Italian woman granted sick pay for time off to look after her ill dog

Rome academic wins landmark court case where she argued that two days taken as leave to care for dog should be allowable

An Italian woman has won her battle to be granted sick pay for days she took off to look after her poorly puppy, in a first for the pet-loving country.

The woman, a Rome academic, won her instance with the help of lawyers from the Italian Anti-Vivisection League( LAV ), one of the biggest animal rights groups in Europe, the organisation said.

A judge accepted the lawyers’ example that her university should count her two days off under an allowance for absences related to” serious or household personal reasons “.

Their argument was underpinned by a provision in Italy’s penal code that provides for people who abandon an animal to” grave suffering” to be jailed for a year and fined up to EUR1 0,000.

” It is a significant step forward that recognised that animals that are not maintain for financial gain or their working ability are effectively members of the family ,” said LAV president Gianluca Felicetti.

Make sure to visit:

National emergency? Belgians respond to terror raids with cats

An official request for citizens to avoid tweeting anything that could inform terrorists what is going on resulted in a national outbreak of pet pics

When, on Sunday evening, Belgian police asked citizens not to tweet about the armed operations that were being carried out around the country, anyone could have been excused for reacting with fear.

Brussels in lockdown for a third day

Belgian forces searching for suspects in the aftermath of the Paris attacks told citizens to stay indoors and not go near their windows for safety reasons.

They also appealed for social media silence about any police action users might witness presumably to keep the suspects in the dark.

A tense time, no doubt. But Belgium reacted how else? with cats.

Instead of speculation about the sort of threat police might be reacting to, many people used the #BrusselsLockdown hashtag to post pictures of their pets.

Seimen Burum (@SeimenBurum) November 22, 2015

Don’t share info on situation #BrusselsLockdown that may help suspects. Confuse them with #cat pics @lopcute

Lore De Witte (@loredewitte) November 22, 2015

“I got this” #BrusselsLockdown

Delphine Jory (@Ladyblogue) November 22, 2015

#BrusselsLockdown en live.

anna-rose phipps (@lopcute) November 22, 2015

#BrusselsLockdown CodeNameSpinner

Amit Bhat (@amitbhatr) November 22, 2015

Don’t worry super cat is here #BrusselsLockdown

TineEeckhout (@TineEeckhout) November 22, 2015

May the force be with us. #BrusselsLockdown

JaneAustenMaMaschio (@ExTimUpperClass) November 22, 2015

#relax, Mes amis #BrusselsLockdown

melissa jacobs (@deathrep) November 22, 2015

#BrusselsLockdown You ROCK Belgian people! Showing the world how to deal with terrorism! Love from #NativeAmerica !

And after the all-clear was announced by officials with the news of arrests there was a sigh of relief and a message of gratitude.

CrisisCenter Belgium (@CrisiscenterBE) November 22, 2015

Thanks to the media and citizens for their silence online as asked during the juridicial intervention tonight #BrusselsLockdown

Belgian police later thanked the cats for their help.

Police Fdrale (@PolFed_presse) November 23, 2015

Pour les chats qui nous ont aid hier soir… Servez-vous! #BrusselsLockdown

Make sure to visit:

Should we stop keeping pets? Why more and more ethicists say yes

Ninety per cent of Britons think of their pet as part of the family 16% even included them on the last census. But recent research into animals emotional lives has cast doubt on the ethics of petkeeping

It was a Tupperware tub of live baby rats that stimulated Dr Jessica Pierce start to question the idea of pet ownership. She was at her local branch of PetSmart, a pet store chain in the US, buying crickets for her daughters gecko. The newborn rats, creaking in their plastic container, were brought in by a man she believed was offering to sell them to the store as pets or as food for the resident snakes. She didnt ask. But Pierce, a bioethicist, was troubled.

Rats have a sense of empathy and there has been a lot of research on what happens when you take newborns away from a mom rat not surprisingly, they experience profound distress, she says. It was a slap in the face how can we do this to animals?

