Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Recent Comments:
Win a copy of Convert for your iPhone or iPod touch {TUAW.com}
Aug 9th 2009 8:55AM Metric all the way.
Why do parents keep "dangerous" dogs around their kids? {ParentDish}
Feb 8th 2007 8:34AM just a couple of extra comments...
someone mentioned cocker spaniels as big sources of biting in her vet hospital... yeah. Because 99% of them have HORRIBLE chronic ear pain and they attack anyone who seems to be planning to touch them anywhere near the ear area!! So of course, in a hospital, they would seem to be big biters.
Also, someone said something about owner responsibility. People absolutely do not want to admit their dog has a problem. A colleague of mine shared a funny story the other day which absolutely highlights this problem. A patient tried to bite her and so of course she reprimanded the dog with a "NO" and a dominating stare. The owner, horrified, jumped in and said "Oh, doctor, he's not trying to bite you. he's just PUSHING YOU AWAY WITH HIS TEETH!"
yeah, right, whatever.
Why do parents keep "dangerous" dogs around their kids? {ParentDish}
Feb 8th 2007 8:30AM A dog is a dog. There is no dog which is 100% safe. Either it is ok to have a dog, or it is not. If you feel it is not ok to EVER have a dog if you have kids, that's one thing. But if you feel it IS ok to have a dog if you have kids, I don't feel it's appropriate to say "you can't have this or that kind of dog," because each dog must be individually judged.
I am a small animal veterinarian. I have a special interest in behavior and spent two extra rotations doing behavioral medicine with one of the world experts in dog and cat behavior. I say this just to explain where I'm coming from.
I have been bitten by patients before. By far hands down the most vicious attack I have *personally* experienced was from a *GOLDEN RETRIEVER*. I have never been hurt by a "pit bull" type of dog (which description spans a number of breeds, most commonly the American Staffordshire Terrier, fwiw). Of course I have seen a number of what I would call "dangerous" pit bull dogs, dogs which I would never allow near kids if I had my way... I have seen far MORE perfectly safe pit bull dogs - by which I mean, the dogs seemed to me as safe as any other dog. But a colleague of mine lost the use of her hand for a year after an attack by a border collie who had also attacked its owner similarly. I have a client who had to put down a seemingly sweet-tempered chocolate labrador retriever because the dog had a tendence to bite anyone under four feet tall. I'm telling you - it is not appropriate to make breed-specific decisions. It is only appropriate to judge the INDIVIDUAL DOG.
I will grant the possibility that you will find more "dangerous" dogs within certain breeds than within other breeds, but I deny STRONGLY that you will find any breed that is ALL BAD or ALL GOOD.
So, again - CASE BY CASE BASIS. Honestly, most of the "pit bull" type dogs I know are sweet as sugar.
Should flashing be a felony? {ParentDish}
Nov 15th 2006 6:51PM I gotta disagree. I mean, yes, being flashed can be scary. Yes, people who flash may go on to more horrible worse behavior. But no, flashing is NOT "dangerous." What is the danger? That you see a naked person? Big deal. That the flasher gets frostbite? Tough cookies for him (or her). I'm just not seeing the danger. That the person witnessing the flashing is offended or terrified? Yeah, ok, but so what? Should hiding behind a bush and jumping out at someone in a dark park and yelling "BOO" also be a felony? Don't think so...
I'm no "friend of flashers" here. I just think it's not felonious activity.
CDC's rabies page for kids {ParentDish}
Sep 21st 2006 4:56PM I don't know where you live. I live in a suburb of Philadelphia, PA. I have personally made a diagnosis of rabies in a housecat this year. I have been involved with several other cases of rabies in people's pets in the past two years. I have seen many cases of rabid wildlife - in particular, in PA, raccoons and bats. OK, I'm a veterinarian, I am more aware than the public - but you better believe I teach my kids and I think everyone else should too. Kudos to the CDC.
Fingerprint scanning at Disney parks angers advocates {ParentDish}
Sep 21st 2006 7:16AM Hmm. I wonder what they will do if someone has no fingers?
Diaper changing in public {ParentDish}
Sep 14th 2006 6:56PM That's just wildly inappropriate. I have three kids, aged 6 years, 3 years, and 19 mos. I have had plenty of inopportune diaper moments! Exposing human fecal material in a restaurant dining room is just beyond inappropriate. My personal methods of handling that situation have included:
-spraying disinfectant on the bathroom floor, cleaning it up, putting down a changing pad on the bathroom floor, and changing the diaper on the bathroom floor that way.
-taking the baby out to the car to change the diaper in the car
-taking the baby out of the restaurant and into another local business which has a changing table
-taking the baby out of the restaurant and changing the diaper on a bench on the sidewalk.
I am not wildly opposed to public diaper changing - but in a restaurant, where people are paying money to eat?? Come on. That's just never going to be acceptable.
Pregnancy centers distributing misleading facts to women {ParentDish}
Aug 15th 2006 3:01PM "One center was so bold as to say that the chance of cancer occurring in a woman after an abortions in nearly 80% than that of a woman with no abortion."
Do you mean to say that the center is claiming the chance of cancer post-abortion is 80% GREATER than that of a woman who never had an abortion? Because the way it is written it sounds like the center claims abortion lowers the risk of cancer by 20%.
Minnesota law could force married couple into celibacy {ParentDish}
Aug 11th 2006 8:44AM She claims she didn't know? She should have her license yanked anyway for being ignorant of the regulations that inform her state board! I can't IMAGINE even thinking it might be ok to claim ignorance of the law before my state board!! That's inane. The onus is on the practicioner to know the rules and to adhere to them. The rule is no intimate relations between practicioner and client. She should never have treated him on a professional basis if she were in an intimate relationship with him, and she should never have started an intimate relationship with him if he were a client. This is not rocket science.
Now, I do think the two year thing is dumb. She should have been reasonably able to, for example, realize she was attracted to him, stop treating him professionally, wait a reasonable amount of time (perhaps six months) and then start dating him. Two years is too long. But it's the rule and she screwed up. Sucks to be her.
Transit customers pretend not to see pregnant women: study {ParentDish}
Jul 20th 2006 4:03PM Not only was I routinely ignored when I was humongously pregnant on the bus - forcing me to find a sympathetic looking person, tap him, and say "excuse me, my balance is really off and when I stand on the bus I tend to fall down a lot, could I have your seat," which only worked part of the time.... but, one time, before I was married, I had to take a bus to an emergency room to have a HUGE BLEEDING LACERATION sewn up, and the bus was full and no one gave me a seat. I stood there and dripped blood slowly from the haphazardly bandaged wound and wondered if I'd pass out soon when I heard a voice calling me. "Miss, miss" he said. I thought "Oh, great, he's gonna give me his seat." But no. "Wouldja stop BLEEDING on me already?" he said! People are jerks.
