Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_browser
I think that when it's a child with an allergy/asthma, the parents have an obligation to prioritize the health of the child. Feeding the child daily steroids that he or she would not otherwise have to take is not a responsible solution, IMO. If allergy shots, cleaning, keeping child and animals in separate rooms, or other in-home solutions aren't sufficient to resolve the problem, re-homing may be the right thing to do. I do believe the the parent should remain, at the very least, financially responsible for the animal until a suitable placement can be found.
There is something disturbing about forcing a child to live in an environment that triggers otherwise avoidable asthma attacks, or joking about giving away underage children, because the animals come first. Jokes about putting the welfare of a child second to the needs of a parent's girlfriend or boyfriend wouldn't be remotely acceptable. I don't understand why this is viewed as better.
|
I agree whole heartedly with this statement. A childs quality of life should not suffer for the sake of an animal. Nor should the animal suffer and be stuck with an "incompatable" home. We shouldn't forget that some people who really do love their pets have to make hard, sucky choices.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
