BAD.

[Gideon Reader]

Continually forget their car keys and leave the light on in the litter box.

[derllak]

Awwww, that's sweet! You're a cute little pug! Hey, I'm
looking a little freaked out there....what did you just say to me? Rofl!

[listenhillary]

Sounds like the old Soviet Union.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I was sort of thinking Democrat mentality in another way. Dem's think of the economy as a zero sum game. In a world of finite resources, any amount spent on A by definition takes funds away from B, and so on.

In reality, spending on A can actually BENEFIT B, as new technologies are developed from the investment that benefit all, or new capital is developed that allows new investments that benefit group B, and so on.

Furthermore, to use your logic, ALL spending on pets is immoral. Any money spent on pet food, for example is evil because it could be spent on feeding poor humans around the world. The same for veterinarians, who could better be serving human patients.

Where would you like your reasoning to end?