Pet Lovers

[SeaMaiden]

I think the Vet was wrong not to offer the man free surgery to save the dog...IF the man would let the dog be rehomed due to the difficult situation he was in.  To just take it upon himself to do the surgery and give the dog to a rescue group quietly was not right period. 

[noodleann]

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

I think the Vet was wrong not to offer the man free surgery to save the dog...IF the man would let the dog be rehomed due to the difficult situation he was in.  To just take it upon himself to do the surgery and give the dog to a rescue group quietly was not right period. 

---

The vet knew a family that wouldn't spend the money on this animal and would only pay to have it killed shouldn't have the dog, period. The woman shouldn't have the dog now. Once she consigned it to death, she lost her ownership rights. Think about it: When you have your animal euthanized, don't you either bring back the body and bury it yourself or have it cremated and have the cremains sent to you or pick them up? It says something that they just dumped the dog and that was it for them.

The woman disposed of the dog and the vet did the right thing in saving its life. What's wrong is she's gotten it back. This publicity is going to generate a lot of attention, and I predict most of it will support the vet and shame the woman.

[sidsmom]

The vet was ethically wrong for not conducting the paid service.

The owner was morally wrong wanting to kill a 'healthy' dog. 

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@noodleann wrote:

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

I think the Vet was wrong not to offer the man free surgery to save the dog...IF the man would let the dog be rehomed due to the difficult situation he was in.  To just take it upon himself to do the surgery and give the dog to a rescue group quietly was not right period. 

---

The vet knew a family that wouldn't spend the money on this animal and would only pay to have it killed shouldn't have the dog, period. The woman shouldn't have the dog now. Once she consigned it to death, she lost her ownership rights. Think about it: When you have your animal euthanized, don't you either bring back the body and bury it yourself or have it cremated and have the cremains sent to you or pick them up? It says something that they just dumped the dog and that was it for them.

The woman disposed of the dog and the vet did the right thing in saving its life. What's wrong is she's gotten it back. This publicity is going to generate a lot of attention, and I predict most of it will support the vet and shame the woman.

---

Did you read the article?   The family paid to have the dog euthanized and cremated.  The vet could have refused and sent them away or asked them to sign ownership over to her or a rescue.  Instead she decided to just take both the money and the dog. 

With the 100's of thousands of healthy dogs and cats euthanized in shelters each year why is this one more important.  The owner, right or wrong, tried to do the right thing.  They thought the dog had cancer and he was having seizures.  Rather than have him suffer, decided to euthanize.  They could have just as easily taken him to a shelter or even dumped in a field. 

[lynne6was7]

If a client wants their pet euthanized because they can't afford the surgery and/or long term care for a condition the vet deems treatable, my vet client will offer to take the pet for a $75 surrender fee.  The $75 helps pay for daily care while the clinic performs the surgery and gets the pet back to stable health.  The clinic then offers the pet for adoption.  They have a kitty condo in their lobby.  That is how I got two of my kitties.

Kaity was kept locked in a bedroom for 10 years because "she didn't get along with the other cats."  Her former owner brought her in at age 10 to have her euthanized and the vet said no.  (When I adopted her, she was overweight and her glands were impacted almost to the point of abcess (poor thing).  She, understandably, was very crabby and snappy.  I think that's actually the reason the former owner wanted her euthanized.  She got along just fine with my other cats.)  Kaity had developed asthma and had to be on a Flovent inhaler twice a day for the rest of her life.  Sadly, I lost her to an abdominal tumor at age 15.  Five years was not long enough to enjoy her.  She was a champion snuggler.  I still miss her.

Kiki developed bladder stones, and her former owner didn't want the "expense" of the special cat food she would need for the rest of her life.  The clinic had to do surgery to remove the stones.  At the time, I already had a cat eating the special diet so I adopted Kiki.  She has not had any recurrence of the bladder stones in the three years I have owned her.  But her kidneys are full of stones.  The vet said I could take her to Chicago to try to have the stones broken up by ultrasound, but we both worry that could cause painful movement of the stones that may not necessarily clear her kidneys.  She is stable and in no pain, and she is very active and otherwise healthy.  I just pray she stays that way as she is a lot of fun.

