I saw her speaking on This Morning about her article and she stood by her view that the grief felt by pet owners (as a nation) was disproportionate to how (as a nation) we feel about other human beings.

She made the comment that you could replace a dog with a new puppy, but that you couldn't replace a relative or human friend that had died.

I think that just goes to show how little she knows about the relationship and bond that form between a person and their dog.

Why you can replace a husband with another if they pop their clogs and can make new friends so I don't follow her train of thought at all.

I think she was trying to say "it is just a dog"!

Well it's just a husband lol

Ha ha quite!

I agree. I think her article was ill advised.

But, as others have said, the death of humans and animals trigger different sorts of emotional responses.

I went through a bad patch when my son was in hospital with two collapsed lungs. That's more than a bit worrying.

My dog may go before me and, if so, I will be greatly saddened of course. But he will have given me companionship, exercise, and the outdoors. And aggravation at times too!

The only real difference is we know our time with dogs is less than with people as a rule and we know there will be other dogs in our lives, it doesn't mean we love them more or less, it's just different and we never have to question their loyalty and love for us.

The lady has much to learn me thinks. No living thing can be replaced. We can, of course, get another dog, marry again, have another child, but they are not replacements, just more relationships

Pretty simple do I love my dog more than my kids or grandkids? No.

Do I love my dog more than other people? Yes.

Sorry but I see to many people a day that are a total waste of air.
Don't get me started on todays millennials 90% of them with there soft fluffy feelings, need slapped upside the head.

Yes - the above sums it up nicely.