to think at an event where lots of people have lost relatives to cancer you mourn the loss of your dog??

[girlsyearapart]

Hi I did a 10k run yesterday for Cancer Research.
People are given a sign to put on their back to write who they are running in memory of.
Many heartbreaking messages about lost Mothers/Fathers/Children/Sisters etc. Lots of people had birth and death dates showing very short lives lost to cancer.
Anyway just about to start the race and look at woman on front of me who had a photo of her dog on her back with its name..
Well I'm a major dog lover but isn't this totally insensitive to others there who had lost relatives??
Only part of me thinking that I'm BU is that the woman was raising money which would go to actual people with cancer.
So what do you lot think?

Because humans are so much more important than animals ... (despite the fact certain humans I know probably aren't worth the sh*t out of a dog's arse!)

Sorry for the toilet language - it's just that it gets my back up, the same way as the woman I mentioned in my original post above. To her, she felt that, despite the fact my parents were humans, they were worth less than her child - to me, those that say that a dog cannot be on a par with a human (regardless of what that dog meant to its owner) are, like LilyBolero said, utterly lacking in empathy and compassion. They are so self-absorbed in the importance of their own (view of) grief that they fail to see that others grieve the same way for different people/animals/issues.

BTW, girlsyearapart, I bawled like a baby when Patrick Swayze passed away. When my parents were having major issues, I escaped it all by watching Dirty Dancing and Ghost over and over again at a friend's house to escape the crap atmosphere in my home. I forever associated those movies and their main characters (Patrick especially) with helping me get through what was a pretty tough period. Would I have any qualms about having a picture of Patrick Swayze on my back if doing a charity cancer run? Nope. In fact, thanks for the idea. I may do that next year

Asana: "utterly lacking in empathy and compassion", huh? How interesting. You're saying that for a mammal to prize its own species over another is 'utterly lacking in empathy and compassion'? Would you say the same over a dog that cared more for its own offspring to that of a cat it shared its home with? "utterly lacking in empathy and compassion"?

Bizarre.

'They are so self-absorbed in the importance of their own (view of) grief that they fail to see that others grieve the same way for different people/animals/issues.
'

That'swhat grief does though in its early satges isn't it?

And we don't know at what satge of teh process someone is running.

Two things appear to me:

1. prizing humans above dogs does not equate to not likeing or caring about dogs- seee my thread in chat last night about the injued puppy we cared for overnight!

1. You're allowed to be a bit screwed up at best when you've lost someone, and ecpecting somewone who ahs recently lost a child to understand you you might equate that through reasoning with the loss os your dog is too much. I knowmy Uncle wouldn't have liked it; he ended p in a Psych unit when my cousin died (30 years ago now) and I am sure there are many who end up in the same state.

Message deleted

MrsMerryHenry, belittling someone else's grief is not, IMO, the act of someone who is empathetic or compassionate. It is such a PERSONAL thing that no one has the right to judge its importance to one person or the other. Nothing bizarre about it. It's not about species. At the end of the day, it boils down to saying that MY loss is greater than YOUR loss, regardless of species. Like I said, people react to loss differently. X's loss of her dog may have affected her as much as Y's loss of her mum, regardless of what you or anyone else might deign to think.

That is all.

Maybe the dog was the pet of a loved one who had died. If dogs were not allowed to run, maybe it was a way of Fido earning sponsorship and appointing a human?

It's not offensive for someone who loved their pet to run for that pet, no. Maybe the dog was her only companion. It was not a slug she found in her kitchen, dogs are loving and loyal and that is a relationship IMO

Asana, were you quoting someone in another post, then, when you said "Because humans are so much more important than animals ..."? If so, perhaps there was a context in that post which wasn't clear. If not, it looks like you're being extremely presumptuous.

If you believe that humans come first and animals second, it does not automatically follow that you will belittle someone's grief. If you read my first post on this thread you'd see that I (as a humans-first person) try to understand people who have a close bond with their animals, but that I just don't get it. Does that sound like I would be belittling someone's grief?

And, for your information, it is about species. Just as, given the choice of saving just one child from a burning house, most or all of us would choose our own child over somebody else's, so we are also programmed as mammals to prefer our own species over another. That doesn't mean people aren't capable of loving other species, or even that some people won't choose animals over people (and yes, I've met people who profess this); it just means that we have an inbuilt preference for our own.

I get that there isn't a hierarchy in relation to people - in fact I can well believe that the grief of infertility, which is in effect for a person who doesn't even exist, must be truly one of the most appalling things we as humans must face.

I get that people can have an incredibly close and deep relationship to animals - in fact the pain of losing dogs was one of the reasons my dad chose some years ago never to have another.

But when you accept a dog or cat or whatever into your home, you accept that it's very likely to die before you. That IMO is part of the joy and sadness of the relationship with a pet - it's not that a pet is replaceable as such.

