« No Turkey for Vick | Main | What's The Most Creative Dog Name? »
What's A Vet To Do?
Earlier this month, a Florida family was reunited with Candy, their Maltese, eight months after they paid to have the dog euthanized. The short version of the story: Candy had painful tumors in her ears that the family could not afford to treat. (Read the details.) They requested euthanasia. After they left their ailing dog at a Winter Park hospital, a “fill-in vet” performed the surgery to fix Candy’s ears and “rescued her” or “stole her” (depending on your perspective). Eight months later, the veterinarian-owner of the hospital contacted the family to say the dog was alive and would be returned. The family was not happy.
Mishandling aside, the situation raises a serious ethical question: What are vets to do when euthanasia is requested for a dog with a treatable condition? These situations are “troubling and stressful,” says to Dr. Patty Khuly, a veterinarian in South Miami, who wrote about Candy on Dolittler.com. Dr. Khuly pointed out there are options. Veterinarians can, and often do, offer to perform procedures for free or at discounts. They can also request to transfer ownership to the hospital, which will seek a guardian who can afford treatment. But what if the guardian insists on euthanasia?
It's a complicated legal and ethical zone. I’m curious to learn what Bark readers think.
Lisa Wogan
November 20, 2007 in Current Affairs, Health, Humane | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451afb169e200e55067fd308833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What's A Vet To Do?:
Comments
I don't get this....why in the world would they be mad to find out their dog was treated and still living, healthy and happy?
I'd be overjoyed and grateful a vet would be kind enough to do that, honestly.
Posted by: Mother of 3 (of the furry kind) | Nov 30, 2007 6:45:26 PM
1 -- If the condition is treatable, then it's not "euthanasia" -- it's just "killing." Semantics matter when lives are at-stake.
2 -- As noted, the vet should seek a transfer of ownership, but even without formal documentation the former family has pretty clearly abandoned their claim to the dog.
3 -- if economics are clearly the critical factor AND the dog is otherwise apparently well-cared-for, s/he might give the owners an option of discounted or freebie treatment and return.
4 -- if the family "insists" on the killing (seems unlikely, but I'll play), then I would treat the dog, foster it out to a Rescue group and never tell them. As above, they've abandoned their claim to it by seeking --insisting on -- its death.
Posted by: dogfather | Nov 30, 2007 11:29:00 AM
If the people had truly loved Candy, they would have stayed with her as she was euthanized. (I have the strong belief that humans should show some loyalty at the end of a dog's life.) I do think it's morally acceptable to choose euthanasia when a dog is in great pain and treatment can't be afforded. The ideal situation would have been for the vet to offer a reasonable payment plan for the treatment.
Although neither the family nor the vet acted in the ideal fashion, I'm glad a vet treated Candy. I think it would have been fine for the clinic to find a new home for Candy. What was Candy doing in the intervening months?
Posted by: Mary | Nov 20, 2007 4:35:27 PM
The vet should have offered the procedure gratis.
Posted by: Rick Roberts | Nov 20, 2007 3:31:27 PM




