FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Well I never!
Well I never!
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"No, he’s a nervous wreck at the vets. It’s bad enough going for nail clipping. If he was calm and would remain that way I’d probably give it some thought. " Yes, I think you have to be confident you wouldn’t be traumatising your pet. But I think it’s an interesting thing to raise awareness on - it might be your pet in need of a donor one day. | |||
"I’ve just discovered that your pet (cats, dogs etc) can be blood donors - for other similar animals. When you think about it it’s blooming obvious, I’ve just never thought about it. Pet owners can organise for their pet to give blood in order to help save other animals. Did you know? Has your pet given blood? Would you do this now you know? " You have to register them on a website and special teams come out to local vets to collect the blood. | |||
| |||
"No, he’s a nervous wreck at the vets. It’s bad enough going for nail clipping. If he was calm and would remain that way I’d probably give it some thought. Yes, I think you have to be confident you wouldn’t be traumatising your pet. But I think it’s an interesting thing to raise awareness on - it might be your pet in need of a donor one day. " It might be one day, but we’ve recently had back surgery on him for a slipped disc which has completely cemented his fear of vets, he’s shaking before we’re even out of the car now. So it’s just not something I’d do. I agree about the awareness, I didn’t even know it was a thing. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Do they get a cup of tea and a biscuit afterwards like people get when they give blood? " No dog food and a toy | |||
| |||
"I’ve just discovered that your pet (cats, dogs etc) can be blood donors - for other similar animals. When you think about it it’s blooming obvious, I’ve just never thought about it. Pet owners can organise for their pet to give blood in order to help save other animals. Did you know? Has your pet given blood? Would you do this now you know? " My vet is also a specialist hospital for animals and they have a pet blood bank | |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. " I think you’ll find they don’t consent to anything that happens at a vets. | |||
"The blood is the life!" Dracula... Renfield  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Its not new. I know a vet who was doing this 8 or 10 years ago. His own dog saved a number of other dogs." Oh absolutely, not saying it’s new. New to *me*! | |||
| |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. I think you’ll find they don’t consent to anything that happens at a vets. " Appreciated, but even so. Why put them through that without consent. Would you take blood from an adult with learning issues etc without consent? I don't think so. | |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. I think you’ll find they don’t consent to anything that happens at a vets. Appreciated, but even so. Why put them through that without consent. Would you take blood from an adult with learning issues etc without consent? I don't think so." It’s not really comparable, Clem. Other humans who can give consent can donate blood to a human who hasn’t given blood. To have any blood available for animals in need requires those that can (as mentioned up thread, those that aren’t further traumatised by giving as far as can be determined) giving. If there was a way of enabling animals to give consent, of course this would be preferable, but it seems a moot point when they can’t. On another note, having learning difficulties/issues does not mean not being able to give consent. You mean lack of capacity, which is a different threshold. | |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. I think you’ll find they don’t consent to anything that happens at a vets. Appreciated, but even so. Why put them through that without consent. Would you take blood from an adult with learning issues etc without consent? I don't think so. It’s not really comparable, Clem. Other humans who can give consent can donate blood to a human who hasn’t given blood. To have any blood available for animals in need requires those that can (as mentioned up thread, those that aren’t further traumatised by giving as far as can be determined) giving. If there was a way of enabling animals to give consent, of course this would be preferable, but it seems a moot point when they can’t. On another note, having learning difficulties/issues does not mean not being able to give consent. You mean lack of capacity, which is a different threshold. " Sounds like virtue signalling to me. Hats off to anyone who manages to do it without broadcasting it.  | |||
