Some pets make far better companions than some people.
"I'm sure that won't be a popular opinion"
Truth is not a popularity contest.
If there are children in the world not receiving medical care, how can one justify spending huge sums on animals?
There is no shortage of the machines or diagnostic equipment, in fact the increase in demand for animal testing probably lowers the cost of manufacturing. As long as the individual pet owner is the one shelling out the money for the procedures I don't see how any of it takes away from resources available to humans.
People often make the mistake of thinking that if resources or people are dedicated to something, nothing else gets done. This is a fallacy. The same Secret Service that tracks down counterfeiters protect the PResident and members of COngress. Police are tasked with duties from street patrol to counter-terrorism. Division of labor and specialization dictates that we will have human and animal doctors, and the technologies that comes with it.
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.
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
Understandable attitude.
But, we are very similar. As someone said, much testing is done on animals, especially initial testing. So they find out an animal has the same problem and same reaction. It's basically incidental.
Lots of things for animals are, conversely, after the fact for humans. My dog is taking a "new" dog drug for her major allergies that has been old hat in humans for ages. All they really did was decide to see if it would work for animals, too.
Actually, this sort of reminds me of a recent Williams or Sowell column.
By extending your logic, we can ask, WHY SPEND MONEY ON ANYTHING AT ALL EXCEPT HUMAN HEALTH RESEARCH?
So you spending money on a TV entertainment system is money taken from helping save a human.
;-)
You are right. It is not a popular opinion. I just spent $750 to save a stray kitty who had sustained wounds in a cat fight. It is MY money to spend as I wish.