Damages for Pets

Richard Cupp (Commentary, June 22) argues against allowing damage lawsuits for emotional distress for the wrongful harm to someone’s pet. Cupp’s “pragmatic” argument is that significant veterinary malpractice damage awards would cause vet bills to rise, resulting in less affordable health care for animals. But the same argument could be applied to suits against MDs. Should we allow malpractice with impunity to keep down costs? Certainly not. Cupp has forgotten the pragmatic purpose of allowing such suits--to encourage responsible standards of medical care.

Cupp’s “moral argument” is that the “placement of pets on the same level as humans by compensating their loss similarly would devalue humanity.” Extending Cupp’s logic, we should repeal centuries-old penal codes that allow prison terms for malicious harm to animals, since such laws treat animals similarly to human victims. But regard for nonhuman life enhances rather than threatens the value of human life.

STEVEN ZAK

Sunland