I can only speak of the loss of my own son, but one of the worst feelings that you have to cope with is that your child's death is out of the natural order of things. Put simply, I didn't expect to outlive my son.

What I don't understand is that when someone makes a remark to me that losing her cat was like the death of my son, that in being actually very very upset by that remark I'm lacking compassion. I have never compared my grief to anyone else's - and FWIW I don't give a rat's what picture someone puts on her back when she's running for charity - but really, honestly, in that situation, are you seriously saying that her remark was not insensitive? Because to me, whatever her thoughts at the time, it was.

One other thing I want to come back to - IME those who've suffered the most traumatic losses tend to be those who are MORE compassionate. I've met many bereaved parents, and sons and daughters, and spouses and partners, through my voluntary work as a result of my son's death. Many of them have gone on to help others through their loss.

I'm going to leave this thread now because I think for me it's gone past the stage of being a healthy discussion. I wish any of you that are grieving the best in the way of a recovery.

For some reason I've heard of a few instances where death of pets have been compared to losing a child. These people must be very dense to think, let alone say such a thing to a grieving parent

But this post isn't about preference between one or the other. It is about the OP saying that to grieve for your dog who died of cancer should not have been done at an event where other people are grieving for their relatives/friends etc who died of cancer. Grief is a perception, solely that of the person it affects. It is not, cannot be and should not be a comparative. The fact that you may not understand their grief is fair enough - again, it is a personal thing. However, in doing so, you are admitting to not being able to empathise with them, hence me agreeing with LilyBolero's post about a lack of empathy shown. In addition, those who have posted to say that the death of an animal is not comparable in any way to the death of a human, regardless of what that animal may have meant to its owner, is a view one can hardly say is compassionate.

The bit where I said "Because humans are so much more important than animals" was not a quote but, rather, was a dig at those (X, Y and Z) who seem to think that the latter can never be that important to their owners compared to their (i.e. X, Y and Z's) own relatives. Again, grief is personal and one cannot and should not attempt to measure another person's grief. To attempt to do so and then go on to dismiss it or believe that such grief should be hidden/is not worthy of being shown seems a rather horrid thing to do IMO if, like the OP, one has no idea what a pet may have meant to someone.

It just takes me back to losing my mother when people were shocked at the fact that I didn't cry. Whispers all around of, "God, she really couldn't care less! You should have seen how distraught she was when her dog died! If it was my mother, I'd have been much more devastated than if I lost a pet!" The love I had for my pet and for my parent were two different things and I expressed my grief differently in both cases, simple as. Frankly, if I cared more about my pet, what business was it of theirs? The point of the matter is they were not able to get in my head and understand how each loss felt to me and how I chose to cope with it. It just makes me incensed when people attempt to pigeonhole grief which, by its very nature, cannot be done.

Anyway, rant over. That's how I feel about the matter.

No one is doing that Asana but good grief surely you can see that ADVERTISING (on a T Shirt) your grief for a PET at an event where some people have lost children is insensitive and self centered in the extreme.

Regardless of how you feel about the PET it is inconsiderate to do that. Its not that I can't see people are very very upset about a pets death, but rather it is harder for others to immediately accept that grief, as it is AN OVERREACTION in many cases, and does not often have the same sort of emotional impact that the loss of a human loved one.

So, rostbeef, would you say that advertising on a t-shirt my grief for my mother at an event where some people have lost children is insensitive and self-centred if some of those people believe that their loss is more important than mine? The two are not comparable, so how dare someone presume to tell me that my grief is not as important as theirs?

The woman I referred to in my original post clearly thought so and thought I was being inconsiderate, insensitive and self-centred mentioning the loss of my parents as she stated to me very clearly that the loss of a child would ALWAYS surpass the loss of any other relative/person/friend. That's precisely the same thing that is being projected on to the woman referred to in the original post, regardless of whether she had lost a dog, cat or human relative! To call it an overreaction simply cements what I quoted from LilyBolero - it shows an overwhelming lack of empathy and compassion.

Why should I (or anyone else) make a personal grief acceptable to others?

So, rostbeef, would you say that advertising on a t-shirt my grief for my mother at an event where some people have lost children is insensitive and self-centred if some of those people believe that their loss is more important than mine? The two are not comparable, so how dare someone presume to tell me that my grief is not as important as theirs?

NO- but if you had a picture of your dog or any other NON HUMAN then I would yes. Get a grip.

Asana you have clearly had a bad experience with one insenstive bereaved parent but you are missing the point of this thread and my post about cards.

Who said that losing one human loved one is worse than losing another? Who would be offended if a sorry you lost your mother card was placed next to a sorry you lost your child card? Why the hell would I not want that? What reason on earth would I have to be offended by that? I do not understand your comparision.

I wouldnt mind either if the sorry you have lost your budgie cards were kept next to the sorry you have lost your dog cards either.

That someone denied that your grief was real and important is a terrible thing. If you thought it horrible that someone told you that losing your mother was not as bad as losing a child, how do you think it feels to be told that losing a child is not as bad as losing a pet?

