Chimp Attack Victim Rejected For Transplant

[skytrekker]

NEW HAVEN — - An Ohio hospital has told the family of Charla Nash, who was mauled and blinded by a chimpanzee a year ago, that she is not a candidate for a face and hand transplant.

Nash's family is looking into alternative facilities after the Cleveland Clinic said that it could not do both transplants, family attorney Bill Monaco said Monday. He said that the transplants have to be done simultaneously and come from the same donor.

The 200-pound chimpanzee attacked Nash in February after its owner asked Nash to help lure it back into her house. The animal ripped off Nash's hands, nose, lips and eyelids.

The hospital, which in 2008 performed the nation's first face transplant but has not done hand transplants, said Monday that Nash has made significant progress in her recovery and that more surgeries are planned to further help her regain some independence.

"However, due to the complexity of her injuries, the medical team has concluded she is not a candidate for transplantation at this time," the hospital said in a statement.

The clinic has not ruled out the possibility of some type of collaboration with another hospital, Monaco said.

Nash's family is researching the possibilities of the transplants at other hospitals in the United States and one in Canada, Monaco said.

A face transplant would help Nash smell, breathe and eat, while a hand transplant would help her be more independent, Monaco said.

Even if Nash was declared a candidate for the transplants, the surgery would not be done for years, Monaco said.

In April, dozens of doctors working in teams over 30 hours performed the world's first simultaneous partial-face and double-hand transplant at the Henri Mondor hospital in the Paris suburb of Creteil on a 30-year-old burn victim. The man died in June after suffering a heart attack during follow-up surgery.

[Delenn]

I cannot even imagine.

[skytrekker]

neither can I

[SheridanPDC]

I hope the chimp was taken away from the irrisponsible person who allowed it to get out in the first place and probably had no business owning a wild exotic animal. That poor woman...

[skytrekker]

The Chimp was shot dead.

[SheridanPDC]

Probably for the best. It should never have been kept as a "pet". How do people even get their hands on these kinds of animals? I would think they would need all kinds of permits, special licence, special facility, ect. I hope the owner got some hefty jail times/fines.

[skytrekker]

The Chimp had a previous history of erratic behavior -- the State of Connecticut has banned the use of Chimps as pets-- albeit too late.

The state currently bans 'big cats' as household pets- and also numerous reptiles, Crocodiles and Alligators; snakes including pythons and other constrictors- and all poisonous snakes and lizards.

[Wyoming53]

What I fail to see is "Why can't person have an exotic animal if they want?"

If it has shots, and if they take reasonable care to provide the right kind of shelter, and, and this is a big AND, they assume responsibility for it.

It shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate what you can have as a pet. But the person should be liable for what they have.

In this case, major insurance should have been kept. Also, the person injured should have been rewarded monitarily just like if they were injured at work or by a vehicle accident. And the owner should have been taken to court, fined, and if needed, imprisoned.

These STUPID laws are being put into place because people won't take resposibility for their actions. It's too damned easy for a politition to write a law to protect the owner of the critter. Get rid of those laws and write a new one.

Article 1 (with no subsections, no addendums, no appeals, and no modifications in years to come.)

Each person shall be responsible for his/her actions.

[skytrekker]

Originally Posted by Wyoming53

What I fail to see is "Why can't person have an exotic animal if they want?"

If it has shots, and if they take reasonable care to provide the right kind of shelter, and, and this is a big AND, they assume responsibility for it.

It shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate what you can have as a pet. But the person should be liable for what they have.

In this case, major insurance should have been kept. Also, the person injured should have been rewarded monitarily just like if they were injured at work or by a vehicle accident. And the owner should have been taken to court, fined, and if needed, imprisoned.

These STUPID laws are being put into place because people won't take resposibility for their actions. It's too damned easy for a politition to write a law to protect the owner of the critter. Get rid of those laws and write a new one.

Article 1 (with no subsections, no addendums, no appeals, and no modifications in years to come.)

Each person shall be responsible for his/her actions.

