Wow, if I’m reading this article correctly, it looks like legislation in England and Massachusetts is effectively putting FlexPetz out of business.
“FlexPetz growth, CEO and founder Cervantes said that as a result of the recent legislation, she has decided to “shelve” operations in the US and London, and that each pet in all FlexPetz locations will be offered to a renter for adoption. Haddix said that the two remaining dogs at his NY location are slated for adoption in the coming weeks.”
One of the arguments against FlexPetz is that even though they are rescuing dogs from shelters, they are rescuing dogs that are the most “adoptable” and would almost surely be adopted by people/families and have a normal life.
If you disagree with their business model, would you feel any differently if they were adopting dogs that were going to be euthanized?
It might take additional resources to rehabilitate these dogs, but it could also address the ethical concerns. There are a lot of great dogs being put to sleep in the US every day, wouldn’t they be better off being alive even if it meant having different people doting on them each night of the week?
Another way to mitigate the ethical concerns might be to push hard to get the dogs adopted after a shorter amount of time…of course, this might make the business infeasible because it would directly impact the profitability of the business.
I do think that the concept of a business that provides a responsible option for people to determine whether or not they can handle the responsibility of a full-time pet is interesting (as long as it can be done in a way that’s also beneficial to the dog) - thousands of dogs end up in shelters every year because people realize that they can’t handle the responsibility of caring for a dog AFTER they purchase one.
What do you think? Is there any way to that FlexPetz could alter their business model to address the ethical concerns inherent in rental of a living being?