It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PetSmart Sued for Hamster Blamed in Deaths of Three People

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

A woman whose husband died after receiving a liver transplant infected with a rodent virus is suing PetSmart Inc., claiming the chain should have warned customers that hamsters can carry the virus.

The federal lawsuit alleges Thomas Magee, 54, and two other organ recipients died after transplants from a woman who had contracted a virus from a hamster she bought at a PetSmart store in Warwick, R.I.

Here is the link:

Fox News

Now this story worries me. I am a frequent customer at Pet Smart and my two dogs and two cats all go to a PetSmart affiliated pet hospital called Banfield, I don't know if anyone knows about it, but you can buy an insurance plan for your dogs there, and whats even more convenient is that it is located right inside PetSmart itself. Anyways, I don't know if I'm just being paranoid but, if PetSmart is showing incompetence than where does that leave Banfield. I am in there all the time with my dog, and basically everything he eats is from PetSmart, and I am wondering what if PetSmart or Banfield missed something else, it could literally kill my dog very easily as it did with these poor people, and maybe even affect myself. Am I just being paranoid? Was it really PetSmarts fault? Are they really so incompetent that they can't even be sure that there not selling deadly hamsters to the general public? I am not sure about this one. I have always had my suspicions about PetSmart and Banfield.


[edit on 17-4-2008 by schism85]

[edit on 17-4-2008 by schism85]




posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by schism85
 


Even though I have pets I never shop for them in those big chain stores.

I used to work in the animal right community, pet shops, any retailer that sells live animals ususally buys them from animal brokers or the breeding farms. The problems come from the unhealthy environment these animals are born into. I think Pet Smart should be liable, if big chains were not buying from mass breeders, the cruelty found with mass breeders would not exist and neither would most of the illnesses those animals carry.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Hang on, shouldnt she be suing the the people who gave the all clear on the organs? Or perhaps shes only going after the big corporation because thats where the money is.

I hope this bankrupts her.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Seems kind of screwy one human is suing another human over something that nature is actually responsible for. The virus are actually to blame. If a dog attacks and kills another human one day, does everyone sue the retailer of that dog? Whose fault is it really when nature kills? Hey, maybe they should sue their god(s) too, ha. And, if those organ recipients hadn't received any replacement parts in the first place, what would their status be today?

Ya know, it's becoming to darn risky to help, or even do business with, another human these days. I'm surprised human children aren't suing their parents for any undesirable natural consequences of their inherited genes. With the humans, it's always someone else's fault and someone else's responsibility, isn't it. I'm surprised all humans aren't already carrying personal liability insurance policies on themselves, ya know, just in case lightning hits your neighbors house and somehow that is constructed to be your fault. I mean, you should have warned them of ALL the consequences of living next door to you. Ha, funny sue happy humans, and it ain't even the actual victims that are suing, it's the greedy ones still alive and just looking for some lucky free cash. What the hell though, ha, just print some more and give it to them ~ you know, to help the economy. Funny humans.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


I never thought of that. Why not go after the hospital or the doctors? The money is there as well. I would sue them both if it were up to me. I would sue everyone, not because I was money hungry, I would just want to teach these people a lesson and make them change as I would not want it to happen to anyone else. But great question why not go after the hospital? It makes no sense at all. Its not just PetSmarts fault, the big mistake was made by the hospital. How did the hospital not know the organs were infected?? Don't they check to make sure the organs are heathy before they put them in??

[edit on 17-4-2008 by schism85]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
It wouldnt team them a lesson, this is just one of those freak things that happens, who honestly knew before they read this that there was even a human/hamster virus?

In the US, theres always someone people want to blame so they can get money from someone.

Sometimes its just an accident where no one is to blame (like here), sometimes its the person own stupidity that does it (ie driving with a hot cup of coffee between your legs and wondering why you got burned when it spills).

Now I dont mind people suing when someone is reasonably to blame but thats not the case here and common sense rarely seems to prevail in US lawsuits.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


If I remember correctly, Pets Mart only sells animals that are taken directly from Animal Shelters, and do not support "animal farms".

Many stores do, and I despise them, watching poor little dogs and cats bones warp as they grow in glass boxes built into the wall.. its disgusting.. but Petsmart, again if I remember correctly rarely has puppies because all the dogs and cats are from abused homes or animal shelters.

--All rodents have diseases of some kind, the fact that the organ recipients died means their immune system was incredibly low - like how AIDS patients usually die of off the wall diseases associated with sheep, mice and dogs, the doctors are actually the ones to blame for not screening the organs for any known or unknown pathogens.. to blame a pet store because a rodent had a rodent virus that probably never even effected the rodent is ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


I guess Iam not understanding this correctly so let me recap. 3 people died because of an infected hamster that had a common virus infected their donors organs. The virus is not leathal unless you have a bad immune system. Someone gets a transplant with this disease and it is linked to PetSmarts hamsters. I just don't understand how they missed it? Either of them. How could the people have prevented it? People just assume that the organs being given to them are safe. How is it their fault? Plus I bet they paid alot of money for those organs, she should at least get her money back.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by schism85]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
There is a rodent virus that is extremely deadly, but i forget what its called. A large cannery was sued a few years back from people dying of the disease from residue of rodent feces on the lids of soda cans.

When I read about it, I think it said that once you have the virus, it is almost always fatal. I will look for an article.

Edit: Found it! Ok, not almost always fatal, but a 38% mortality rate. "Almost always" sounds much more dramatic.
Hantavirus



[edit on 4/17/08 by SantaClaus]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
Hang on, shouldnt she be suing the the people who gave the all clear on the organs? Or perhaps shes only going after the big corporation because thats where the money is.

I hope this bankrupts her.


absolutely! ........to blame the store that sold the hampster in the first place is just plain stupid!

In short...the article makes no mention of a direct link from a "Petsmart" hampster to the virus that killed the recipients, other than the lawsuit, Just that it was a virus which is found in house mice, hamsters and other rodents.
The two possibilities I can see are that A: the donor wasn't screened properly or B: the woman is mad/stoopid!


Why wait 3 years to bring a lawsuit and how can they link that particular hampster to the 3 infected recipients after all this time?

There's some lawyers going to get real fat off this one.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Pet Smart does not get animals from the animal shelter to sell. The animals Pet Smart sells come from breeders.

Pet Smart does cooperate with animal shelters and lets the shelters set up within their stores to adopt out pets.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:15 AM
link   
I shop at PetSmart too. If the cute little hamsters (kissy, kissy) are to blame for the demise of other people, I hope the food supplies are not detrimental to the health of our pets either.


[edit on 2008-4-20 by pikypiky]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Witness2008
 


If I remember correctly, Pets Mart only sells animals that are taken directly from Animal Shelters, and do not support "animal farms".

Many stores do, and I despise them, watching poor little dogs and cats bones warp as they grow in glass boxes built into the wall.. its disgusting.. but Petsmart, again if I remember correctly rarely has puppies because all the dogs and cats are from abused homes or animal shelters.

--All rodents have diseases of some kind, the fact that the organ recipients died means their immune system was incredibly low - like how AIDS patients usually die of off the wall diseases associated with sheep, mice and dogs, the doctors are actually the ones to blame for not screening the organs for any known or unknown pathogens.. to blame a pet store because a rodent had a rodent virus that probably never even effected the rodent is ridiculous.


rock is 100% correct. When they do screens for potentially harmful diseases/substances/bacteria. There are some oddball things that are not in the screens. I highly doubt that there is even a screen to detect this virus in humans/human organs, because it i probably not harmful to a healthy person.

[edit on 4/20/2008 by JPhish]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join