Status: Strange
I've heard of faking the death of people, but I've never before heard of a case of someone faking the death of an animal. Until now. The
Chicago Sun Times reports on this bizarre case of a Pennsylvania couple who thought the vet had euthanized their epileptic dog, but then found out he had only pretended to do so:
A couple who thought they were watching their epileptic dog being euthanized actually witnessed a simple sedation procedure concocted so the veterinary clinic could later give the canine to another owner, they claim in a lawsuit... the lawsuit says, the dog was given a sedative to make it appear she was dead. The clinic then gave Annie to a new owner, Gene Rizzo of northeast Philadelphia, who cared for the dog until he had her euthanized Nov. 2.
I just don't understand the motivation of the vet here. Was he trying to make a buck by selling someone a sick dog? Or did he not think the dog was sick enough to be euthanized, but didn't want to tell that to the couple?
Comments
The dog probably wasn't sick enough to euthanize. Strange thing to do for a vet.
The use of microchips makes this much harder as the original owner might get contacted when the new owner tries to register the cat or dog's chip number or if it strays (assuming the original owner cared enough to get the animal chipped).
Most people who are in for a convenience euthanasia are more than willing to let someone else take over ownership. You just have to ask. On the flip side, I'd rather euthanize a pet (for whatever reason) than have the owner try to kill it themselves and botch it (it happens).
By the way, euthanasia literally means "good death." I think of it as a peaceful, humane death. But however you want to think of it, it's killing. It takes a lot out of us who are in the profession. (But I don't envy physicians, who don't generally have the option to give their patients a kind way out.)
By the way, this vet also FORGED release signatures from us to cover himself. This is NOT ethical or moral, and is NOT something vets have the right to do.
I can very much understand why vets do these things, and by the sounds of things dogmom, you made the decision to kill a dog based on your idea of its suffering, and more than likely, your unwillingness to pay for the treatment it needed. You're now agitated that your dog actually has a home and treatment for a disease that you weren't willing to provide treatment for.
I highly doubt vets take joy in deceiving pet owners for no reason. Your statements are contradictory as well, you say on the one hand that the clinic told you it had to be put down, but on the other, you didn't want your animal to be treated for its illness. Which one was it, exactly?
I think you should get your money back for the euthanasia that wasn't performed, and I think you should be prohibited from owning further animals. I wouldn't tell you where your dog was either.
Here's a hint for a successful future: Try to see both sides of the line.
I don't know dogmom's entire story, so I'm not saying what they did was right or wrong, but if a dog is in un-treatable pain, the only ethical thing to do would be to end that pain.
I love my dogs more than most humans, and would kill to protect them, but if they were injured beyond repair or were suffering from a terminal disease, I would make the call for euthanasia. It wouldn't be an easy choice, but it would be the RIGHT one.
@ dogmom your point of view is incomprehensible, you are suing him ?
Vets who are courageous enough to risk themselves to save dogs from being killed by callous owners with much less vet expertise.
I'm not a vegetarian and my life is not focused on animals, but your point of view is shocking. I hope that justice and common sense wins over your inhumane erm.. 'opinion'
There is a market for cat fur in some countries. New Zealand is one of those countires. Dog and cat fur is also used to manufacture winter clothing.
Animal parts are also sought after by individuals around the world.
There are many vets who profit as a result.