No Consent
The bull is clear :
he wants no vet interfering with his herd
the bull further is also clear: he wants no vaccination
the vegan hears the message
yet is unable to enforce the bull's rquest
how is that then?
"The fact that we believe an intervention is beneficial does not automatically entitle us to impose it. The animal's will remains morally relevant and should not be dismissed simply because humans think they know better and the other party is only an animal."
it is argued - the animal's conscience is lower than a human's such as it cares not for his vulnerable whereas the human does
but with the same stroke of the brush the bull's command in a bull's life has to be respectred just the same as a human's in his life
such as what time the bull rises in the morning the bull decides.
we do too
that command in a bull's life is equally as important as it is in a human's life - the bull is clear
does our disrespect of the bulls' command over his own life result in disrespect of our own command in our lives? - that is a very good question and the answer is probably: yes
No Consent, No Compromise
The bull and Dennis both stand firm, rejecting injections and unwanted medical paths.
150+
15
Firm Stance
Unyielding
No Consent
Why no vet?
The bull refuses to accept the vet’s role in his life.
What about vaccinations?
Neither the bull nor Dennis agree to any vaccinations or injections.
Who is Dennis?
Dennis is a figure who also rejects depot injections and refuses to accept his physiatrist’s presence.
What is depot injection?
A depot injection is a long-acting medication shot.
Why reject physiatrist?
Dennis does not consent to the physiatrist’s involvement in his life.
Is this about personal choice?
Yes, it’s about respecting individual paths and refusing unwanted medical interventions.