Animals vs humans

[fifi669]

AIBU to think if faced with choosing a pet over a human (even if a stranger), you should choose the human?

The idea was brought up in another thread and put in life or death situation. Building on fire contains your pet and a stranger. You could only save one, who would it be?

I had a dog, Ralph, I cried my heart out when he died 3 years ago. The only dog I wasn't scared of! But I can't imagine leaving a person to die instead, no matter how my heart would break.

everlong that's already been asked and answered on this thread. Everyone was happy for the person to save their own dog instead of the child, obviously, as that's what they would do.

By everyone I mean those that chose dog over person. And 'happy' may be an exaggeration, understanding is maybe better.

Well yes in a way it is Outraged.

Very few people would choose the old woman because 'she's already lived her life'.

Many would go to the child, although the child is the least injured.

Yes is there a problem with my statement everlong?

but they can't empathise with people devoted to their pets? That's odd.

Sorry I mean I've read studies when this question has been asked, as well as talking from personal experience when others have answered this question.

My pets. Im not ashamed. They are part of my family.

anyone medically trained would go to the elderly person first because they are the least responsive.

That scenario is used to teach first aiders which casualties take precedence in a multi-casualty situation.

It should not be a moral dilemma. Anyone, not seeing to the elderly person because 'they've lived their life' should not be working in health care.

I'd equally kill a human or an animal if they were in pain.

I'd equally kill a human or an animal if they attacked me.

I would save my child over any animal, no questions.
I would save my parents/fiancé/sister over any animal, no questions.
I would save a strangers child or baby over my pet, but it would be difficult.
I would save my pet possibly over a stranger, but would hate myself for it.

That's how it would be for me, anyway.

'I don't believe that for one second.'

That's because you can't understand choosing a dog over a human. Those of us that can could understand another person making the same decision as us.

Oh yes but this was asked to those who don't work in healthcare, not those who do Outraged.

When you are medically trained and in an emergency situation your training kicks in. But if you are a bystander in the next car and have a first aid kit, you'd make your own decisions on what to do. Or even if you didn't have a first aid kit.

We all have emotional reactions to things.

My thoughts on the triage thing would be medical need, so old folk, adult, child. If they'd all been equally injured it would have been the reverse I think.

I agree fifi If they were all injured I would go to the child because they may not be able to withstand as much as a grown adult, they hadn't lived their life yet and they would panic and panic would make the situation worse re blood loss.

It's not easy though. I'd hate to be in any of these situations.

^anyone medically trained would go to the elderly person first because they are the least responsive.

That scenario is used to teach first aiders which casualties take precedence in a multi-casualty situation.

It should not be a moral dilemma. Anyone, not seeing to the elderly person because 'they've lived their life' should not be working in health care.^

That said - not disagreeing with you here btw - they also have to weigh up who is 'too far gone', and who is more likely to be saved.

Agree with your last paragraph 100%

I'd really be angry with the person who had saved their dog. I'd be sickened that they would've chosen their precious Chihuahua over my beautiful little girl.

But then I wouldn't know their situation and years after if I knew that the pet was all they had... I'd still really dislike them, but I'd understand rationally why they made that decision.

Wouldn't stop me secretly hating them though, but we ARE hypocrites. We all are sometimes.

How has this turned into a discussion about the disgust for those saving pets over another person's child??

The scenario was asking about an adult stranger..

I doubt anyone who would choose their pet over a stranger would also say they'd choose their pet over rescuing a child!!

'So you'd be understanding that your child is dead but could have been saved instead of a dog outraged

Honestly??'

I think I would, yes. I don't know for sure how I'd react in that situation, but I know how much I love my dog and how much he means to all of us so I could understand someone else feeling that way.

I have said, for me, any child would trump my dog, it's an adult stranger I'd struggle to prioritise. For me, it would be about saving the helpless and those who don't understand, which is interestingly exactly the opposite of your view 'save those whose life means more to them' i.e. those that can understand.

My beloved animals have never hurt or abused me in the manner that humans have. I would choose them over a stranger any time. My responsibility lies with the creatures I have promised to care for.

That being said in order of rescue, my children, my husband, my animals, random stranger in house.

A child massively changes things.. I took the original post as a person... You don't know them, age sex or anything.. You have never seen them.. And your pet...

Thinking about it more.. There are very few people where I currently live that I would risk my life for at all. Whether my dog was inside or not.

I dont think I have ever seen anyone admit to being a hypocrite before.

Even a adult stranger is someone's child...