| |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. I think you’ll find they don’t consent to anything that happens at a vets. Appreciated, but even so. Why put them through that without consent. Would you take blood from an adult with learning issues etc without consent? I don't think so. It’s not really comparable, Clem. Other humans who can give consent can donate blood to a human who hasn’t given blood. To have any blood available for animals in need requires those that can (as mentioned up thread, those that aren’t further traumatised by giving as far as can be determined) giving. If there was a way of enabling animals to give consent, of course this would be preferable, but it seems a moot point when they can’t. On another note, having learning difficulties/issues does not mean not being able to give consent. You mean lack of capacity, which is a different threshold. " As I posted earlier I've been taking mine for years and I can say for a fact that if the animal shows any signs of distress they don't take the blood | |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. I think you’ll find they don’t consent to anything that happens at a vets. Appreciated, but even so. Why put them through that without consent. Would you take blood from an adult with learning issues etc without consent? I don't think so. It’s not really comparable, Clem. Other humans who can give consent can donate blood to a human who hasn’t given blood. To have any blood available for animals in need requires those that can (as mentioned up thread, those that aren’t further traumatised by giving as far as can be determined) giving. If there was a way of enabling animals to give consent, of course this would be preferable, but it seems a moot point when they can’t. On another note, having learning difficulties/issues does not mean not being able to give consent. You mean lack of capacity, which is a different threshold. Sounds like virtue signalling to me. Hats off to anyone who manages to do it without broadcasting it. "Well I think kudos to the people who have done it and replied to my direct question asking if anyone had. I think raising awareness and having people be able to ask questions about it is not a bad thing at all. Different views are wonderful things. | |||
| |||
"My concern is people doing it for "bragging rights" rather than taking their pet's emotions into thought. " Yes, that would be awful. I think, given the involvement of qualified vet staff in the process, that this wouldn’t be as high a risk as to be reason to not try and encourage people to be aware of the option to do this in the first place. | |||
"My concern is people doing it for "bragging rights" rather than taking their pet's emotions into thought. Yes, that would be awful. I think, given the involvement of qualified vet staff in the process, that this wouldn’t be as high a risk as to be reason to not try and encourage people to be aware of the option to do this in the first place. " I can assure you that the primary concern is always with the welfare of the animal I used to have a dog that was fine with all the pre donation checks but got a bit stressed when you tried putting her on the table for the donation so she would get the free check up then happily stand next to me while the other dog give blood the vets from the pet blood bank never try taking from a pet in distress | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"If there were tea and biscuits at the end of it my dogs would gladly volunteer. " they get a biscuit and a bandana | |||
"If there were tea and biscuits at the end of it my dogs would gladly volunteer. they get a biscuit and a bandana" I WANT A BANDANA! | |||
"If there were tea and biscuits at the end of it my dogs would gladly volunteer. they get a biscuit and a bandana I WANT A BANDANA! " Let me draw blood?  | |||
"If there were tea and biscuits at the end of it my dogs would gladly volunteer. they get a biscuit and a bandana I WANT A BANDANA! Let me draw blood? "Is it a cool bandana? | |||
| |||
"If there were tea and biscuits at the end of it my dogs would gladly volunteer. they get a biscuit and a bandana I WANT A BANDANA! Let me draw blood?
Is it a cool bandana?"I fear that’s an oxymoron. | |||
"If so I'm deffo in." Ignore my previous post, it’s a very *cool* bandana. | |||
"If there were tea and biscuits at the end of it my dogs would gladly volunteer. they get a biscuit and a bandana I WANT A BANDANA! Let me draw blood?
Is it a cool bandana?
I fear that’s an oxymoron. "Pffft... I can style anything. I even look hot in Crocs. | |||
 | |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. " How would you go about getting consent? Get him to put his paw on the consent form... | |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. I think you’ll find they don’t consent to anything that happens at a vets. Appreciated, but even so. Why put them through that without consent. Would you take blood from an adult with learning issues etc without consent? I don't think so. It’s not really comparable, Clem. Other humans who can give consent can donate blood to a human who hasn’t given blood. To have any blood available for animals in need requires those that can (as mentioned up thread, those that aren’t further traumatised by giving as far as can be determined) giving. If there was a way of enabling animals to give consent, of course this would be preferable, but it seems a moot point when they can’t. On another note, having learning difficulties/issues does not mean not being able to give consent. You mean lack of capacity, which is a different threshold. Sounds like virtue signalling to me. Hats off to anyone who manages to do it without broadcasting it.
