Thread: Miracle!!!!!
View Single Post
Old 02-28-2012, 12:18 PM   #580
Nancy1999
I ♥ Joey & Ralphie!
Donating Member
 
Nancy1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 25,396
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBlain View Post
In reference to the case in the link just posted, the gal left a badly hurt dog with a vet thinking it was going to be put down. I feel the vet is most likely wrong, but it is hard to comment on because I don't believe we have all the facts. From the news article it states that the vet told the owner that there was only a 20% likelihood the dog would survive and it would be very expensive. Not wanting the dog to suffer or having to spend a lot of money for a dismal outcome they opted to have the dog put down and signed on the dotted line. What we don't know because they did not say is exactly what was on the contract she signed. If it stated that the dog was to be put down and the people paid for that service I think that is what should have happened. I was faced with similar situation when my yorkie was attacked by a much larger dog, the ER vet said they could try all sorts of extreme measures and a specialist would have to be called in, but even if all that was done, he was not sure he would live and would never be the same. We did not speak about the costs but obviously it would be expensive. I made the decision to have the dog put to sleep rather than put him through several surgeries and who knows what else. Unlike the people in the story I stayed with him when he was put down and took him home to bury him, but not everyone has that option. However if I had to leave him and later on found out despite the vet telling me the chances of survival were only 20% that he was given away to be treated without consulting me or giving me the option later on to pay the vet bills and get my dog back I would be LIVID and raise all sorts of hell. I am also surprised if the vet truly believed a dog only had a 20% chance that the rescue group would opt to spend money treating her.

Something just does not seem right with this picture, it's odd that the media did not get any comments from the vet or report exactly what was written on the paper the lady signed. If the contract they signed stated the dog was being left with the vet to do what he thought was best for the dog, then they have no beef, but if it was for the dog to be put down and they paid for that, I think that vet was wrong and should be in a lot of trouble.

Like Nancy stated I also agree that there are people willing to give up a dog at the drop of a hat because they either don't have or don't want to spend money at a vet. So in that case surrendering the dog to a rescue group is a great option. But a dog attack with a 20% chance of survival is much different than a broken leg.
The woman said that the vet said 20% chance of survival; we really don't know what the vet actually said. I'm just saying that a lot of dog owners will not pay more than what they think a dog is "worth." Also, now she wants the cost of euthanasia returned to her, oh puleeze . . . I would love to hear the vets side of the story.
__________________
Nancy1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Welcome Guest!
Not Registered?

Join today and remove this ad!