My lamb named Spin, which is featured in the Journal article "A New Set of Wheels Can Improve a Dog's Life, Too" (page one, Oct. 21), continues to improve and thrive. Contrary to the opinion of the writer of one of your letters ("Disabled Animals Get Too Much Attention," Nov. 4), I am neither an amateur nor an unseasoned animal owner. I've raised sheep for 32 years and have seen almost every birthing malady that can strike. Every year lambs are lost at birth through either natural process or euthanasia because of birth defect or deformity.
If we were to euthanize every creature with a minor deformity without understanding the mechanics of the condition, modern medicine, both human and veterinary, would come to a grinding halt. Spin has provided valuable information regarding spinal nerve compression; this information crosses species boundaries.
Spin has already begun "assignments" in animal therapy programs. Imagine a child who has been gunned down in street violence learning to live life in a wheelchair without the use of legs. You would be forever changed if you could watch the child touch the face of a friendly, warm lamb which has come "running" to see him with the use of a wheelchair. Through the connection established by touch and non-verbal communication, the child feels secure and calmed. If Spin can help even a few children begin to heal after devastating injury or disease, the process will have been worth any time or money spent.
Debra Jones Bachrach
Petersham, Mass.
I find it incredibly amusing that people don't hesitate to complain when the free market is in any way regulated but they have a problem with the use of wheelchairs for disabled animals. If we remove all products that anyone finds objectionable or silly, the market will no longer exist—and that would certainly help the unemployment rate, wouldn't it?
Matthew Glinn
Harrisburg, Pa.
One letter writer complains that "mere animals" are worthy of neither wheelchairs nor an article about such. How odd, the biological definition of the word refers to all members of the kingdom Animalia, encompassing creatures ranging from insects to humans.
This brings to mind an old adage: The only reason man is at the top of the evolutionary list is because he wrote the list.
Andrea J. Rouda
Freeport, Maine
Note from KBJ: The second and third letter writers miss the point. As for the second letter writer, nobody is claiming that it should be illegal to spend money on injured or deformed animals. The claim (I take it) is that it is wrong for individuals to do so. One can consistently oppose governmental regulation of the economy and believe that people ought not spend money on injured or deformed animals. As for the third letter writer, the fact that human beings are animals doesn't mean that there are no morally relevant differences between human beings and other animals. Human beings, for example, are moral agents. Lambs are not. By the way, is there such a thing as a "new" adage? If not, then "old adage" is redundant.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 