Well I think kudos to the people who have done it and replied to my direct question asking if anyone had. I think raising awareness and having people be able to ask questions about it is not a bad thing at all. Different views are wonderful things. "Consent is legally inseparable from mental capacity. Without mental capacity, one cannot (in the eyes of the law) provide informed consent for a medical procedure. Capacity to consent involves such things as ability to understand information being given to you about a procedure, retain it in your mind, weigh up the pros and cons, and communicate a decision. Certain conditions impair these abilities in adults, e.g. severe cognitive impairment due to learning disability, having a dementia or mental illness where there is loss of touch with reality, or being in a coma, etc. In these instances, if medical treatment including for example a blood test was necessary, a doctor wouldn’t go “oh well they can’t consent, just leave it”. They can legally make what’s known as a Best Interests Decision on behalf of the patient, if they can evidence that the procedure is in the person’s best interests. Animals clearly do not have capacity to consent because they can’t meet the above criteria of understanding and weighing up and communicating a decision. Therefore, in effect, owners and vets make best interests decisions on their behalf. Thus, no need to even consider the issue of consent when it comes to animals as it doesn’t apply (at least in a legal sense). | |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. I think you’ll find they don’t consent to anything that happens at a vets. Appreciated, but even so. Why put them through that without consent. Would you take blood from an adult with learning issues etc without consent? I don't think so. It’s not really comparable, Clem. Other humans who can give consent can donate blood to a human who hasn’t given blood. To have any blood available for animals in need requires those that can (as mentioned up thread, those that aren’t further traumatised by giving as far as can be determined) giving. If there was a way of enabling animals to give consent, of course this would be preferable, but it seems a moot point when they can’t. On another note, having learning difficulties/issues does not mean not being able to give consent. You mean lack of capacity, which is a different threshold. Sounds like virtue signalling to me. Hats off to anyone who manages to do it without broadcasting it.
Well I think kudos to the people who have done it and replied to my direct question asking if anyone had. I think raising awareness and having people be able to ask questions about it is not a bad thing at all. Different views are wonderful things.
Consent is legally inseparable from mental capacity. Without mental capacity, one cannot (in the eyes of the law) provide informed consent for a medical procedure.
Capacity to consent involves such things as ability to understand information being given to you about a procedure, retain it in your mind, weigh up the pros and cons, and communicate a decision. Certain conditions impair these abilities in adults, e.g. severe cognitive impairment due to learning disability, having a dementia or mental illness where there is loss of touch with reality, or being in a coma, etc. In these instances, if medical treatment including for example a blood test was necessary, a doctor wouldn’t go “oh well they can’t consent, just leave it”. They can legally make what’s known as a Best Interests Decision on behalf of the patient, if they can evidence that the procedure is in the person’s best interests.
Animals clearly do not have capacity to consent because they can’t meet the above criteria of understanding and weighing up and communicating a decision. Therefore, in effect, owners and vets make best interests decisions on their behalf. Thus, no need to even consider the issue of consent when it comes to animals as it doesn’t apply (at least in a legal sense).
"As I said, it’s a moot point. | |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. I think you’ll find they don’t consent to anything that happens at a vets. Appreciated, but even so. Why put them through that without consent. Would you take blood from an adult with learning issues etc without consent? I don't think so. It’s not really comparable, Clem. Other humans who can give consent can donate blood to a human who hasn’t given blood. To have any blood available for animals in need requires those that can (as mentioned up thread, those that aren’t further traumatised by giving as far as can be determined) giving. If there was a way of enabling animals to give consent, of course this would be preferable, but it seems a moot point when they can’t. On another note, having learning difficulties/issues does not mean not being able to give consent. You mean lack of capacity, which is a different threshold. Sounds like virtue signalling to me. Hats off to anyone who manages to do it without broadcasting it.