Pierce went on to write Run, Spot, Run, which outlines the suit against pet ownership, in 2015. From the animals that become dog and cat food and the puppy farms churning out increasingly unhealthy purebred canines, to the goldfish sold by the purse and the crickets by the box, pet ownership is problematic because it denies animals the interests of self-determination. Ultimately, we bring them into our lives because we want them, then we dictate what they feed, where they live, how they behave, how they look, even whether they get to keep their sex organs.

Treating animals as commodities isnt new or shocking; humans have been meat-eaters and animal-skin-wearers for millennia. However, this is at odds with how we say we feel about our pets. The British pet industry is worth about 10.6 bn; Americans expended more than $66 bn( 50 bn) on their pets in 2016. A survey earlier this year found that many British pet proprietors love their pet more than they love their partner( 12% ), their children( 9 %) or their best friend( 24% ). According to another study, 90% of pet-owning Britons think of their pet as a member of their family, with 16% listing their animals in the 2011 census.

In the US, 1.5 m shelter animals are euthanised each year. Photo: Getty Images/ iStockphoto

It is morally problematic, because more people are thinking of pets as people They consider them part of their family, they think of them as their best friend, they wouldnt sell them for a million dollars, says Dr Hal Herzog, a professor of psychology at Western Carolina University and one of the founders of the budding field of anthrozoology, which analyse human-animal relations. At the same hour, research is disclosing that the emotional lives of animals, even relatively simple animals such as goldfish, are far more complex and rich than we once guessed( puppies are people, too, according to a 2013 New York Times remark piece by the neuroscientist Gregory Berns ). The logical consequence is that the more we attribute them with these characteristics, the less right we have to control every single facet of “peoples lives”, says Herzog.

Does this mean that, in 50 years or 100 years, we wont have pets? Institutions that exploit animals, such as the circus, are shutting down animal rights activists claimed a significant victory this year with the closure of Ringling Bros circus and there are calls to end, or at the least rethink, zoos. Meanwhile, the number of Britons who profess to be vegan is on the rise, skyrocketing 350% between 2006 and 2016.

Widespread petkeeping is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 19 th century, most animals owned by households were working animals that lived alongside humans and were regarded unsentimentally. In 1698, for example, a Dorset farmer are available in his diary: My old dog Quon was killed and cooked for his grease, which yielded 11 lb. However, in the 19 th and 20 th centuries, animals began to feature less in our increasingly urban environments and, as disposable income grew, pets became more desirable. Even as people began to dote on their pets, though, animal life was not attributed any intrinsic value. In Run, Spot, Run, Pierce reports that, in 1877, the towns of New York rounded up 762 stray dogs and drowned them in the East River, jostle them into iron crates and lifting the crates by crane into the water. Veterinarian turned philosopher Bernard Rollin recalls pet owners in the 1960 s putting their dog to sleep before going on holiday, reasoning that it was cheaper to get a new puppy when they returned than to board the one they had.

Nine per cent of British pet owneds love their animal more than their children. Photograph: Getty Images/ iStockphoto

More recently, however, several countries have moved to change the legal status of animals. In 2015, the governments of Canada and New Zealand recognised animals as sentient beings, effectively proclaiming them no longer property( how this squares with New Zealands recent war on possums is unclear ). While pets remain property in the UK, the Animal Welfare Act of 2006 stipulates that pet owners must provide a basic level of care for their animals. Pets are also property in the US, but 32 countries, as well as Puerto Rico and Washington DC , now include provisions for pets under domestic violence protection orders. In 2001, Rhode Island changed its legislation to describe pet owners as protectors, a move that some animal rights proponents lauded( and others criticised for being nothing more than a change in name ).

Before we congratulate ourselves on how far we have come, consider that 1. 5m shelter animals including 670,000 dogs and 860,000 cats are euthanised each year in the US. The number of stray dogs euthanised annually in the UK is far lower 3, 463 but the RSCPA tells investigations into animal brutality cases increased 5% year on year in 2016, to 400 calls a day.

Can I stick my puppy in a car and take him to the veterinarian and say: I dont want him any more, kill him, or take him to a city shelter and say: I cant keep him any more, I hope you can find a home for him, good luck? tells Gary Francione, a prof at Rutgers Law School in New Jersey and an animal rights proponent. If you are able to do that, if you still have the right to do that, then they are still property.

