Cat Owner vs Cat Guardian
Friday February 24, 2006
(Be Sure to Scroll Down to Vote in the Poll)
My own take on semantics where it comes to descriptions of the relationship between humans and cats, is that cats don't really care whether you call them "pets" or youself their "guardian" or "owner." I try to defer to the advocates whenever possible, but you'll find my content contains a mix of "guardian," "caregiver," and "owner."
However, it seems that legal analysts as well as groups in authority take the semantics very seriously, as discussed in an AVMA article published in 2001.
According to the article, one notable veterinarian, Dr. James M. Harris is concerned that laws defining the semantics of "pet ownership" could have a disastrous effect in increased lawsuits against veterinarians. The article quotes him:
Dr. James M. Harris, vice chairman of the AVMA Committee on the Human-Animal Bond, sees the issue as potentially exposing practitioners to a flurry of malpractice suits for allegedly failing to deliver the appropriate medical care necessitated by an animal's social value. In this scenario, practitioners would have to raise their rates to compensate for skyrocketing liability coverage; some clients would then be unable to afford even basic veterinary care for their pets. "Words have power, words have meaning, and they are not to be taken lightly," Dr. Hamil warned, adding that it will be the courts that have the final say. "Be assured, somebody's going to try this on for size before long."
I wonder about that. Assuming there was ample cause, would you be more willing to sue a veterinarian for malpractice if the law said you are your cat's guardian rather than his owner?
Poll: Your vet screwed up. Would you be more likely to sue as a "guardian" than as an "owner?"
1) No
2) Yes
3) I wouldn't sue under any circumstances
4) It wouldn't matter what I was called
My own take on semantics where it comes to descriptions of the relationship between humans and cats, is that cats don't really care whether you call them "pets" or youself their "guardian" or "owner." I try to defer to the advocates whenever possible, but you'll find my content contains a mix of "guardian," "caregiver," and "owner."
However, it seems that legal analysts as well as groups in authority take the semantics very seriously, as discussed in an AVMA article published in 2001.
According to the article, one notable veterinarian, Dr. James M. Harris is concerned that laws defining the semantics of "pet ownership" could have a disastrous effect in increased lawsuits against veterinarians. The article quotes him:
Dr. James M. Harris, vice chairman of the AVMA Committee on the Human-Animal Bond, sees the issue as potentially exposing practitioners to a flurry of malpractice suits for allegedly failing to deliver the appropriate medical care necessitated by an animal's social value. In this scenario, practitioners would have to raise their rates to compensate for skyrocketing liability coverage; some clients would then be unable to afford even basic veterinary care for their pets. "Words have power, words have meaning, and they are not to be taken lightly," Dr. Hamil warned, adding that it will be the courts that have the final say. "Be assured, somebody's going to try this on for size before long."
I wonder about that. Assuming there was ample cause, would you be more willing to sue a veterinarian for malpractice if the law said you are your cat's guardian rather than his owner?
Poll: Your vet screwed up. Would you be more likely to sue as a "guardian" than as an "owner?"
1) No
2) Yes
3) I wouldn't sue under any circumstances
4) It wouldn't matter what I was called
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment