[LostLakeLua]

Forgive me if this has already been posted; I saw it on another dog forum and since it's about a chi I figured I should share it here too! I have a lot of mixed feelings about this case.... I am glad the dog is alive and well; but heartbroken for the family who made the choice to euthanize and found out the truth later....

"Dead" dog not dead | wcsh6.com

 

[Christabelle]

I had not read this before so thanks for posting.

This story also gave me mixed feelings. Ultimately
the owner decided not to treat and while I can
certainly understand this was a hard choice, it was
still a choice she made.

I personally am glad that the employee turned
the dog over to a shelter who would help and
in the end, save her life. The owner could maybe
find comfort that her daughters prayers were answered
because she did get to see Lola again.

 

[cherper]

I think it's stealing! I think the "owner" should've had the chance to decide once the dog was recovering. Seems very sneaky and underhanded to me!

 

[Christabelle]

I think it's stealing! I think the "owner" should've had the chance to decide once the dog was recovering. Seems very sneaky and underhanded to me!

Really ? Maybe I need to read the article again but to me it
was like the owner decided not to seek treatment and before
the dog could be put to sleep an employee of the vet's office
took the dog to a shelter who treated her and when she was
well enough sent her to a foster home. Once at the foster
home, the foster mom became attached to her and wanted
to keep her.

Sounds like maybe the vet was at fault for making the dog's
outcome seem so grim but I can't help but think I would have
tried anything to save one of mine.

 

[MiniGrace]

This story troubles me on so many levels!

It seems to me that the owner should have been told about this rescue and been given the opportunity to give the dog up voluntarily to the rescue. As hard as it would be, I would do that if there was hope for recovery and I was unable to afford the cost of the dogs care. I used to volunteer for a ferret shelter and we did have a few ferrets turned in because owners could not afford the necessary medical care.

Also I would never just leave a dog to be euthanized. So the owner just left the dog at the vets alone to be put to sleep? I stayed with both of my old girls and held them until they were gone because I wanted the last touch they felt to be mine.

I wonder what the person that turned the dog over to the rescue told them? If I was running that rescue I would be pretty angry over that. That's a bad position to put a rescue in.

 

[cherper]

Well it seems the owner was told the dog only had 20% chance of survival. Apparently her wounds were very severe.
But to find out someone took your dog, and it happened to survive the operation and then they just adopted it out.!? Seems wrong to me! I mean they should've given the owner a chance to take it back and pay. IF it was me, i'd be TICKED!!!
Not to mention the dog wakes up and his family is MIA.

 

[Missygal]

I don't think it was fair that the owner didn't know they kept dog alive. I personally don't think I could let the lady keep my dog. I am troubled my it totally!!!

 

[LeStatKelly]

I think it's stealing! I think the "owner" should've had the chance to decide once the dog was recovering. Seems very sneaky and underhanded to me!

No it's not stealing...the owner either didn't have the money or was not prepared to spend it on a dogs recovery. She was prepared to have the dog 'not in her possession' providing it was dead so why should it be different now she's found out it's alive.

Well it seems the owner was told the dog only had 20% chance of survival. Apparently her wounds were very severe.
But to find out someone took your dog, and it happened to survive the operation and then they just adopted it out.!? Seems wrong to me! I mean they should've given the owner a chance to take it back and pay. IF it was me, i'd be TICKED!!!
Not to mention the dog wakes up and his family is MIA.

As above the ower did not want to, or did not have the money, to treat the dog so has not rights if you ask me. If she wanted the dog treated she would have found a way to get the money together!
If she did not have the money available to pay at the time how is she going to pay now the pup is recovered.........or maybe it would be 'buy now....pay never'!

I don't think it was fair that the owner didn't know they kept dog alive. I personally don't think I could let the lady keep my dog. I am troubled my it totally!!!

Maybe the vet could have told the owner that they would find a way to treat her but in this event the owner would have no rights to take her back but again, and I reiterate, the owner 'gave up' on a 1 year old puppy because she either did not have or was not prepared to spend the money required to help her recover.................I wonder if she would have given up on her child so quickly!

