5 Comments

1. PLW  •  Jul 22, 2008 @10:37 am
   

   When I was in the Peace Corps, they told us that we could eat just about anything we wanted, except monkey. They even handed out these big stickers that said “Monkey is Taboo.” I think that, epidemiologically, they are just a little too close to home.

2. on Call 24/7  •  Jul 23, 2008 @7:33 am
   

   As a person who has a service animal (ie dog) I can sympathize with Ms. Rose. Being that there are helping hands that trains service monkeys. (they mainly train these monkeys for people in wheelchairs so she could have a service monkey at this time. If she falls under the ADA definitions only. The first part she does as a person with panic attacks if these attacks basically cripples her per say. The other part would be if the animal is a service animal. Under the ADA a Service animal at this point in time is any animal that is individually trained to perform tasks to benefit a person with a disability.

   In the new ADA Restoration (2009) There are many changes. Well not really changes per say but more clarifications. 1. Exotic animal will not be service animals even if one trains them. Therefore monkeys will be out. 2. Emotional Support Animals are also not Service animals in which these animals are not trained for specific tasks. These animals are mainly therapeutic animals though under the FHA and the DOT they have rights but not under the ADA. 2. It’s being more clarified that people with invisible disabilities such as those with chronic pain, Major Depressive Disorders, Bipolar Disorders, etc. are included as people with disabilities and their Psychiatric Animals are trained as Service animals. Even though it was there it was up to interpretation.

   As to your question: But do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?

   No I do not because most people with service animals keep their animals well groomed, bathed, cleaned and on a special nutritional diet. I have taken my service dog into restaurants, grocery stores and hospitals. And many professional people always have comments as to they wish children and some adults were well groomed and well behaved. (their quotes). I personally would rather be sitting with several service dog teams in a restaurant which many people wouldn’t even notice then to sit beside a family with children throwing food or playing in the salad bar. So which is more filthier? Service dogs or many hands in the soup per say?

3. Patrick  •  Jul 23, 2008 @2:29 pm
   

   24/7, it’s per se.

   The filthy animal reference, as applied to dogs, is a paraphrase of a famous quote from the film, “Pulp Fiction.” The film was popular once, back when I was young or perhaps in the neolithic era.

   I have no quarrel with service animals per se, such as dogs. I do question social anxiety disorder as a disability, however, or at least view it with skepticism in the case of litigation (the medical term is “secondary gain”) and do wonder why Ms. Rose requires a monkey, rather than a golden retriever, which has more social acceptance and isn’t nearly as dangerous, from an epidemiological or physical perspective, as a macaque.

   Monkeys, while very intelligent, are not and cannot be domesticated in the sense that dogs are, as they’ve not been bred to accept and trust humans. Indeed, the monkey’s very intelligence, as an animal that will always be, to some extent, wild, makes it more dangerous to third parties than all but the strongest and most vicious dogs.

   Go to the linked story and check out the choppers on Richard. While I’d have no problem with a seeing-eye dog, I wouldn’t allow Ms. Rose to enter my office with Richard, though I have some small inkling of the perils of the ADA.

   I’d much rather be sued, no matter the cost, than allow a dangerous monkey to enter my office, jeopardizing my staff, my clients, and me.

4. on Call 24/7  •  Jul 23, 2008 @5:10 pm
   

   Oh I understand now where you were coming from with the quote. Sorry when I hear that phrase it is usually associated with people not wanting service animals in their stores. So they come up with the animals being filthy, unruly, etc. which is 99% non factual.

   I understand your skepticism about people with such disorders. One of the reasons IMO is the fact that many people feel if you cannot see a disability then the person just cannot be a person living with a disability. Many invisible disabilities get hit mostly with being discriminated against. Then you got some doctors that just labels everything as this or that. (ie autism) Though this is a real mental disorder not every child or person is diagnosed correctly because of some symptoms that are just similar.

   Getting back to people with panic attacks these are quite real those with severe attacks as some individuals carry a risk of losing consciousness due to hyperventilation. Some individuals will have such attacks as in not touching clothes especially dirty cloths or end up freezing like those whom has Parkinson disease. Though I am no doctor nor an expert in these matters I have seem people with these mental disorders become frozen for a better lack of wording. This under the ADA rules and regulations makes such a person have a qualified disability because it limits them to a majour activity (ie walking, breathing, etc).

   Although I don’t know a great deal about monkeys I am one person that really doesn’t believe in domesticating exotic animals. In other words taking these animals out of their own habitats and expect them to behave and be trained to the extraordinary. (ie service animals). Although I have seen mini horses which are not as big as what people think and cats whom can alert to breathing issues. These animals are not really out of their environment. Whereas Monkeys, ferrets, snakes and all exotic animals are.

   Not long ago on 20/20 they showed such monkeys in which helping hands uses, that they (the monkeys) have turned and attacked their owners. This is not just within 1 to 2 years they could turn on you after 20 years or so without any reasoning. IMO I believe that is one of the reasonings that the ADA has excluded exotic animals as being service animals and I agree with this factour. Because people are not using common sense when it comes to animals as they are not robots. They have a brain and think which may not be what we would like. Also snakes are used though for therapeutic animals people think they have the right to bring a snake into a place of business under the service animal clause, however that would not be a reasonable accommodations and place of business could indeed refuse such. (ie having a real panic attack with other clients). Ferrets although they may alert to people having seizures due to the chemical dis balance they end up being out of their environment due to the fact they need at least 12 to 18 hours of sleep time. These are just examples of not understanding what these animals real needs are.

   As for Ms. Rose due to the fact that this is a mental disorder I would think that a change in chemical balance may cause a monkey to turn wild. Like I said people not really understanding the species trigger behaviours, environments or other needs.

   I will check it out more thanks. Though one thing I have seen many businesses use the same example as allowing seeing eye dogs though it’s really guide dogs or dog guides as seeing eye is an organization. However they will not allow other types of service dogs such as medical alert / respond dogs, cats, hearing dogs or mobility dogs. Some people will not leave other types of legit service animals in such as a mini horse which has been around for a very long time. These are animals that does not change the place of business nor cause a majour disruption. Monkeys well like I said they are exotic animals and I never really trusted them as nobody have studied long term behaviours out of their real environment except in places like zoos.

5. Patrick  •  Sep 3, 2008 @11:30 am
   

   To: Disgusted and saddened,

   I elected, in my function as moderator here, not to let your comment through, not because I don’t agree with some of your observations, but because certain statements you made regarding Ms. Rose struck me as ever so slightly having the potential to be characterized as defamatory if they turn out to be untrue. Concern for myself does not factor at all in making this decision, but rather concern for you, who should more be temperate in making statements concerning a woman who has already demonstrated herself to be litigious. None of this is to say that what you wrote in your comment makes me think any more, or less, of Ms. Rose.

   Patrick

Leave a Reply