Well I think kudos to the people who have done it and replied to my direct question asking if anyone had. I think raising awareness and having people be able to ask questions about it is not a bad thing at all. Different views are wonderful things.
Consent is legally inseparable from mental capacity. Without mental capacity, one cannot (in the eyes of the law) provide informed consent for a medical procedure.
Capacity to consent involves such things as ability to understand information being given to you about a procedure, retain it in your mind, weigh up the pros and cons, and communicate a decision. Certain conditions impair these abilities in adults, e.g. severe cognitive impairment due to learning disability, having a dementia or mental illness where there is loss of touch with reality, or being in a coma, etc. In these instances, if medical treatment including for example a blood test was necessary, a doctor wouldn’t go “oh well they can’t consent, just leave it”. They can legally make what’s known as a Best Interests Decision on behalf of the patient, if they can evidence that the procedure is in the person’s best interests.
Animals clearly do not have capacity to consent because they can’t meet the above criteria of understanding and weighing up and communicating a decision. Therefore, in effect, owners and vets make best interests decisions on their behalf. Thus, no need to even consider the issue of consent when it comes to animals as it doesn’t apply (at least in a legal sense).
As I said, it’s a moot point. "Yeah. It was more Clem’s comment “would you take blood from an adult with learning disabilities without consent”. Yes, you would, if it was in their best interests to do so. | |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. I think you’ll find they don’t consent to anything that happens at a vets. Appreciated, but even so. Why put them through that without consent. Would you take blood from an adult with learning issues etc without consent? I don't think so. It’s not really comparable, Clem. Other humans who can give consent can donate blood to a human who hasn’t given blood. To have any blood available for animals in need requires those that can (as mentioned up thread, those that aren’t further traumatised by giving as far as can be determined) giving. If there was a way of enabling animals to give consent, of course this would be preferable, but it seems a moot point when they can’t. On another note, having learning difficulties/issues does not mean not being able to give consent. You mean lack of capacity, which is a different threshold. Sounds like virtue signalling to me. Hats off to anyone who manages to do it without broadcasting it.
Well I think kudos to the people who have done it and replied to my direct question asking if anyone had. I think raising awareness and having people be able to ask questions about it is not a bad thing at all. Different views are wonderful things.
Consent is legally inseparable from mental capacity. Without mental capacity, one cannot (in the eyes of the law) provide informed consent for a medical procedure.
Capacity to consent involves such things as ability to understand information being given to you about a procedure, retain it in your mind, weigh up the pros and cons, and communicate a decision. Certain conditions impair these abilities in adults, e.g. severe cognitive impairment due to learning disability, having a dementia or mental illness where there is loss of touch with reality, or being in a coma, etc. In these instances, if medical treatment including for example a blood test was necessary, a doctor wouldn’t go “oh well they can’t consent, just leave it”. They can legally make what’s known as a Best Interests Decision on behalf of the patient, if they can evidence that the procedure is in the person’s best interests.
Animals clearly do not have capacity to consent because they can’t meet the above criteria of understanding and weighing up and communicating a decision. Therefore, in effect, owners and vets make best interests decisions on their behalf. Thus, no need to even consider the issue of consent when it comes to animals as it doesn’t apply (at least in a legal sense).
As I said, it’s a moot point.
Yeah. It was more Clem’s comment “would you take blood from an adult with learning disabilities without consent”. Yes, you would, if it was in their best interests to do so. "Gotcha, and yes | |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. I think you’ll find they don’t consent to anything that happens at a vets. Appreciated, but even so. Why put them through that without consent. Would you take blood from an adult with learning issues etc without consent? I don't think so. It’s not really comparable, Clem. Other humans who can give consent can donate blood to a human who hasn’t given blood. To have any blood available for animals in need requires those that can (as mentioned up thread, those that aren’t further traumatised by giving as far as can be determined) giving. If there was a way of enabling animals to give consent, of course this would be preferable, but it seems a moot point when they can’t. On another note, having learning difficulties/issues does not mean not being able to give consent. You mean lack of capacity, which is a different threshold. Sounds like virtue signalling to me. Hats off to anyone who manages to do it without broadcasting it.
