Here’s a news story with many different points for discussion. A New York woman is suing the boutique pet store where she bought her Brussels Griffon, named Umka, claiming that the store withheld information about the puppy’s health. Elena Zakharova paid $1,600 for the puppy (discussion point #1) last February, and the poor dog has already been diagnosed with joint problems that will require surgery. Unbeknownst to Zakharova, the shop has a reputation for selling puppy-mill dogs (discussion point #2), according to the Humane Society of the United States.
Zakharova’s lawsuit seeks money not only to cover Umka’s medical expenses, but also for her “pain and suffering” (discussion point #3). This is the first time that a lawsuit has sought to compensation for the emotional pain of an animal, which are usually considered property under the law:
Filed by noted animal-rights lawyer Susan Chana Lask, the suit “requests humanity for Umka in that she be considered a living soul that feels pain, and that her pain and suffering is recognized by this state and considered as damages to her.”
So what do you think about
1. paying $1,600 for a dog at a boutique pet store?
2. the store not revealing where the dog came from?
3. the idea of compensation for a dog’s “pain and suffering”?
Enquiring minds want to know.