I'm in the UK and vets here have a similar program where if an owner is not able to treat a 'treatable' case they will try their best, sometimes with their own money, to treat the animal and find a suitable home.....if your a client of the vet for a long time then some will give a few months to pay for the treatment but that is a big risk for them!....I've even heard of some vets who will not inform the owners as some owners are prety selfish and will prefer their pet to be dead than recovered and living with someone else!

It is nice for the child to see her little dog again though.

 

[theshanman97]

THATS SICK! im glad the vets fired! it looks to me that he wanted to get a new dog and liked the look of hers so thought he would make up a sick lie! for women! and dog! lucky they got her back , i have vets anyway , as at my old vets i was told that it was best to put down one of my hamsters and then found out she was fine! :'( x

 

[LeStatKelly]

THATS SICK! im glad the vets fired! it looks to me that he wanted to get a new dog and liked the look of hers so thought he would make up a sick lie! for women! and dog! lucky they got her back , i have vets anyway , as at my old vets i was told that it was best to put down one of my hamsters and then found out she was fine! :'( x

They did not get the dog back! She still lives witht he person who fostered her and treated her for her injuries! Just where she should be.

So if you were in a position where an owner would rather their pet be 'DEAD' than give it a chance to recover you would have that pet put to sleep?

Sorry I think the member of staff who did this did the right thing in passing her to someone who had the money to treat her.
The dog didN'T deserve to die just because her owner would have preferred it to die.
They should be glad that someone was able to help the dog and in effect give it a secod chance of life!

DOES NO-ONE UNDERSTAND THAT THE OWNER OF THIS DOG WAS PREPARED TO LET IT DIE WHEN TREATMENT WAS AVAILABLE?

 

[cherper]

Well I think she felt the odds were against the pup. I mean 20% isn't too great!
I don't think it's wrong to save it obviously, if they want to but I think she should have been told and I also think she should have had the option to pay for it and get her dog back afterwards rather than someone else getting it.
It still seems sneaky and underhanded to me!!

 

[Blue Chi]

I thought this over and I think I have to agree with LestatKelly here. Twenty percent chance would be enough for me to give it a shot. They chose to not give it a shot and signed the rights over. Granted, it was to euthanize. I'm also thinking we may not have the whole story here. The vet may have seen something about these owners that we don't see in this story. The owners seem so....nonchalant. Choosing to euthanize when there was a shot treatment could work. And then there's this whole sob story about the little girl praying to see Lola again but when that chance is made available, they didn't even take it?!?!? They didn't even try to get the dog back.

The vet I used before I moved away has done similar things. Owners dropping their dogs off to be put to sleep for all kinds of dumb reasons. But he wouldn't do it. He'd keep the pet, letting the owners expect the dog to be euthanized, and then rehome the little fellas.

 

[pastel]

I thought this over and I think I have to agree with LestatKelly here. Twenty percent chance would be enough for me to give it a shot. They chose to not give it a shot and signed the rights over. Granted, it was to euthanize. I'm also thinking we may not have the whole story here. The vet may have seen something about these owners that we don't see in this story. The owners seem so....nonchalant. Choosing to euthanize when there was a shot treatment could work. And then there's this whole sob story about the little girl praying to see Lola again but when that chance is made available, they didn't even take it?!?!? They didn't even try to get the dog back.

The vet I used before I moved away has done similar things. Owners dropping their dogs off to be put to sleep for all kinds of dumb reasons. But he wouldn't do it. He'd keep the pet, letting the owners expect the dog to be euthanized, and then rehome the little fellas.

Although the owners seem all loving now that the dog is ALIVE, they let the dog die, and what does it "matter" to them that the dog is alive now? I agree with bluechi. I think the vet did the right thing trying to rescue the little one without "bothering" to inform the owners, as the owners never wanted to take the risk saving the dog. If she reallly cared about the life of her dog, she could have voluntarily gave her to a rescue group.
I think she's just being selfish with a living thing, as in if she can't have her, no one else can.

 

[LeStatKelly]

I've actually been in an 'almost' similar situation a few years ago with a rescue Presa who suffered horrific epilepsy.

We rescued her from a really terrible situation, putting ourselves at great risk from drug dealers, we treated her for over 8 months and as her epilsepsy got worse and worse even though she was on the heaviest meds for her size, weight and age we came to the decision to euthanise.....this was made on the facts that the treatment was not working and Pheonix had started to lose interest in life and also, unfortunately, that our finances were becoming too stretched.
Our vet gave us the option of signing her over to them, they would try to treat for as long as was viable, or we have her PTS........we discussed our financial position with both the owners of the practice and thankfully they allowed us to pay gradually with the full knowledge that we would still be paying after it became the correct time to let Pheonix go!
We'd been to the bank to ask for a loan but they refused......at least we tried!
We got to keep her for a good few months after that but we were paying our vet bill off for over a year after she passed...............That is what you do for a dog, or any other pet, that you take on and love!
When you have a good relationship with your vet they are the best people to help and most will not allow a dog to be PTS without good reason!

I do agree the vet/assistant could have made the owner aware that the dog would be treated after being signed over but some owners, as I've said, are pretty selfish and won't sign over an animal in these curcumstances. I think that whoever did take the dog 'read the situation' and did what they thought best at the time. If the dog was in such a bad state he/she wouldn't have had that long to make their decision.......I'm afraid I'd have done the same thing!

 

[Sissy2010]

That is horrible.

 

[KathyM]

Knowing that news station there might be part of the story left out. A house nearby just burnt down. One station said how the owner woke to smoke an ran next door for help. WCSH had the neighbors "Waking up to a loud explosion"

 

[rms3402]

Well I think she felt the odds were against the pup. I mean 20% isn't too great!
I don't think it's wrong to save it obviously, if they want to but I think she should have been told and I also think she should have had the option to pay for it and get her dog back afterwards rather than someone else getting it.
It still seems sneaky and underhanded to me!!

I agree with what Cheryl is saying. Also, i don't think she is trying to say that it was okay for the family to decide to euthanize the dog when there was treatment available. She's simply saying that the woman should have been informed as to exactly what she was signing for. The vet obviously knew, so it was sneaky not to completely inform her.

 

[EmberLuvu]

I don't blame the owner as number one the odds were severly against the dog, she may not have had the money at the time (Believe me I probably would have to choose euth right now because we aren't rich right now.) to do so and felt instead of letting her suffer and possibly having the surgery done when she probably wouldn't survive anyway, it was best to have her PTS which I completely understand.

That said, we need to stop arguing here.

 

[LeStatKelly]

As I said though some owners can be pretty selfish and would PTS rather than have someone else treat the pet and rehome it!

I don't think it's an argument as such about the issue more a misunderstandig.....I agree that it would be nice for the owner to know that the dog were being treated but in some circumstances that's not always what's best for the pet.
Maybe the owner was give the choice and chose to PTS anyway. As has been said you can't always believe all that is told in the news.

Myself I think I'd rather have my pet treated, by someone else if I couldn't afford it, even if it meant it living with a different owner afterwards.

 

[EmberLuvu]

So would I LeStatKelly but in the situation they should have either told her or did what the owner wanted and PUT HER TO SLEEP.

I do believe it was wrong for the vet to not have her PTS without notifying the owner, "Hey your dog went to a foster home and is doing fine."

Plus, it does cost money to have them PTS. And for them to basically loose the money- maybe they didn't want the persigure done and wanted to just end the dog's life (which I personally would not have done willingly, I would only put a dog down if I felt it was best) it would be considered a waste of money to them though I do believe that I would rather pay one or two hundred for their survival then for them to be PTS.

That said, once again, we need to stop posting and posting with disagreements as you call them and creating arguments.