Reply With Quote
Alright, I'm not letting you get away with that one.
It's always been like that. When I was a kid, I split open my head pretty badly at the post office. I was with my aunt, who was around 18 or 19 years old.
She took me to ER (well first she took me to a vet, but that's another part of the story) and they refused to s ch me until my grandparents (guardians) got there.
Alright, I'm not letting you get away with that one.
We were somewhere not near our house. She didn't know any doctors/hospitals in the neighborhood. But she thought she had seen a clinic right up the street from the post office. So, she drove there very quick, parked without really looking and carried me bleeding into the office, screaming that I needed help. ... And they said, umm.. we are a vet clinic.
That's understandable... I originally had it pegged for something meth-related or something.
We were somewhere not near our house. She didn't know any doctors/hospitals in the neighborhood. But she thought she had seen a clinic right up the street from the post office. So, she drove there very quick, parked without really looking and carried me bleeding into the office, screaming that I needed help. ... And they said, umm.. we are a vet clinic.
I hate it when liability gets in the way of common sense, not because of a caretaker's fault, but because people are so damn trigger happy in going to court. If someone needs care, you should be able to give it to them immediately, without fear of consequence.
The doctors/hospitals have to worry about covering their own asses, first, and before they can give treatment, simply because there is the potential to be sued if something goes wrong. And the sad thing is, they are justified in doing so. Tell me there's nothing wrong with that?
Example: When I was in the hospital a few weeks ago, I had to fill out/sign an incredible amount of paperwork for legal purposes (waivers saying I understand the potential risks in my surgery and that I am willingly taking them, etc), simply in order to have surgery. How morbid is that? But, the hospital had to cover their own ass first, and I understood why. Regardless, I was two days away from a potential life-or-death surgery -- Having to take care of all that liability before we could proceed just made me sad.
I mean, really, why are people always looking for money when something tragic happens? Is a settlement in court really going to fix the grieving? Will that bring your loved one back to life, or back to his/her previous condition? Will that make it all better and go away? What the is wrong with people that they think going to court will help?
The whole situation just makes me sad.
Incorrect. The American Pit Bull Terrier is a registered breed. However, they are also called American Staffordshire Bull Terriers.
Pit bull is a slang term for any dog mixed with the original english bulldog, not the short fat thing you see today. That's where you get pit bulls, staffies, boxers, bull terriers, and some other breeds.
True, but there is a breed known as The American Pit Bull Terrier. These are the prototypes for what is referred to in slang terms as pit bulls.
Oh, no you don't . . .
your thinking is screwed up. I would rather have every pit bull in existence die before an innocent child.
Pit bull is a term that describes several types of dogs with similar physical characteristics
I hate it when liability gets in the way of common sense, not because of a caretaker's fault, but because people are so damn trigger happy in going to court. If someone needs care, you should be able to give it to them immediately, without fear of consequence.
Ahmen.
Loser pays should be the law of the tort land.
Tort reform is needed so bad its not even funny.
Pit bull is not a breed though. American Pit Bull Terrier is a breed. People throw around the term pit bull because of how a dog looks when more often than not it is a different breed. The American Pit Bull Terrier gets a bad name because of this.
Ehh...............no . My point was that "pit bull" is not a breed.
American Pit Bull Terrier. Duh.
I'm suprised this thread hasn't had at least one Mike Vick reference
It's really not fair to lump a bunch of bites and statistics from so called "pit bulls" into one group and blame it all on the pit bull terrier. That's like taking all the bad statistics from all the breeds derived from the Mastiff into one massive group. Then use it against these dogs any time a Rottie, English Mastiff, Tibetan Mastiff, Neopolitan Mastiff, Bullmastiff, etc bites even though they were all totally different breeds.
And not only is it a whole group of dogs making it worse for the pit bull terrier, about half of these so called reports aren't even by actuall pit bulls. I don't know how many times i've read the headline "pit bull attacks child" only to read the story and find a picture of a chow or some other dog breed.
I'll show you Ma-stiff.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
