Monday, June 27, 2011

Underthinking Penguin surgery.

Ok let me caveat this post, by saying I love animals and much as the next man. They are awesome, and despite our belief they rule us.

Oi, where is my food! You can't hide from me forever!
But this latest story about the emergency surgery on the penguin has got me thinking at what point should we just leave animals to their own accord, rather than intervening.  I mean sure "Happy feet" is a sick penguin, but surely there are hundreds of sick penguins in Antarctica.

You think the waiting time at A & E is bad
I guess you could argue that this poor little penguin actually got off his arse, (I presume penguins have arses) and got to NZ for treatment, but perhaps the reason he came to NZ was to die, away from his family?

Look after Horicks, I am off to NZ to die.
Or maybe he came to NZ because the illness screwed with his sense of direction?

"I could have sworn Fred said to turn right at Scott Base?"
So why did we decide to save this penguin, and not a dying cow, or sick cockroach? I mean if he got this lost maybe its better for everyone if he is removed from the gene pool?

Happy feet 2004-2011 - He will be missed, but we are glad he is not breeding
I mean the guy was eating SAND. That's not really the sharpest tool in the shed.
(As a side, why is that a saying? I mean sure you can rate your tools on sharpness, but how is having a sharp hammer helpful?)

Stupid sharp Hammer!

The saying really should be "He's not the sharpest tool in the shed, when you are looking for a tool to cut things" But I guess that doesn't flow as nicely.

And who is paying for his treatment? If he was a pet, presumably the owner pays for it, but this guy is a freelance penguin, is he covered under ACC? Would he be better off if National had privatised health insurance?

"Under ethnicity he has put Emperor, shouldn't that be under title"
I mean I guess I don't think anyone should let someone/something die, if they have the ability to save it, but wouldn't the cost of rescuing this penguin be better spent, on giving someone a new hip, liver, heart, or hairpiece?

With this new haircut, I now have the confidence to be in Public
Is it time we sit down as a country and write a priority list? I mean ideally everyone would get treatment when they need it. But with limited funds, things need to be prioritised, like people that need new hearts go first, because well without that they will die, and then just go down the list, with life threatening things at the top, then things that are good for quality of life but not necessarily required to live, like knee and hip replacements.

If such a list existed where would you put life-saving surgery on animals?(presuming we lived in socialist country where all healthcare is provided.)


  1. Surgery on penquins is the safest form of self-adulation possible: you saved a poor innocent animal, who, thank God, cannot talk and tell you you are an idiot and should have left him to die. You can pat yourself on the back over and over and not be contradicted by the one thing that counts--the penquin.
    Animal lovers and defenders are just that--Animal defenders-- because no animal can contradict them and tell them what they are doing is a stupid waste. Animals don't talk back, unlike those ungreatful teenagers people foolishly produce. Animals are perfect--for the self-absorbed individual whose shallow life needs constant reassurance.
    You may think I am overly harsh, but I hear animal lovers threatening to beat and break those who harm animals or oppose the saving of them. This is not rational behavior.


    Want to keep Underthinking? Try one these.