At a cost of £15 million and 10 years in the planning, you’d be forgiven for thinking that this new facility would be an appealing healthcare option if you had the inclination and the wherewithal to go private. But you’d only be welcome if you were a cat, a dog or a gerbil – any type of small animal, in fact. Definitely no humans, though.
The Small Animal Hospital, on the site of Glasgow University’s Vet School in Bearsden, East Dunbartonshire, opened its doors last week to much fanfare. The facility will host 11,000 visits from across the UK and improve the teaching of 600 veterinary students. With a sloping grass roof – presumably for back-up if the hamsters run out of nosh – and a central glass atrium providing natural light, the hospital leads the way in design as well as science. To say that this facility has pedigree would be something of an understatement.
But there have been detractors. Humans, being inherently gifted in the power of speech, have tongue-wagged where our furry friends can only tail-wag and drool. Some say our pets don’t deserve such an opportunity for health and wellbeing. Humans have to wait months for a scan, whereas Felix can get a cat scan at the drop of Dr Seuss’s hat. How unfair is that?
Well, Felix perhaps has a devoted owner willing to cough up for cat flu, or at least pay the premiums for decent pet insurance. You see, there’s no NHS for animals. The People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals, supported by charitable donations, does an extremely important job in providing treatment and help for pet-owners who can’t afford expensive vet bills or insurance, ensuring that having a four-legged friend is not exclusive to the better off. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals works tirelessly to help pets that are down on their luck become healthy and have a chance of a good home, as does the Dogs Trust.
Humans, on the other hand, are rather used to having the NHS a mere dog’s whistle away. Brilliant – but no underwater treadmill. I fear treatment-envy is creeping in. It is, however, plain barking to suggest that patients at the new animal hospital are being treated at the expense of humans and that money is being diverted from the NHS.
Professor Stuart Reid, dean of the faculty of veterinary medicine, acknowledged that the services on offer at the new hospital might seem decadent to non-animal lovers, but added that a society can be judged by how well it treats its animals. The £5m in donations raised for the new hospital shows that compassion still warms the public heart.
Reid said: “There is no NHS for animals and pet-owners pay for this level of treatment because they care for their animals. I can understand that it may seem over-the-top for someone who is not interested in animals but we don’t distinguish between humans and animals; they are all living beings.”
It’s actually a little more fundamental than that. If we choose to have a pet, then that animal is our responsibility. It’s the human that’s in control. That’s why our poor, dumb friends – if only they could speak – are at our mercy. It leaves them open to cruelty of unspeakable degrees. But it also means – one would hope in the majority of cases – that owners will take it upon themselves to see that their needs are met, no matter the cost.
Society accepts that some people choose to spend thousands on flash cars, insuring them at hefty premiums, since it makes them feel good. Why criticise a dog-owner for spending a fortune on a faithful friend?
The new animal hospital, however, has more far-reaching implications than healing sick pets. The training and research – much of which helps in the understanding and treatment of human diseases and conditions – will be of a calibre to lead the world.
Reid said: “I was flying back to Scotland from London and I saw the Small Animal Hospital from the window of the plane; it looked like a jewel shining out of Bearsden.”
Surely it should be a source of pride that such a jewel gleams in a Scottish crown.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article