Friday, July 6, 2012
the last word
i was following an interesting debate between april 29 and terrierman last week until it suddenly ended. the terrierman forfeited the debate when he realized he was seriously outclassed and losing. terrierman had no response to this:
Well Patrick, I am pleased that you have not called me a fear monger, or a misinformed,delusional liar in the last 24 hours. I do not much waste my time on the run of the mill pit enthusiasts who run to comments about "I am the proud owner of a red nosed pit and he would NEVER hurt anyone, he lives with kittens, butterflies and unicorns." You are far too intelligent to be doing PR work for pit bull advocacy.
The numbers you ask for are found in medical chart records and, as you know, medical charts are private and that privacy is protected by Federal law. There was hope that recent changes in medical coding would include this information but that change did not come about. If that information was available and was released the response of pit bull advocacy would be that nobody can identify a pit bull and that the numbers are valueless for that reason. You and I both know that we can both identify a pit bull, as can Karen Delise. Ms. Delise sent an e-letter to the editor of the Annals of Surgery over the very article that started our discussion. BTW, Ms. Delise failed to disclose the status of the NCRC as a subsidiary of the AFF (mission statement "securing equal treatment and opportunity for pit bull dogs)in her e-letter to the editor and did not explain that LVT following her name stands for Licensed Veterinary Tech. It is not likely that many doctors saw this letter, one must be a subscriber, log into a secure site with your password, and go looking for it. The letter is a classic of pit bull advocacy.
This a quote from Ms. Delise' letter to the editor of the Annals of Surgery "There is no documented evidence from any authority that either dog involved in this incident were "pit bulls." To determine whether the breed attributed to these dogs could be visually substantiated by a recognized expert, I submitted photographs of both dogs to Dr. Amy Marder,VMD, CAAB. Dr. Marder reported the breed(s) of dog could not be reasonably determined by visual identification." The dogs involved were family pets owned by the grandmother of the victim, she knew what she had. The child was mauled to death. The family never challenged the identification of the dogs but Delise is not convinced, and asks an "expert" who is unable to identify any dog without registration papers. Ms. Delise goes on to dispute the cause of death of James Chapple, stating "Mr. Chapple received severe injuries but fully recovered and was discharged from the hospital." Among other injuries, Mr. Chapple lost his left arm and his right arm was mauled. The injuries were so severe that television cameras were brought into Mr. Chapple's hospital room so he could testify from his hospital bed on changes in state law regarding vicious dogs, written in response to his attack. State law was changed. There is no full recovery from these injuries. As a medical professional, I know there are more reasons for hospital discharge than full recovery. We discharge patients when there is nothing more that we can do for them, they go home with family care and home health nurses. There is no question that the death was due to the injuries suffered in the attack. We can't have chart records but we can know about attacks in the news and that information would make any thinking person stop and think.
You bring drunk driving and drunks falling through windows into the conversation as a means to change the subject. This is not as big a change as you suspect. Alcohol is considered dangerous and is regulated, who may buy it, how old they must be, where they may purchase it, how much they may be served, safe blood level for driving, no open containers, taxes are paid on the product. A great deal of the change in attitude toward drunk driving is due to victims who told their stories to legislators and demanded change. This was the MADD campaign, a huge public policy success. Pit bull advocacy fights any attempt to regulate a situation that does not benefit the dogs and does not benefit the public. The dogs change hands for the price of a carton or two of cigarettes, they are fought, dumped on the streets or turned in to shelters for aggression or a change in living situation of the owners. Taxes are not paid but taxpayers support the shelters that will house, and likely euthanize these animals.
When is enough, enough? When will somebody say "the emperor has no clothes?" This is what victims are telling legislators. MADD was a victim advocacy movement and a huge public policy success, we have a long way to go but hope for the same. You are on the fence and blaming both sides. Your blog is read by dog enthusiasts, you are preaching to the choir, preach to the congregation, preach on the street.
so he opted to not publish it.
but some comments are just too good to waste.