Well I think kudos to the people who have done it and replied to my direct question asking if anyone had. I think raising awareness and having people be able to ask questions about it is not a bad thing at all. Different views are wonderful things.
Consent is legally inseparable from mental capacity. Without mental capacity, one cannot (in the eyes of the law) provide informed consent for a medical procedure.
Capacity to consent involves such things as ability to understand information being given to you about a procedure, retain it in your mind, weigh up the pros and cons, and communicate a decision. Certain conditions impair these abilities in adults, e.g. severe cognitive impairment due to learning disability, having a dementia or mental illness where there is loss of touch with reality, or being in a coma, etc. In these instances, if medical treatment including for example a blood test was necessary, a doctor wouldn’t go “oh well they can’t consent, just leave it”. They can legally make what’s known as a Best Interests Decision on behalf of the patient, if they can evidence that the procedure is in the person’s best interests.
Animals clearly do not have capacity to consent because they can’t meet the above criteria of understanding and weighing up and communicating a decision. Therefore, in effect, owners and vets make best interests decisions on their behalf. Thus, no need to even consider the issue of consent when it comes to animals as it doesn’t apply (at least in a legal sense).
As I said, it’s a moot point.
Yeah. It was more Clem’s comment “would you take blood from an adult with learning disabilities without consent”. Yes, you would, if it was in their best interests to do so. "But it's not in the donor dog's best interest to give blood. | |||
"No consent. Hmm im not sure. I think you’ll find they don’t consent to anything that happens at a vets. Appreciated, but even so. Why put them through that without consent. Would you take blood from an adult with learning issues etc without consent? I don't think so. It’s not really comparable, Clem. Other humans who can give consent can donate blood to a human who hasn’t given blood. To have any blood available for animals in need requires those that can (as mentioned up thread, those that aren’t further traumatised by giving as far as can be determined) giving. If there was a way of enabling animals to give consent, of course this would be preferable, but it seems a moot point when they can’t. On another note, having learning difficulties/issues does not mean not being able to give consent. You mean lack of capacity, which is a different threshold. Sounds like virtue signalling to me. Hats off to anyone who manages to do it without broadcasting it.
Well I think kudos to the people who have done it and replied to my direct question asking if anyone had. I think raising awareness and having people be able to ask questions about it is not a bad thing at all. Different views are wonderful things.
Consent is legally inseparable from mental capacity. Without mental capacity, one cannot (in the eyes of the law) provide informed consent for a medical procedure.
Capacity to consent involves such things as ability to understand information being given to you about a procedure, retain it in your mind, weigh up the pros and cons, and communicate a decision. Certain conditions impair these abilities in adults, e.g. severe cognitive impairment due to learning disability, having a dementia or mental illness where there is loss of touch with reality, or being in a coma, etc. In these instances, if medical treatment including for example a blood test was necessary, a doctor wouldn’t go “oh well they can’t consent, just leave it”. They can legally make what’s known as a Best Interests Decision on behalf of the patient, if they can evidence that the procedure is in the person’s best interests.
Animals clearly do not have capacity to consent because they can’t meet the above criteria of understanding and weighing up and communicating a decision. Therefore, in effect, owners and vets make best interests decisions on their behalf. Thus, no need to even consider the issue of consent when it comes to animals as it doesn’t apply (at least in a legal sense).
As I said, it’s a moot point.
Yeah. It was more Clem’s comment “would you take blood from an adult with learning disabilities without consent”. Yes, you would, if it was in their best interests to do so.
But it's not in the donor dog's best interest to give blood. "It might not always be, you’re correct. The ethics around it is no doubt a tricky one... | |||