[JobGirl]

---

@sidsmom wrote:

The vet was ethically wrong for not conducting the paid service.

The owner was morally wrong wanting to kill a 'healthy' dog. 

I disagree since apparently there was no real medical reason to put the dog down

it could be saved and live a normal life

I am sure they take some kind of oath too

You cant just pay a vet and say can't afford it just put it down -find it hard to believe legally the owners would have a case there when the dig could clearly be saved

These people didn't want it period

we see go fund me pages for this sort of thing all the time when people can't pay vets dont  just put them down unless they believe its best for the animal

---

[noodleann]

The only thing the vet did wrong was fail to return the killing fee when she instead kept the dog and performed the surgery. She may have rationalized keeping the money as helping to cover the surgery and post-op expenses and later care, but that was not okay. On that I agree.

But the woman who paid to have the dog killed instead of providing it with needed medical care should not have that dog now. People start GoFundMe pages all the time to raise money for operations for their animals and turn to Craiglist and their Facebook friends. If the vet was good-hearted enough to do the surgery to save this dog, she'd probably have worked out a payment plan, too. 

The vet can right her wrong by refunding the euthanasia and cremation fee to whoever paid it. But the woman who consigned that dog to death can never make that right.

[stevieb]

Euthanasia was probably the right choice, you know, in the case of the owner... Cheers to the vet... The dog deserved a chance... Too bad it didn't end up in a better home... 

[Sooner]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@noodleann wrote:

---

@SeaMaiden wrote:

I think the Vet was wrong not to offer the man free surgery to save the dog...IF the man would let the dog be rehomed due to the difficult situation he was in.  To just take it upon himself to do the surgery and give the dog to a rescue group quietly was not right period. 

---

The vet knew a family that wouldn't spend the money on this animal and would only pay to have it killed shouldn't have the dog, period. The woman shouldn't have the dog now. Once she consigned it to death, she lost her ownership rights. Think about it: When you have your animal euthanized, don't you either bring back the body and bury it yourself or have it cremated and have the cremains sent to you or pick them up? It says something that they just dumped the dog and that was it for them.

The woman disposed of the dog and the vet did the right thing in saving its life. What's wrong is she's gotten it back. This publicity is going to generate a lot of attention, and I predict most of it will support the vet and shame the woman.

---

Did you read the article?   The family paid to have the dog euthanized and cremated.  The vet could have refused and sent them away or asked them to sign ownership over to her or a rescue.  Instead she decided to just take both the money and the dog. 

With the 100's of thousands of healthy dogs and cats euthanized in shelters each year why is this one more important.  The owner, right or wrong, tried to do the right thing.  They thought the dog had cancer and he was having seizures.  Rather than have him suffer, decided to euthanize.  They could have just as easily taken him to a shelter or even dumped in a field. 

---

I agree with that because are people now saying that if you can't afford expensive medical treatment for an animal, you can't have a pet?  And people wonder why the shelters are full.

We avoid the question about ending an animals suffering a opposed to how much you can afford to spend on it and that's a HUGE question today.  

[HappyDaze]

It makes me ill when people choose to put their pets to sleep (or take them to a shelter) because they can't afford a life saving surgery or even just a regular surgery like for a broken leg or when they want to go on vacation so they put their pet to sleep because it is old and they are tired of dealing with their old ailments. It happens all the time according to my vets and when talking with people that come to the rehab place (most are rescue owners). People like that should not take in pets. It is your responsibility as a pet owner to take care of your pet, through sickness and in health and through their old age, not just at your convenience. If you can't afford to pay for surgeries or medications your pet may need or you aren't willing to love them and care for them through their old age, you should not get the privilege of owning a pet. They are living, breathing creatures, not "things" you own that you can dispose of when inconvenient or burdensome. 

Makes.me.ill.