Connecticut is a small state area wise (5200 square miles, population 3.5 million) it has a dense population- over 660 people per square mile

Having wild exotic pets can be a threat to others- the Chimp in question was thought to be 'tame' and 'domesticated'-wild animals are unpredictable-

The state of Connecticut feels the public needs to be protected- and no matter how many owners of these 'exotic' pets take to insure their 'captivity' to protect the public- accidents can happen- as in this tragic case.


Its not a matter of 'Big' or 'small' government- its a matter of practicality and safety to the general public.

[SheridanPDC]

Originally Posted by skytrekker

Having wild exotic pets can be a threat to others- the Chimp in question was thought to be 'tame' and 'domesticated'-wild animals are unpredictable-

THIS is the main problem I see with wild/exotic pets. People get them as babies/cubs ect. and then think that they can be treated like a dog or cat or any other domestic animal. I think anyone wanting to have an exotic should have to apply for a permit, go through a certification class, enclosure inspection (yearly), mandatory vet check ups, ect. The # of people who take proper care of these types of animals vs. the # the idiots who don't have a clue can't be ignored- there's far more in the later group. And these are the people who's "pets" end up harming others.

I do happen to know a person that has a semi large wild (though not exotic) animal, and he has proper G&F permits, provides proper vet care & natural diet, and has a large, strong, secure enclosure for her. He never allows the animal out of the enclosure and never allows others to have physical contact with her. While I do think that more measures should be taken to make sure wild/exotics do not fall into the hand of the wrong people, I don't want to see tham banned all together; there are people who can take proper, responsible care of them.

[skytrekker]

Originally Posted by SheridanPDC

THIS is the main problem I see with wild/exotic pets. People get them as babies/cubs ect. and then think that they can be treated like a dog or cat or any other domestic animal. I think anyone wanting to have an exotic should have to apply for a permit, go through a certification class, enclosure inspection (yearly), mandatory vet check ups, ect. The # of people who take proper care of these types of animals vs. the # the idiots who don't have a clue can't be ignored- there's far more in the later group. And these are the people who's "pets" end up harming others.

I do happen to know a person that has a semi large wild (though not exotic) animal, and he has proper G&F permits, provides proper vet care & natural diet, and has a large, strong, secure enclosure for her. He never allows the animal out of the enclosure and never allows others to have physical contact with her. While I do think that more measures should be taken to make sure wild/exotics do not fall into the hand of the wrong people, I don't want to see tham banned all together; there are people who can take proper, responsible care of them.

You are totally right

A domestic cat- for example is domestic after living with humans for over 9,000 years- but a kitten must be 'socialized' with humans as a kitten at 7-10 weeks-or it can become 'feral' or semi feral.

Wild animals even raised from infant-hood do not have the same capability as a domestic cat to be suitable as 'pets'-no matter how they seem 'adapted'.

Their instincts are still wild- and they can easily turn on their human 'family' very quickly-with devastating results.

[Wyoming53]

Originally Posted by skytrekker

Connecticut is a small state area wise (5200 square miles, population 3.5 million) it has a dense population- over 660 people per square mile

Having wild exotic pets can be a threat to others- the Chimp in question was thought to be 'tame' and 'domesticated'-wild animals are unpredictable-

The state of Connecticut feels the public needs to be protected- and no matter how many owners of these 'exotic' pets take to insure their 'captivity' to protect the public- accidents can happen- as in this tragic case.


Its not a matter of 'Big' or 'small' government- its a matter of practicality and safety to the general public.

Of course, you are right. In this day, it's the only thing that can be done is to control the people.

But my point is, 100 years ago, people were responsible for their actions. They owned up to it. Today, the government has to do that for them because people have lost their values.

In Wyoming, a lot of those values remain intact. I don't know of anybody that has filed a lawsuit in recent years. I'm sure it has been done, but it's not the norm.

If people had the foresight, the knowledge, and knew that they were going to be held responsible, they might not get dangerous animals as pets.

I befriended a mountain lion. It would eat out of my hand. It took years of camping in that area. Leaving meat, not threatening it in any way. But I would never try to domesticate it. I would not try and bring it in to towns. To me, it was nature in it's truest form. But I also think about responsibility in what I do. I own up to it. A lot of people don't.