Well, the chance that your doctor would intentionally murder you is likely higher than the chance your doctor would be using a rabid feral dog from a 3rd world country, which are responsible for nearly all of the "kill 25 thousand people a year" you cited.

And the 4.5 million annual attacks in the USA alone?

Break it down by dog breed - it isn't Beagles doing those attacks (with extremely rare exception). Of course, one area where total delusion enters the debate is with people who think all dog breeds are equally inherently aggressive and likely to attack and thus any dog can be substituted with any other and be equally dangerous.

Even as someone who absolutely adores dogs and always is happy when one is around, this is a pretty silly argument. It's clearly possible to operate a doctor's office with zero dogs present, but I've yet to see one successfully operate without at least one. That said, for the past two years, every time I've been to a doctor's office, there _have_ been measures in place to keep the number of humans there as small as possible, which I think is entirely reasonable.

Dogs are definitely used for palliative and mental health purposes in hospitals they are pretty trivial to manage without any danger to humans with a marginally competent handler.

What kind of take is this? You need to interact with humans.....

Hospitals near me have a security force which prohibits humans from entering unless they have a reason to be there, and removes any human who may exhibit dangerous behavior.

So if something kills less than 475k people we should consider it safe? What kind of reasoning is that?

What is so misleading about that number? That's 8 times 9/11, every year! Your comment is whataboutism.

I think thats a fantastic idea +1