Priorities??

A week or so ago I did a blog on wondering out loud how people make decisions or rather by which criteria do people identify priorities. A few days later I came across an article about Esther the pig. Now it is clear that I am not up on all current events and therefore I had never heard about this semi famous pig. She has been on TV, has her own web page, had a book published about her and can be contacted/seen on all of the usual social media sites. Who knew that she was a celebrity?

The story I read in the National Post was about the fact that this pig needed to get a CT scan done to determine what was wrong with her back. At the veterinary clinic attached to Guelph's rightly well known vet school, there was no CT scanner big enough to accommodate Esther's considerable bulk. Esther's owners decided to raise money to buy a CT scanner so that that Guelph would have one, not just for Esther but also for other large animals including horses. In a short time, they easily raised over $500,000 (American) to buy the machine. While I would never argue that those who are responsible for an animal should ever do anything to cause suffering and in fact should do whatever possible they can to help the animal heal, I have to wonder why it was so easy to raise money for a scanner so that a six year old, 650 pound pig can have her back examined (it turns out that she has a cancerous tumour). I suspect that there are hundreds of parents who are struggling with the cost of supporting a critically ill child - and it is almost impossible to raise sufficient funds to do so; there are countless number of people who have experienced traumatic injuries and can not get sufficient assistance and there are literally thousands of children in Canada, who go to bed hungry most nights of the week - but we can raise money for a pet pig to get better medical care?

It is hard not to question some people's ability to decide what is truly important.

A few days later I heard part of a discussion on CBC where a lawyer and a animal rights activist were discussing the right of a horse living in Oregon to sue its former owner for pain and suffering. The horse (named Justice) thorough its "guardian", is suggesting that because it was neglected it developed some ongoing health problems and therefore its former owner should pay all of the associated medical cost. While it makes sense that that owner pays for the medical cost, I am not so sure about the court allocating monies for pain and suffering. I am even less sure about suggesting that animals have all of the same rights as do humans, including the right to sue if their owners do not perform as they should.

It would seem to me to be a slippery path to stand at the top of if one suggests that all animals have many if not all of the same rights as do humans. I would love to live in a world where no animal was killed for sport or for food, where all animals (including those I do not like such as rats) were treated with respect, where all animals could live in safe places where they could live full lives; however even more importantly I would like to live in a world where our resources went to ensuring that no humans were ever killed for sport , vengeance or a piece of land, where no child ever went to bed hungry and where all could live in peace. In a world full of infinite resources with all people being ethically motivated, perhaps all is possible. but in the short term - it does not seem likely.

Quite frankly, I would be quite delighted if people stopped raising and killing (ethically or not) animals for food.