>I placed a phone call to Dr. John Neil's office yesterday afternoon and
>spoke with him for about 15-20 minutes concerning his order to have the
>ferret killed and tested.  He was polite, courteous and actually listened
>to everything I had to say.  Basically, I told him I was outraged, and
>that logic  should have dictated there was no longer any reason to kill
>and test the ferret at this point.  He simply repeated a few times that
>he wasn't as confident in that assessment as I am; basically his argument
>was that he didn't feel able to take the "risk" of not testing the ferret.
 
Pretty interesting.....
 
I see a potential legal strategy here: Along with the wrongful death of an
animal, how about equal emphasis on the fact that, if the ferret *had* been
rabid, the bite victim would surely be dead (or nearly) by now?  (That'll
get to the people with no interest in ferrets, too, and prevent us from
being dismissed as extremists).  I mean, when you think about it logically,
you have 2 choices: (1) the ferret was rabid, and Dr. Neil failed to
protect the public in a timely manner, and (2) Dr. Neil didn't think the
animal was rabid, and ordered the wrongful death of someone's pet.
 
<anon>
[Posted in FML issue 1088]