Do you also think that you are the only one to be judged not grieving 'properly'? I cant tell you the amount of times I have had comments made about the way I dealt with my DD's death. Apparently bereaved parents are not supposed to wear makeup or go shopping. Because if 'that were me, i would just die, I couldnt go on, why is she doing that'

It is sad when a pet dies but it does not have the same implications as losing a human loved one. There are no dependents left behind, the hopes and plans for the future are not dashed e.g. the loss of future children or grandchildren. Animals have a naturally much shorter lifespan than their human owners therefore it is too be expected that your dog will die long before you do. This is not the same for a partner or child. If a dog dies the family is not plunged into economic crisis, they do not tend to lose their home, families do not tend to fracture either.

Of course people are allowed to grieve for their pets. I was an RSPCA veterinary nurse so know how important pets are. I have lost wonderful animals that meant an awful lot to me. I got over it very quickly and think of them fondly. They were also put out of their suffering quickly and painlessly. That is not an option open when a loved one is ill so the memories of awful suffering are not so prevalent when you lose a pet, even to cancer.

Denying that the loss of a pet is on a par with the loss of a human is not denying that is is sad or has an impact. Its not saying pets are not important or loved.

thanks to all those who understood the point of the thread and that i was not in any way being sarky or snarky or whatver.

Anyway I'm off to put the kids to bed then go for a run with my dog..

The point is though, that someone wearing a picture of their dog who may have died of cancer when running to raise money for a cancer charity doesn't diminish in any way the grief or importance felt by other runners. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most people wouldn't notice. It's a personal thing.

And anyone who says 'someone who is doing a run for charity isn't allowed to remember their dog, who they may have loved very much' is being fascist and cruel imo.

What if someone put Jade on their back? Is that being insensitive because it is someone they didn't know, and some people will be remembering very close relatives? Or is it insensitive to put the name of someone who has recovered, because it may make people feel bad?

The names aren't there for the benefit of the other runners - they are there as a tangible and personal 'this is who I am running for.'

People shouldn't underestimate the relationships people can have with animals - for example a guide dog is not only a pet, but a life-saver and companion. For others they can literally be the only living soul they see in a day. And even if they are 'only a pet' I don't see how someone running with the memory of their beloved pet diminishes anyone else's experience, unless they are petty and small minded, in a 'your relationship wasn't important enough to acknowledge, certainly compared to MINE'. Which sucks.

'Who said that losing one human loved one is worse than losing another? Who would be offended if a sorry you lost your mother card was placed next to a sorry you lost your child card? Why the hell would I not want that? What reason on earth would I have to be offended by that? I do not understand your comparision.'

My comparison is that, regardless of who or what a person has lost, your thinking that one person's loss of a pet is not on a par with another's loss of a relative is still a judgment that one person's grief is worth more than the other.

'Denying that the loss of a pet is on a par with the loss of a human is not denying that is is sad or has an impact. Its not saying pets are not important or loved.'

What it is saying is that pets are not as important or loved as humans. That may be the case to some but it is very different for others, and why should they be judged for expressing their grief how and when they choose?

Thanks LB for putting down what I've been thinking and meant so clearly and succintly.

OK, I have been mulling this and what I think I was trying to say is that clearly there is a subjective hierachy in grief. My uncle (family feud, not seen him for a few years before his diagnosis, family made up after he became ill) died of cancer a couple of years ago. He suffered terribly and it was horribly sad.

I have had 2 miscarriages in six months and I was devastated. For me that was worse. However, I don't think therefore that anyone who finds losing an uncle more upsetting than a MC is wrong.

There is no objective hierachy.

OK, I have been mulling this and what I think I was trying to say is that clearly there is a subjective hierachy in grief. My uncle (family feud, not seen him for a few years before his diagnosis, family made up after he became ill) died of cancer a couple of years ago. He suffered terribly and it was horribly sad.

I have had 2 miscarriages in six months and I was devastated. For me that was worse. However, I don't think therefore that anyone who finds losing an uncle more upsetting than a MC is wrong.

There is no objective hierachy.

I think fascist is a bit strong! But you seem to agree Adana. Anyway - nuff said on the matter I reckon! all valid opinions.

Asana not Adana - sorry.

Agree with Asana, LilyBolero, and earlier, Northerlurker and particularly Bodeniites, who said, "love is love in my opinion". Exactly.

I don't like dogs and this probably would have grated on me if I was there. It drives me mad when people treat a dog as a person.

But the dog obviously meant a lot to that lady, it was clearly significant enough for her to do a run and raise money for a good cause. So good on her. As long as she wasn't going on about it to people who had lost children/mothers etc. The dog probably gave her the motivation to keep running.

Well done to you both.

Fascist = dictatorial = inclined to dictate (in this case, how people ought to feel). It does not always refer to the political movement, y'know. On that note, I'm taking myself off to bed.