Thursday, October 22, 2009

RE: Human-Dog Mouth-to-Mouth

The AP has another misleadingly headlined article: "Pet owners willing to go mouth-to-muzzle."

A careful reading of the article (and, if Poodle Bitch can be so bold, "careful" is the only way Poodle Bitch reads anything), reveals that a perhaps more accurate title might have been "Some Pet Owners willing to go mouth-to-mouth." For, as the second paragraph states,

Fifty-eight percent of pet owners — 63 percent of dog owners and 53 percent of cat owners — would be at least somewhat likely to perform CPR on their pet in the event of a medical emergency, according to an Associated poll.

Poodle Bitch finds it appalling that a full 42% of "pet owners" would not even be at least "somewhat likely" to perform a basic life-saving action on their "property." Poodle Bitch wonders about that 42%. If their beloved animal were seen choking to death, would he stand over his charge and cackle? Would he say, "Well, it was nice knowing you"? Would he at least fret, as young Fido's (which is a derivative of the word "fidelity," Poodle Bitch notes) life force ebbed from his body?

Poodle Bitch is immeasurably appalled by this idea. Even if you see yourself as an "owner" of a pet, would you not do everything you could to protect your property? Poodle Bitch wonders what is the percentage of people who would attempt to prevent their Wiis or Playstations from choking to death?

Poodle Bitch has already written of the casual cruelty of which pet "owners" are capable; nonetheless, she is surprised that they are capable of such depravity. Not only that-- the headline and story are composed in such a way as to suggest that humans should be proud of the fact that 42% of pet companions would allow their animals to die a slow and agonizing choking death, without even attempting to revive them. The first paragraph is comically slanted:

Most pet owners would leap into action for an injured pet, even if it meant risking dog breath by going mouth-to-snout.

How wonderful that a bare majority of pet "owners" would risk "dog breath" in attempting to stop their pet dying! Poodle Bitch is barely touched. She believes the article could have delved into the motivations, or lack thereof, of the 42% who would allow their animal companion to die without attempting to help him.

Of course, the article does not do this. The article, Poodle Bitch notes with weary unsurprise, is strictly ho-hum.

The reader is introduced to a few "pet owners" who take their animal companions seriously, and is then admonished to have disaster plans in case of fire or earthquake. Directing "pet owners" to a website that offers instruction on animal-specific CPR-- or that tells "pet owners" where they can find classes in the subject-- might have been a good start.

Instead, the article merely congratulates humans on the fact that most of their species would be willing to at least try to prevent their animal companion dying horribly. Poodle Bitch wonders at just how far the bar that measures compassion has been lowered.

1 comment:

shampoo said...

some people are mean. that same 42 percent probably wouldn't help a human either. :(