Date: 2009-01-21 03:59 pm (UTC)
ext_189645: (Default)
I think it's absurd when worded as you suggested, as a blanket prohibition. There are very few people who live so closely with animals that they are never away from them, so serious reactions tend to be very easy to spot.

I have lots of pets, and am keener than most on taking them everywhere I go, but even I have significant periods when I am not around animals. There are people who holiday with their pets, sleep with their pets, and never leave them, but those people are very rare.

The question : do you have pets, and is this still a problem when you aren't around them? is valid, but a blanket ruling on all species without evidence seems to me daft when there are so many other possible triggers which are much harder to spot.

Plus, a blanket ruling on furry species is almost as silly as your 'avoid chemicals' ludicrous instruction : most people who react, react to dander or saliva, not fur, and there is no particular reason to suppose that someone who gets a rash from cat saliva will have breathing problems when he meets a rat, for example.

There are huge health benefits to pet ownership, and many people who have mild sensitivities to animals find that these benefits outway the problems anyway. Often, if there are problems, they can be kept happily in order with management and antihistamines.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

wellinghall: (Default)
wellinghall

December 2023

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 30th, 2025 02:18 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios