Because they are unhygienic, they trigger allergies and fears, they carry a certain risk to attack humans, and above all, they are very unreliable.
> Dogs can work through many samples quickly, at a low cost, with minimal or no interaction with patients. For example, healthcare workers can collect breath, sweat, urine, or blood samples for dogs to process, rather than having the dog examine patients directly. This allows the dogs to work with minimal environmental distraction, and bypasses the necessity to work directly with patients who may be uncomfortable around dogs.
I love all animals, but still, the "unhygenic" argument is a thing (humans can sanitize and wash hands e.g.), that is why in a lot of food shopping places or restaurants it is forbidden to bring dogs inside (even if just more theoretical than practical).
And lastly, the allergies is also somethinng you cannot persons just talk out of, every "office dog" was always impossible because at least one guy having allergies...
And you seem to have Dog Owner Reality Displacement Syndrome.
> Unreliable ... if it would be the case the police or rescue organizations wouldn't use them because life depends on their reliability.
Police doesn't give two shits about reliability, these are the same people who use polygraphs regularly. They are both useless instruments which can be interpreted however the officer desires, while letting them launder that opinion through an "unbiased" third party.
> attack humans ... if you didn't know almost nothing about dogs and have made bad experiences with them in the past then yes you probably would think that. It's not the case. Attacks are in many cases explainable and very often the human causes the attack by unknowingly behaving like prey or posing a thread to the dog.
This is just another version of "If she didn't want to be assaulted then she shouldn't have dressed like a slut!".
> fears ... right ... like you have you you mean? :) I had a lot of fears in the past because as a child I was bitten by a dog. Now I have my own and almost no fear.
And so the abused becomes the abuser, perpetuating the cycle…
> Many people kiss other people or shake hands ... how unhygienic is that? ;-)
People wash their hands, and don't typically tend to run and kiss any random stranger they meet (unlike dogs!). There's a huge difference between kissing the same person 10 times, vs kissing 10 people once.
No, they are not. Certainly there are places where they use a polygraph as something other than a party trick, but those places are fewer in number than the places where dogs are used to do police work.
You akin every dog owner to an abuser. This is needlessly hostile and I'd go so far as almost willfully unfriendly. There's really no call for that.
Both are bad. If one's (finally!) getting reduced then that's a good thing, but that doesn't suddenly make the other one valid.
> You akin every dog owner to an abuser. This is needlessly hostile and I'd go so far as almost willfully unfriendly. There's really no call for that.
No, I'm saying that this "dogs are great and there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't like them" attitude is abusive. Not all dog owners are abusive, but I would go as far as to claim that there is an inherent selection bias where people with this attitude are more likely to own dogs. And far more likely to tell everyone they encounter that they own dogs.
One (the polygraph) is bad because it's been proven to not work at all, the other is a class of domesticated animals bred to be useful to people and to understand their body language. They are not the same thing, and comparing them as if they are is not useful.
> I'm saying that this "dogs are great and there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't like them" attitude is abusive.
It's not abusive to say that a class of helpful beings are great and that blanket disliking them is doing them a great disservice. It sucks that you see it as abusive, but you don't establish what specifically you feel is abusive. You just say "this is abuse" and you keep repeating it.
This makes it seem as if you don't like them and folks saying that this is a weird attitude to have at a domesticated animal purpose-bred to be useful in some way should be punished (at least verbally). I think this attitude is toxic, if we must speak in such terms.
Yeah, all the times a baby gets mauled to death by a dog, it's definitely the baby's fault. The fact that they are explainable doesn't mean they're acceptable.
From a risk management perspective it's much easier to prevent a baby even getting near to a centrifuge than it is to control actions of other people and their dogs. If a dog runs up to your baby, you have seconds to react at times.
Because we haven't developed any.
("CONCLUSION: A trained dog was able to detect C difficile with high estimated sensitivity and specificity, both in stool samples and in hospital patients infected with C difficile.")
The sheer amount of untrained dogs is just way too high to use a trained dog as an argument. I'd guess less than 10% actually go to dog school/training.
The sheer amount of stupid people is just way too high to use a smart person as an argument.
Which is why a lot of the cute videos with dogs and children (especially babies) should actually not be encouraged, there's many accidents every year.
You gonna be responsible for my medical bills? Nope I wouldn't think you'd care much considering your post.
Sorry but any tiny benefit you might gain from having a dog is not worth the danger to my health. I love peanuts but I won't eat any in a plane or other confined space because people's health is a higher priority than my taste buds.
I love dogs. Used to have a dog.
Not no more. Got allergies something fierce.
A dog in a waiting room would fuck me up big time.
The dogs in the article at least appear to be isolated from patients, but I hope similar consideration is given to lab workers (no pun intended) who may be allergic.
[1] https://www.aaaai.org/allergist-resources/ask-the-expert/ans...