Pc Penny Salon Prices

fined here who hinders the mutual decision to animals

Mutual for animals? ANMVI: it's just demagoguery

"Non bastano la crisi economica ed i pesanti deficit di molte regioni per fermare gli sprechi nella sanità pubblica. E' impensabile che il nostro SSN già incapace di sopperire alle esigenze sanitarie dei cittadini possa farsi carico dell'assistenza degli animali da compagnia. E' assurdo pensare all'introduzione dei ticket a carico dei pazienti umani per coprire i buchi della sanità pubblica pensando d'altra parte di investire milioni di euro in una mutua pubblica per gli animali da compagnia. E' questo il punto debole della proposta di legge della Sen. Silvana Amati".

Lo sostiene il Presidente Senior dell'Anmvi Carlo Scotti, a seguito della presentazione ieri al Senato di a proposal for a framework law for pets. At the conference ANMVI stepped in with a representative, Daniel Boltrini (ANMVI Lazio), to reiterate its firm opposition to the creation of a health insurance for pets entrusted to local health authorities. The

ANMVI while sharing the need to ensure that all pets adequate health care, states that it is unthinkable to charge for this service the NHS. Would this not also able and you would just demagoguery.

The same can be achieved by involving the 6700 veterinary facilities throughout the country. These structures, in agreement with the ASL, are able to provide the best service, experience and professionalism, without diverting the public from important tasks of veterinary control in the food industry and for lack of staff are already struggling to provide.

The agreement with the private hospitals also would have obvious advantages over a direct involvement of the NHS: do not require additional investments by the public finances, expressing broad and specific experience, there are widespread throughout the country, cost the public only for services provided. The

ANMVI is contrary to all logic and Mutual believes it is time to change mindset in dealing with problems della sanità pubblica nell'interesse del Paese e degli stessi animali che avranno garantita una assistenza sanitaria qualificata.

Best Gingivitis Mouthwash

shameful

VETERINARI RESPONSABILI Se un cane muore dopo un intervento sbagliato da parte del veterinario, il proprietario dell'animale non ha diritto a un risarcimento per il danno morale a causa della perdita del suo 'fedele amicò, perchè la compagnia di un cane nella vita non è «un diritto inviolabile della persona». È il principio stabilito dal tribunale civile di Milano che con una sentenza non ha accolto la richiesta di danni di una donna che aveva visto morire la sua cagnolina dopo un'operazione surgery. The animal, a husky for nine years, was made on 11 March 2003 by a veterinarian on the advice of a colleague, a friend of the owner of the dog. After surgery to remove a suspected breast cancer, the dog had suffered a severe hemorrhage, but was discharged and then died at home a few hours later. The fifth section of the civil court, Damiano Spera, deciding on the legal case brought by the woman, the lawyer Maurizio Bozzi, acknowledged "responsibility" of two veterinarians in causing the death because the two do not have all the necessary tests as The dog was also "suffering from suspected cancer and overweight," and then have resigned immediately after the 'transaction. However, referring to a ruling by the Supreme Court, the court denied compensation for moral damage because it is not an inviolable right. Her lawyer, with a cause, pointed to the "emotional involvement in the reaction between man and animal are allowed" in order to enrich the human personality. "