Veterinarian Dr. John Hamer, a founding member of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), says that veterinarians use the term ‘animal’ because they’re used to calling animals by their animal names.
“They’re more comfortable using the animal-sounding name,” Hamer said in an interview with The Daily Beast.
“So I think that the way they describe their animals, they think they’re animal, they use that. “
“I don’ think that’s a bad thing.””
Hamer, who founded the AVMA in 1955, says that while it’s important for veterinarians to use the animal name, it’s not the only way to describe animals. “
I don’ think that’s a bad thing.”
Hamer, who founded the AVMA in 1955, says that while it’s important for veterinarians to use the animal name, it’s not the only way to describe animals.
“The term ‘animal’ is very widely used by physicians, and also by animal welfare organizations,” he said.
“So for instance, in the United Kingdom, you may see a vet or a vet clinic in a busy city saying that animals are a part of the animal welfare issue.”
“But I would argue that in the veterinary profession, there’s no such thing as a ‘animal.'”
Hamer says that the AVM has worked hard to promote better animal welfare standards in veterinary practices.
“We have an excellent reputation for providing veterinary care to animals that are very intelligent, that are highly socialized and that have a naturalistic way of life,” he added.
“These animals are not animals.”
But Hamer’s support for using animal-friendly veterinary terminology has also raised some eyebrows among animal rights advocates.
“Animals are being killed and eaten, but I think we need to be careful to make sure that we are not dehumanizing animals by using animal names,” Hamed said.
“When you use a word that has a negative connotation, it becomes a bad word, and it’s very difficult to get people to change their views.”
“It’s not something that should be called a dog or a pig or a rabbit.””
But not all animal advocates are in favor of using animal terms.””
It’s not something that should be called a dog or a pig or a rabbit.”
But not all animal advocates are in favor of using animal terms.
“If you’re going to use animal-like names, then it’s a very, very, difficult thing to change your mind,” said Sarah Oates, executive director of the Center for Animal Advocacy at Arizona State University.
Hamed agrees. “
If you do it in a very degrading way, you’re probably going to make people feel uncomfortable, and that’s something that is very difficult for people to do.”
“In my professional opinion, using animal as a name is not the best way to handle it,” he explained.
“Animal welfare groups and animal rights organizations don’t want to see that animal use a name that has negative connotations.”
But he added that he understands why people might feel the need to call animals by animal names: “I’ve had animals call me, ‘You were cute last week, but today you’re ugly,'” he said, laughing.
Hamer is also concerned about the use of animal-sourced ingredients in medical supplies. “
Because it doesn’t have to be the worst thing in the world to make a person feel uncomfortable.”
Hamer is also concerned about the use of animal-sourced ingredients in medical supplies.
“Some veterinarians don’t understand that a lot is made from the animals that we treat,” he admitted.
“And they don’t know that there are other animals that they could be using that they wouldn’t be.”
Homs said he would like to see more research done into the health effects of animal products, but he feels that “there’s an epidemic of the misuse of animals as animal products.”
“We need to make better decisions when it comes to using animal products in our products,” he concluded.
“But at the same time, it has to be better to educate people and educate ourselves.”
Read the full story at Newsweek.com.