Blog #198--Accurate Observation Necessary in Potentially Volatile Situations

I worked in an extremely busy five-man clinic as a first-year graduate veterinarian. We took turns being responsible for each day’s surgeries, and I was responsible one day when an unusual situation occurred. There was no one to assist me, and I needed to give an intravenous anesthetic to a middle-aged, slightly obese submissive dog. Some dogs will accept such manipulation without being held and comforted, and others won’t. This one seemed to be passive and accepting of what I was doing.

I was blocking blood flow to the dog’s vein above its right front elbow with my left hand while trying to puncture the vein and deliver the anesthetic with the other. I had just begun the injection when the dog began to react to the sudden loss of consciousness by moving around without direction or purpose. When another veterinarian walked by, he saw the dog writhing around and told me to let it go so I wouldn’t get bit. I felt strongly the dog wasn’t after me but was simply fearful of its loss of control.

My observation proved accurate, and I was able to complete the injection and continue with a successful surgery. I remember the experience to this day because I was surprised that the more experienced and highly talented associate had misinterpreted the situation. I had no fear of being bitten, and letting go would have done more harm than good since the process would have to be repeated. But as good as he was as a doctor, his perception was far different than mine. Perhaps he was simply coming into the theater in the middle of the movie and misunderstood. But we almost always misinterpret events if we are fearful or have a narrow view of the world.

As another example of this phenomenon, I was watching a baseball game on television recently. The pitcher on the visiting team was in his first game pitching against his former team. He had no doubt developed friendships with players who were now his opponents. He had just retired one such friend to end an inning and began to walk off the mound. The home team player walked past him and gave him a slight shoulder bump, followed by a wry but friendly smile. My impression was he was congratulating a friend for getting him out.

However, that hitter had a previous problem with the opposing team. Several years ago, his team and this same opponent were locked into a heated battle for a championship, and he made some derogatory remarks about them. Subsequent explanations implied that he may have been exaggerating for effect while still admitting to disliking the opponent. Some call such action “gamesmanship,” but it didn’t resonate well with the opposing team.

This player is highly respected on his own team and often flashes a large, appealing smile to friend and foe alike. So on his first plate appearance after his remarks went viral, he came up and playfully touched the opponent’s catcher on his shin guard while saying “hi.” I felt he was indirectly apologizing for his earlier remarks. But the catcher took offense, and it led to a bench-clearing brawl with subsequent player injuries and suspensions. Interestingly, the two players have birthdays only 15 days apart, and they both suffered severe thumb injuries within days of each other a couple years later. While they have much in common, the truism that likes repel probably helped generate the brawl.

To this day, a few of the players involved still hold a grudge about those events. And there are a number of fans who boo the inciting player every chance they get. Some of those fans watching subtle on-field pleasantries this year allowed their hatred toward the opponent to blind them to the friendly gesture. They assumed he was up to his old tricks, adding another reason to their growing list for hating him. If they could have seen this exchange without bias and emotion, they would have realized the truth of what happened. But that was impossible because they weren’t seeing things clearly.

These two examples crossed my mind when hearing about the killing of the gorilla Harambe at the Cincinnati Zoo. A three-year-old boy had climbed into a gorilla enclosure, and the large and endangered western lowland silverback male went up to him and carried him by the arm several yards before stopping and letting go. The boy was uninjured, but zoo officials made the drastic decision to shoot and kill Harambe.

I didn’t see the entire event, but there is no doubt a killing was going to occur. Humans assume we are superior to all other species, and we feel compelled to seek vengeance on any animal that dares disprove that hypothesis. Yes, the gorilla may have eventually hurt or killed the boy. Yes, he may not have permitted zoo officials to remove the boy without great difficulty. Yes, perhaps tranquilizing the gorilla may have caused it to harm the boy accidentally as it fought against the tranquilizer. But the outcome was not in doubt once the boy landed in the enclosure.

What else could officials do, given a frantic, highly emotional mother and horrified onlookers, most of whom know nothing about gorilla behavior or Harambe personally? If something did happen to the boy, a lawsuit was inevitable. That could bankrupt the zoo and damage conservation efforts towards this magnificent but scarce species. I’m not saying it was the right decision, but it was the predictable decision.

The man who had raised Harambe from an infant said he wasn’t highly aggressive. Obviously, the gorilla had been handled frequently by humans when young, so he likely had enough familiarity to realize a small child was no threat to his dominance or territory. Ape expert Jane Goodall also voiced the belief the gorilla should not have been killed. But could the zoo take a chance Harambe would give up the child unharmed? They thought not.

If we had no emotional attachment to human children but could watch these events unfold naturally, we might have a chance to realize how smart and gentle gorillas really are. It wouldn’t have surprised me if Harambe had taken the child to the door where a zookeeper could pick him up. At least, I believe the boy might have been rescued unharmed. That is based on an unbiased, unemotional perspective gained from photos and a brief video. I might be wrong, but I sure wish there had been some way people with understanding and awareness of gorilla behavior could have been in charge when the kill shot was decided upon. Maybe there could have been a solution agreeable to all parties involved other than killing the gorilla.

Humans have emotions and biases, so these things happen. Humans share the instinct to protect our own, and especially our children, with numerous other species. We can’t blame the zoo decision-makers because they likely felt they were doing the best they could, given the unusual situation. But it reminds us how being self-confident, unemotional and unbiased can help us observe situations more accurately. I hope we can all learn to observe and think more and react less.

http://dreamtime3.wix.com/jacktuttlebook

Comments and questions can be directed to dreamtime@insight-books.com.