Crucially, our animals cant tell us whether they are happy being pets. There is an illusion now that pets have more voice than in the past but it is maybe more that we are putting words into their mouth, Pierce says, pointing to the abundance of pets on social media plastered with witty projections written by their parents. Maybe we are humanising them in a way that actually builds them invisible.

If you accept the argument that pet ownership is morally questionable, how do you put the brakes on such a vast industry? While he was writing his 2010 volume, Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, Herzog was analyse the motivations of animal rights activists and whether it was emotion or intellect that pushed them towards activism. One of the subjects, Herzog tells, was very, very logical. After he had become a vegan, shunned leather shoes and convinced his girlfriend to run vegan, he considered his pet cockatiel. I recollect; he looked up wistfully. He said he got the bird, took it outside, let it loose and it flew up, Herzog recollects. He said: I knew she wouldnt survive, that she likely starved. I guess I was doing it more for myself than for her.

Although Pierce and Francione agree that pet ownership is wrong, both of them have pets: Pierce has two dogs and a cat; Francione has six rescue dogs, whom he considers refugees. For now, the argument over whether we should own animals is largely theoretical: we do have pets and devoting them up might cause more damage than good. Moreover, as Francione suggests, caring for pets seems to many people to be the one area where we can actually do right by animals; persuading people of the opposite is a hard sell.

Tim Wass, the chair of the Pet Charity, an animal welfare consultant and a former chief officer at the RSPCA, concurs. It has already been decided by marketplace forces-out and human nature current realities is people have pets in the millions. The question is: how can we help them care for them correctly and properly?

If the short history of pet ownership tells us anything, it is that our attitude towards animals is prone to change. You see these rises and autumns in our relationships with pets, says Herzog. In the long haul, I think petkeeping might fall out of fashion; I think it is possible that robots will take their place, or perhaps pet owning will be for small numbers of people. Cultural tendencies come and go. The more we think of pets as people, the less ethical it is to keep them.

Make sure to visit:

Vetted raises $3.3M to treat your pet at home

Whats worse than going to the doctor? Taking your pet to the doctor.

Not only is it a major hassle to actually transport your puppy or cat to the vet, but you usually end up paying route too much for way too little time spent with the actual veterinarian.

Vetted wants to change this. The startup offer on-demand veterinary services to your house for a flat $99 fee. To help achieve this, theyve raised $3.3 million in seed fund fromFoundation Capital, with Amplify LA, Sterling.VC and ReimaginedVentures also participating.

The viability of Vetted rests on the practicality of performing veterinary services on your living room floor. ButAli Shahid, co-founder and COO of Vetted, says that 89 percentage of questions related to veterinarian visits can be treated at home including skin, ear, eye and gastrointestinal issues.If your pet has a major issue that requires a procedure done in a sterile and specialized environment, Vetted will direct you to a local brick-and-mortar veterinarian that theyve vetted( pun intended ?)

So while a Vetted veterinarian wont be able to treat all issues, they probably can treat a lot more issues than you think without having you trek into an office. They also explained that vet techs call the owner after each appointment is scheduled to discuss symptoms over the phone, and determine if the questions can be treated at home before they even arrive.

Included in the $99 fee is an exam, Q& A, nail clippings and ear cleanings( which most vets charge extra for) and a follow-up video or telephone call. Any additional services like inoculations or prescriptions are also provided at 25 -4 0 percent cheaper than brick-and-mortar veterinarians. Unlike some on-demand companies that are opaque about their pricing and monetization strategy, Vetted is pretty up-front about it. These cost savings essentially come from not having to pay the overhead costs like rent and maintenance associated with a physical location.

Other companies are also working in this space Treat, based in San Francisco, also offers $99 visits, as well as the option to chat online with a vet before they come visit. PawSquad is an U.K.-based startup doing the same thing overseas. But the market is huge calculates tell Americans expend around $60 billion a year on their pets so theres definitely room for multiple players, especially if theyre currently all tackling different regions.

Right now Vetted is just live in West Los Angeles which helps give it a response time of less than 90 minutes as long as they have a veterinarian available. Theyll slowly expand throughout Los Angeles and Orange County, with this new funding being used primarily for broader western coast expansion.

Make sure to visit: