Good responses from CA Jack & R2L. Couldn't agree more fellas.
Good responses from CA Jack & R2L. Couldn't agree more fellas.
The dog looked pretty damn good to me.
dog looked fine.
seemingly healthy
VERY happy
The dude put his dog down b/c he had to move. Bottom line. If he doesn't move, he does not pull the trigger on that deal until much later. If you dispute that, then you just ain't being honest.
Selfish - sorry dude!......That's my take on the deal
A good colleague of mine passed away last year. he had metastatic cancer. the docs told him he had no more then 3 months to live. still in that period, even in the last week...because of heavy medication he had times that he still felt good and enjoy the last moments with his family. U can't judge this dogs health just on the outside.
Which part they tell he puts the dog down because he had to move, i didnt hear it?
I doesn't matter what part. We all seem to have different opinions. I'm not big on taking something I didn't give, so as long as a dog seems to be enjoying life much more than not, I'll give them that option. I've never had to put one down that didn't give me that look we all know that tells you it's time.
You guys who think this guy did the right thing, that's your right. I'm not saying he's wrong or you guys are wrong. I am simply saying I don't agree with what he did, at the time, regardless of reason and I myself would have done this differently.
As someone who once spent every penny I had on my favorite bitch, Red Angel, getting multiple surgeries to avoid her dying of mammary cancer (and I also spent a small fortune buying "special vitamins," etc. trying to treat it homeopathically) ... only to have her die in my arms from a heart attack, after her 4th surgery where I had her entire mammary chain surgically-removed ... and she died because of the associated pain, which was too great for a dying 12-year old bitch to take ... I understand the emotion of wanting to prolong a dog's life--especially a pet who slept in bed with me from 6 weeks old till the day she died. In hindsight, however, it was too much. I should have put her down a lot earlier, but I just couldn't do it.Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
That was a long time ago, and now that I have had dozens of dogs get to "that point," my own decision is as soon as they need "assisted living" they need to go. For example, my Sassy bitch had repeated tumors on her teats also, starting at 6 years of age. (Her mother died of cancer at 5, after an operation caused the growth to metastasize.) With Sassy, I had used the banding method outlined in my article, and she lived another 6 years perfectly happy, until she finally got a cancer in one of her teats too deep to get by banding. I refused to operate on her, as every dog I had ever had "operated on" died within a few months. So the tumor grew slowly, and eventually it got as big as a softball, and had metastasized to her lungs. Sassy never seemed to be in pain, but she would start to cough, because the lung tumor was impeding her heart. Well, one night she even couldn't lie down to go to sleep (because every time she tried to her lungs would fill with fluid), so all she could do was sit up--just so she could breathe. Well that was her last day on earth. In hindsight, maybe I let that go on for too long also. It might have been kinder to have killed her when she felt better and to have saved her from all of that suffering. But again, she was such a beautiful and sweet animal I just couldn't kill her until I absolutely had to.
I still haven't even watched this video, but with the ugly reality of cancer in mind, killing a dog before it has to get that point seems to be the more humane option. Also (and think about this realistically), suppose this guy really did have to move. Who is going to want to buy a dog dying of cancer? Really, who would want it for free? I suppose there might be some kind soul out there who would respond to an ad in the paper for "Free dog dying of cancer," but most people looking for a pet want to get attached to it and enjoy its company for a long time. If the guy really did have to move, and his dog really did have terminal cancer, why wait until the animal is in agony?
Honestly, if it were me, I would be carrying that dog up the flight of stairs if I had to, because I am just a sap that can't kill one of my good dogs, unless I absolutely have to. But I can see the argument for doing so, especially if the guy was forced to move and his new place wouldn't allow dogs. But if he just "decided" to move (and didn't have to), and if he could have kept the dog (but didn't feel like dealing with the hassle of carrying it), then I agree my gut reaction is the guy is a bit of a shit. But that is my "gut" reaction, which is always to care for my dogs until the bitter end. But maybe my "gut" is wrong. Maybe the kinder thing to do is end the life before all that pain happens. Just something to think about.
In closing, cancer is a brutal disease, and all life has to end at some point. Is there any tangible benefit to be gained by prolonging a life to the point it becomes miserable "and then" disposing of it?
Jack
Jack I agree with a lot of what you typed here. For any of us who have owned several dogs over a long period of time, I think we've all got regrets of letting one live too long and other "regrets" related.
This is just me and I'm not trying to push my stance or beliefs on anyone here, but as long as my dog gets up, wags its tail and appears to enjoy life, then I'll be giving it a chance. I've put down dogs to the double digits and can honestly think of one that I regret was too long.
I too get the logic of the move, and the "what if" no one can care for the dog, but I myself, don't think like that. I would be like you. I would carry the dog, or I would not have moved.
To each their own, as always. Ultimately, I have a strong understanding that all animals is a person's property and he is entitled to do with that property as he sees fit. Doesn't mean I'll do the same or agree with it.
It's just real hard for me to not be game on behalf of the gamest animals I know. In a nutshell, that's what you are saying as well Jack. You just won't quit on one.........neither can!
It's just real hard for me to not be game on behalf of the gamest animals I know. In a nutshell, that's what you are saying as well Jack. You just won't quit on one.........neither can I!
Perfectly said, NQK. As someone who has treated literally thousands of animals, and been in the room with the family making the decision hundreds upon hundreds of times, I'm a firm believer in the animal letting you know when it's ready, and none of my personal dogs will go before that time. It's only fair to them. Recently, a good friend of mine who's been an internationally recognized dog trainer (and, incidentally, cock fighter) who breeds Border Collies had a prized bitch come down with what he thought was a bad case of mastitis after having what will now be her last litter. He called me while treating it at home, like many long time breeders do, and couldn't figure out why she wasn't responding to her antibiotics - he said her entire belly had turned jet black and looked to be on the verge of abscessing. He and our vet spent about a week completely puzzled as to why she was not only not getting better, but was instead getting progressively WORSE. Finally, they decided surgery was going to be necessary to have even a hope of saving her, and while they were removing the worse parts of the infection, they sent a sample off to various labs for testing. It turns out that she had a very rare FLESH EATING bacterial infection. To make a very long and technical story short, she wound up having to have 3/4 of a back leg amputated, and almost all of the skin from her underbelly. She is currently undergoing skin graft surgeries to reconstruct what she's lost. Naturally, my friend didn't want to spend what would amount to almost $12,000 in surgeries for a bitch he would never be able to use again, and his recommendation to our vet was to put her down if that's what it would take to save her. Our vet thought about it for a day or two, and then called to say he was taking her in for another surgery - the one that would save her life. When we went up to see her in recovery, he looked at us and said, "Man, I understand why you'd have to put this dog down, but I just can't let you -- she's too damned game for that. I'm going to treat her, and I'm going to keep her." And that's what he did. Because, even in the face of EXTREME adversity and HORRIBLE pain, she wasn't ready to go. She never went off of her food, never stopped wagging her tail, never stopped being happy to see people. She never had "the look" that NQK was referring to. Now, I know everyone doesn't have resources like that to exhaust, but the moral of the story is the same. A person should do everything that is possible within their power for their animals. Bottom line. That was a ROM bitch in the Border Collie world, and now she's three-legged, and can't produce puppies, but is still just as sharp and full of life as she ever was. Our vet says every time he takes her to the farm, she's dying to jump out of the truck and get after some sheep, which he fully intends to allow once she's completely healed up.
On the other hand, there will always be the crazy old cat ladies that have fifteen cats who are almost twenty years old, who keep trying to hide under the fridge to die, and they keep dragging them out and bringing them into the clinic every other day for sub-q fluids until the cat dies three months later than it would have naturally. Yes, that is most certainly cruel and unusual punishment for an animal that deserves to die with some dignity, and with as little pain as possible. But, to me, a person who knows his animal will always know in his heart and bones when it's time -- then it's just a matter of reconciling with that and doing what's best for the pet.
Another things that has always disgusted and astounded me are the owners who will drop their dogs off to be euthanized without them. It's the most cowardly act in the world, in my opinion. That dog has spent every second of every minute of it's entire life loving you with everything he has, the LEAST you can do is have the RESPECT for him to be there when it's time to go, and I mean THE VERY LEAST. Yeah, it's going to hurt, and yeah, it's inconvenient for anyone with a job or kids to make time in their schedule, but it's a necessity, so man up and do your due diligence for your dog. I can count on one hand the number of times I haven't cried while putting down a dog, and these are dogs I barely even know -- there should be no one that can't show up for their best friend in that manner. If you can't do that, you don't deserve any pet, much less a bulldog.
That is a nice story except, ethically-speaking, the vet had NO RIGHT to "tell" another man what he is going to do with that man's property. If any vet ever "told" me what he was "going" to do with MY property, and keep it, in contradiction to my direct instruction, then he would have a serious problem on his hands.
The vet did have the right to ASK that man IF he could save the dog, and then to request permission to keep her in exchange for his surgical efforts ... but he had ZERO right to "tell" that man what he was "going" to do with that man's property.
If I tell a vet to put a dog of mine down, by God that is what that vet is going to do.
The man with the money paying gives the orders.
The man who owns the property gives the instructions. Period.
There is nothing wrong with a vet wanting to help a dog, and asking an owner (who doesn't have the money) IF he could keep the dog in exchange for performing the super-expensive work, and I think most people who couldn't afford to save their dog would say, "Sure, go ahead."
But "telling" a dog owner what he's "going" to do with another man's property is pure egomaniac BS, and is crossing the ethical line IMO. There is also an extreme element of selfishness to it. Why couldn't the vet just lower his $12,000 fee to a more reasonable level for his client, and make a true extension of kindness? The vet's offer (excuse me, his forceable takeover) was essentially only for his own selfish interests.
There are a lot of ways to look at what this vet did, but none of them are purely altruistic IMO.
Jack
In any normal circumstances, you would be absolutely correct, Jack. It's actually illegal to NOT euthanize an animal if a client has signed the papers and dropped them off for that reason, regardless of how you feel about it, or if you think it could be treated easily. All you can do is refuse to euthanize and suggest they go elsewhere, but you cannot agree to put down an animal and then not do it. This guy and this vet, however, have been best friends and business partners in kenneling and advertising for going on twenty years, and he knew that the breeder would have no use for her now (his wife keeps damned corgies as house pets, so even that was out) so he made that decision, which my friend was very happy about. If, after he had performed the last surgery, the owner had been upset about the situation and demanded that the dog be put down, our vet would have done it, but since there is so much history there, he did what he knew our friend would be fine with. But yes, in any normal client-veterinary relationship, it would be extremely unethical.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote