# "Dead" Dog Not Dead



## LostLakeLua (Sep 6, 2009)

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 (Dec 21, 2011)

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 (May 8, 2009)

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 (Dec 21, 2011)

cherper said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2011)

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 (May 8, 2009)

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 (May 19, 2011)

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 (Aug 25, 2011)

cherper said:


> 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.



cherper said:


> 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'!



Missygal said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2012)

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 (Aug 25, 2011)

theshanman97 said:


> 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 (May 8, 2009)

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 (Oct 12, 2011)

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 (Jan 12, 2012)

Blue Chi said:


> 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 (Aug 25, 2011)

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 (Nov 28, 2010)

That is horrible.


----------



## KathyM (Feb 17, 2012)

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 (Dec 2, 2010)

cherper said:


> 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 (Oct 24, 2011)

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 (Aug 25, 2011)

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 (Oct 24, 2011)

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.


----------



## ~LS~ (Oct 29, 2011)

You know what, good for them for saving the dog and shame on the owner for
not sticking to her responsibility. I'm very close with my vet and hear an
insane amount of stories about how heartless people are and what ridiculous
reasons they want their animals put down for. He had all sorts of legal trouble for
refusing to put down healthy animals or those who can be saved. I'm extreme, if
it were me working at that office I would do the same thing and save the dog.
Being involved with rescue I have seen my share of these types of owners. Last
Pit bull we saved we barely convinced the guy to surrender the dog to us
because he just wanted to put it to sleep. I got him to sign a form, yet he
changed his mind a few months later, and decided he wanted the dog put to
sleep after all, by then the dog was already in his new home. Hubby and I still to
this day receive occasional threatening calls from him when he's high. Yet I do
not regret my decision. In my mind if someone is willing to give up on their pet
that easily, should not have one to begin with. I'm crazy though when it comes
to animals, I put their well fair first, and deal with the consequences after.
Maybe I should not judge this woman since I was not there and don't know
all the little details, but seeing what I saw and reading what I read, this is my
opinion. She does not seem to be one the "good" types of owners to me, the
dog is definitely better off without her...without her it's still ALIVE.

Not to mention how many of my own rescues came close to death, being
chronically ill, and bellow poverty line did I have money to try and save
them??? No, but I sold everything I could in my home when I had to, I worked
from home in between my own hospital visits to try and get the money, I
would go hungry, with holes in my pants, if I had to. And so far all of them
survived(except 1), and are thriving in their new homes with families who love
them. As I said I'm extreme. I'm a good girl, but if I knew I might lose my job if
I did what I considered the right thing for an animal, I would risk it any day.


----------



## ~LS~ (Oct 29, 2011)

ps: I just hope everyone knows I'm not out to start fights, lol. I know I'm nuts
and am extreme when it comes to pets, I just wanted to tell you guys how I feel
about the issue, just could not keep it shut, lol, I have that problem sometimes.
We are all entitled to our own opinions, we all see things differently, I think I
have just become very sensitive after dealing with so many bad dog owners, it's
heart breaking to me, and I feel like I must save them all. This woman/the dog
owner she just reminds me so much of all the people who just give up, who think
dogs are disposable, and do not blink when getting rid of a pet. I mean she did
not even stick around for the euthanasia...that says a lot. Sorry folks, I'm rambling on again.


----------



## Blue Chi (Oct 12, 2011)

~LS~ said:


> You know what, good for them for saving the dog and shame on the owner for
> not sticking to her responsibility. I'm very close with my vet and hear an
> insane amount of stories about how heartless people are and what ridiculous
> reasons they want their animals put down for. He had all sorts of legal trouble for
> ...


This. 

I see some people are getting highly irritated. I don't get that. I didn't even see this as an argument. I thought everyone was just debating their point.


----------



## Blue Chi (Oct 12, 2011)

~LS~ said:


> ps: I just hope everyone knows I'm not out to start fights, lol. I know I'm nuts
> and am extreme when it comes to pets, I just wanted to tell you guys how I feel
> about the issue, just could not keep it shut, lol, I have that problem sometimes.
> We are all entitled to our own opinions, we all see things differently, I think I
> ...


This too! I've never ever put a pet to sleep and not brought it home to bury it. Even if I couldn't stomach watching/holding til it was over, I STAYED until it was over and brought my baby home for a proper burial. Heck, I even done that with my parakeet when I was a teenager. 

Yeah, the more I think about this story and see everyone's points, the more I think the owner was probably a shoddy one and the vet clinic probably made the right decision. No, I wouldn't want the vet to do that to ME, then again I would never have put myself in the situation for that to happen in the first place.


----------



## Suzn (Feb 8, 2012)

As I understand the story, the new owners didn't pay for the treatment either. An organization paid and then the family adopted the dog. It is unfortunate that the vet didn't tell the original owners about this group that would pay for the treatment. It doesn't seem like it was an option made available to them. We don't know anything about what that family was facing or why they made the choice they did. In these economic times it is feasible that they had to choose between providing a home for their children or paying for a treatment that was not presented as very likely to succeed. Until we have walked in their shoes we really don't know what we would have to do.


----------



## ~LS~ (Oct 29, 2011)

You know I just watched it again and it reminded me, the woman did sign a release 
form, of her dog to the clinic, meaning they had the right to save it, no?
Since the dog was their responsibility now. 

I doubt anyone involved in helping this pup had bad intentions, they obviously
just had the dog's best interest at heart, even when the pooch's own owner 
had given up.

I wish we could hear the other side of this story.


----------



## Jayar (Feb 6, 2012)

I would be livid. If there would have been options to rehome, they should have been spelled out. Who knows if this owner would have chosen to willingly let her dog go into a home that could afford the vet care? I know I would have! But this? This is unethical, and is stealing.

Okay, there's a happy ending. But what if the previous owner caught a story of animal cruelty on the local news, the target, her "dead" dog? What if the dog didn't get a happy ending? Not all adoptions are fairytale. Then who answers to the owner who thought her dog had been spared suffering?


----------



## LostLakeLua (Sep 6, 2009)

What confuses me, is why they didn't just tell the owner 'we have this rescue who would be willing to take her and provide the surgery to at least give her a chance.' If told that I highly doubt she would've still opted for euthanasia!
Ethically I'm just happy the dog made it through okay. And I don't always think the owner should be able to just state they want a dog to be euthanized. While euthanasia does have it's time and place; there are a lot of unethical people and owners who would casually opt for putting a dog to sleep while there is potential to save it... and I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong to kill something that could have a great chance at life (you only get one, so yes it's worth it) just because you 'own it and you have a right to destroy it.' Pets should not be considered just property. Rob was telling me about a judge in Texas who recently ruled on some case that a dog was MORE than just property, that there was an emotional/family bond and it caused some controversy. I'll have to ask him for the link.


----------



## doginthedesert (Oct 10, 2011)

I think there is something really missing from this story. It makes it out to seem like the vet told the owner there was only a 20% chance so that they could "take" the dog and give it a better home. IF that is what happened then shame on the vet BUT (and a big but) then the story says the owner signed the dog over to the clinic, they had to know that was a turn over, not a euthanesia. It all makes no sense. Also it is not like many sane pet lovers would have to really worry about this because I know most of us would stay with our pet until the end (I know I would) and then want to take home a body. This whole thing is just lacking in facts- so who knows what really happened, I am just happy the dog is OK.

Things like this sometimes bother me because I know there are a lot of people that think I am abusing my dog by feeding it raw food- also had animal control called on me because I take my dog running and the neighbors thought that was cruel (lol I know), so we really do need to default to owners judgement whenever possible (what you see from the outside is not always representative of the dogs actual life), but this story is different. Something is missing or this owner is just totally out of it.


----------



## ~LS~ (Oct 29, 2011)

Not to mention, the only reason the dog was in critical condition to begin with is
because it got attacked by one of the other dogs in this woman's home. That is
also a red flag for me. 

You know ladies, there might be a difference of opinion regarding this story, but
what I love is that we can all discuss it like civilized people. So kudos to us all, lol.
I actually enjoy hearing everyone's point of view, it's interesting to see how
each one interprets a story.


----------



## Jayar (Feb 6, 2012)

LS, that stuck out to me too... That the dog had been critically injured in her home.


----------



## Suzn (Feb 8, 2012)

I am sorry. I'm afraid I was premature in my judgement. I read the report which didn't mention how the dog was originally injured. When I watched the video it explained that the dog was injured by another dog in the home. To me, that puts a new light on the tragedy. I would have to agree she was not being responsible to let the chi be attacked by another dog. Another thing that bothered me was the pic of the small child taking the chi for a ride on her bike. I would be very nervous about a child playing with the chi. They are not toys! Can I humbly rescind my support of the original owner? 
I think it was unfortunate that the original owner wasn't aware of the option of the Second Chance organization helping fund treatment but at least now I can empathize with the vet's personnel who felt they were interceding on behalf of the puppy.


----------



## doginthedesert (Oct 10, 2011)

That is the thing about this story. Lying and not euthanizing a critically injured pet is one thing- but that's not really what the issue is here. This could never happen to me because I for one would not be putting down a dog with a chance and for two would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER let my dog die alone. This woman really is suspect. I try not to judge about the dog being attacked in the home though, because horrible accidents can happen to anyone- but this owner really is not looking so good in this situation.


----------



## Blue Chi (Oct 12, 2011)

KittynKahlua said:


> *What confuses me, is why they didn't just tell the owner 'we have this rescue who would be willing to take her and provide the surgery to at least give her a chance.' If told that I highly doubt she would've still opted for euthanasia!*
> Ethically I'm just happy the dog made it through okay. And I don't always think the owner should be able to just state they want a dog to be euthanized. While euthanasia does have it's time and place; there are a lot of unethical people and owners who would casually opt for putting a dog to sleep while there is potential to save it... and I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong to kill something that could have a great chance at life (you only get one, so yes it's worth it) just because you 'own it and you have a right to destroy it.' Pets should not be considered just property. Rob was telling me about a judge in Texas who recently ruled on some case that a dog was MORE than just property, that there was an emotional/family bond and it caused some controversy. I'll have to ask him for the link.


We all know there is people out there that will try to get out of financial responsibility. I could see some issues with telling the owner because they would try to wait it out, let the vet "fix" the pup, then try to get the pup back and they never even had to pay for the treatment. I'm not saying this family would have done that but there are def people out there always trying to get something for free. If the vet was gonna have to pocket the expenses for treating the dog, then it needs to be rehomed and not go back to original owner. You buy a dog, make sure you can afford the upkeep. (You is general you here! Not directing this at anyone in particular).


----------



## Blue Chi (Oct 12, 2011)

I want to add this. It may seem that I'm "arguing" in defense of the vet and his office workers that had a hand in this. I'm actually not. I will admit that this was sneaky and perhaps a little unethical. I would want to be told all my options. That is what would be best for the HUMAN interactions here. However, the vet was put in a hard spot and he/she chose to do right by the ANIMAL, however unethical it may have been for the humans. And he/she had to take care of the expenses of treating the pup. I'm sure the new owners didn't pay for it. So, yeah, the vet may be in the "wrong" but I still agree with his actions based on what I'm reading in this story.


----------



## LostLakeLua (Sep 6, 2009)

Blue Chi said:


> We all know there is people out there that will try to get out of financial responsibility. I could see some issues with telling the owner because they would try to wait it out, let the vet "fix" the pup, then try to get the pup back and they never even had to pay for the treatment. I'm not saying this family would have done that but there are def people out there always trying to get something for free. If the vet was gonna have to pocket the expenses for treating the dog, then it needs to be rehomed and not go back to original owner. You buy a dog, make sure you can afford the upkeep. (You is general you here! Not directing this at anyone in particular).


Well I don't think she should have the option to get the dog back. I just meant that they should've told her they could surrender the dog to a rescue to get the treatment; not that she had any chance of adopting him back again lol. 
A lot of dog owners themselves are unethical which is why I don't believe they should just have the "right" to sentence their pet to death, if it has a chance to live. I can't imagine leaving my dog to be euthanized to begin with. But too many people I think just opt for euthanasia out of convenience, and financial reasons, and those are the people I don't think should be deciding whether a dog lives or dies.


----------

