She signed to euthanize her dog last year. Now he’s up for adoption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of y’all can’t read. The shelter is a totally different thing than the rescue where she got the dog. Anyways, she sucks and hope she doesn’t get the dog back.

She signed paperwork to be euthanized. That is what the shelter said they'd do. Instead they choose not to and handed the dog back to the rescue to resell. The shelter should have contacted her and told her and said what would you like us to do we can save your dog. Both acted unethically.

The paperwork said the shelter would treat and adopt out the dog if the shelter deemed that appropriate (source: Washington Post). She wasn't contacted because she gave up the dog. It's pretty reasonable for them to assume she'd taken all the vetrinary steps she was willing to. The fact her vets (two vets?) were wrong is terrible and if anything, that is the story - not the shelter/rescue.

She did not exactly give up the dog. She went to two vets who diagnosed the dog with a serious issue and either an expensive surgery and who knows if it would help or to euthanize. She didn't know what to do, didn't have the money for the surgery (which sounds like it was wrong) and brought it to the shelter for advice/euthanized. When they choose to have the vet look at the dog, which was appropriate as that vet was probably the one euthanizing, the vet said something else, cheaper surgery and dog was ok. They should have contacted the owner immediately when they said the dog didn't need to be euthanized as that was what she agreed/signed for.

[Anonymous]

Here is the rescue’s statement. It seems the owner didn’t do any diagnostic testing and decided to euthanize based on someone’s opinion only. I cannot imagine being so irresponsible.

https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rescue’s statement. It seems the owner didn’t do any diagnostic testing and decided to euthanize based on someone’s opinion only. I cannot imagine being so irresponsible.

https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

Yes, it’s clear the rescue is right here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of y’all can’t read. The shelter is a totally different thing than the rescue where she got the dog. Anyways, she sucks and hope she doesn’t get the dog back.

She signed paperwork to be euthanized. That is what the shelter said they'd do. Instead they choose not to and handed the dog back to the rescue to resell. The shelter should have contacted her and told her and said what would you like us to do we can save your dog. Both acted unethically.

The paperwork said the shelter would treat and adopt out the dog if the shelter deemed that appropriate (source: Washington Post). She wasn't contacted because she gave up the dog. It's pretty reasonable for them to assume she'd taken all the vetrinary steps she was willing to. The fact her vets (two vets?) were wrong is terrible and if anything, that is the story - not the shelter/rescue.

She did not exactly give up the dog. She went to two vets who diagnosed the dog with a serious issue and either an expensive surgery and who knows if it would help or to euthanize. She didn't know what to do, didn't have the money for the surgery (which sounds like it was wrong) and brought it to the shelter for advice/euthanized. When they choose to have the vet look at the dog, which was appropriate as that vet was probably the one euthanizing, the vet said something else, cheaper surgery and dog was ok. They should have contacted the owner immediately when they said the dog didn't need to be euthanized as that was what she agreed/signed for.

That's the problem right there. She gave the dog up and signed him over to the MCSPcA shelter. When she did that she was NO LONGER the owner and had NO rights to the dog. When she signed the paperwork to give him to MCSPCA she checked the box stating that they would evaluate him and only euthanized IF necessary. She brought him there to be killed, NOT for advice. They never told her "we'll look him over and call you if we find a fixable diagnosis". She gave up on the dog and gave up her rights to him.

Now I do agree that it is unfortunate that the initial vets she visited did not properly diagnose or give her a good outlook and, as a previous poster noted, that is the real story here. But instead of that being the story new organization have thrown the rescue under the bus when all they did was the opposite of this woman- not give up on him and spending thousands to save him and give him a good quality of life. Now they are facing criticism from a bunch of keyboard warriors, many of whom lack reading comprehension skills, who read one story, and one side of the story at that, and want to persecute them in the court of public opinion. They do incredible work and work insanely hard to save the lives of dogs and cats.

This woman does not deserve to get this dog back.

[Anonymous]

The more I read about this, the more it doesn’t even sound like the vets are at fault here? It sounds like they made a guess based on what they were observing but without any diagnostic testing no one could be sure, and she didn’t want to pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rescue’s statement. It seems the owner didn’t do any diagnostic testing and decided to euthanize based on someone’s opinion only. I cannot imagine being so irresponsible.

https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

They are covering up their tracks. She called them for help and they refused to help her directly. They could have helped her find a vet and helped with the costs if that was an issue. Lots of better ways to handle this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of y’all can’t read. The shelter is a totally different thing than the rescue where she got the dog. Anyways, she sucks and hope she doesn’t get the dog back.

She signed paperwork to be euthanized. That is what the shelter said they'd do. Instead they choose not to and handed the dog back to the rescue to resell. The shelter should have contacted her and told her and said what would you like us to do we can save your dog. Both acted unethically.

The paperwork said the shelter would treat and adopt out the dog if the shelter deemed that appropriate (source: Washington Post). She wasn't contacted because she gave up the dog. It's pretty reasonable for them to assume she'd taken all the vetrinary steps she was willing to. The fact her vets (two vets?) were wrong is terrible and if anything, that is the story - not the shelter/rescue.

She did not exactly give up the dog. She went to two vets who diagnosed the dog with a serious issue and either an expensive surgery and who knows if it would help or to euthanize. She didn't know what to do, didn't have the money for the surgery (which sounds like it was wrong) and brought it to the shelter for advice/euthanized. When they choose to have the vet look at the dog, which was appropriate as that vet was probably the one euthanizing, the vet said something else, cheaper surgery and dog was ok. They should have contacted the owner immediately when they said the dog didn't need to be euthanized as that was what she agreed/signed for.

That's the problem right there. She gave the dog up and signed him over to the MCSPcA shelter. When she did that she was NO LONGER the owner and had NO rights to the dog. When she signed the paperwork to give him to MCSPCA she checked the box stating that they would evaluate him and only euthanized IF necessary. She brought him there to be killed, NOT for advice. They never told her "we'll look him over and call you if we find a fixable diagnosis". She gave up on the dog and gave up her rights to him.

Now I do agree that it is unfortunate that the initial vets she visited did not properly diagnose or give her a good outlook and, as a previous poster noted, that is the real story here. But instead of that being the story new organization have thrown the rescue under the bus when all they did was the opposite of this woman- not give up on him and spending thousands to save him and give him a good quality of life. Now they are facing criticism from a bunch of keyboard warriors, many of whom lack reading comprehension skills, who read one story, and one side of the story at that, and want to persecute them in the court of public opinion. They do incredible work and work insanely hard to save the lives of dogs and cats.

This woman does not deserve to get this dog back.

She signed to euthanize per two vet's diagnosis recommendations. She couldn't afford the surgeries.

They don't do incredible work if they gave her a dog with serious health issues and a few months after placement refused to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rescue’s statement. It seems the owner didn’t do any diagnostic testing and decided to euthanize based on someone’s opinion only. I cannot imagine being so irresponsible.

https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

They are covering up their tracks. She called them for help and they refused to help her directly. They could have helped her find a vet and helped with the costs if that was an issue. Lots of better ways to handle this.

No. The "owner " was irresponsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rescue’s statement. It seems the owner didn’t do any diagnostic testing and decided to euthanize based on someone’s opinion only. I cannot imagine being so irresponsible.

https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

They are covering up their tracks. She called them for help and they refused to help her directly. They could have helped her find a vet and helped with the costs if that was an issue. Lots of better ways to handle this.

No. The "owner " was irresponsible.

No, the rescue was. They should have helped her. They gave her a sick dog. The shelter lied to her, so did the rescue. Now this dog has been at the rescue over a year with no family. That's not ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rescue’s statement. It seems the owner didn’t do any diagnostic testing and decided to euthanize based on someone’s opinion only. I cannot imagine being so irresponsible.

https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

They are covering up their tracks. She called them for help and they refused to help her directly. They could have helped her find a vet and helped with the costs if that was an issue. Lots of better ways to handle this.

They offered to take the dog back. But they cannot take your dog, provide thousands of dollars of medical care, and then give him back to you. If they did that, nobody would pay their own vet bills!
You either own your dog and pay for its needs, or you don't. If you want the rescue to pay vet bills, be a dog foster home instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are stupid if you get a pet and do not get pet insurance (or be sufficiently prepared to handle these large expenses). Point blank period.

Pet insurance is expensive and doesn’t cover everything.

If you can’t afford insurance, you can’t afford a pet.

You are very judgy. So only the uber rich should have a pet? Or children?

I’m on Medicaid I’m so poor, and I budget pet insurance into my costs of living - because I couldn’t live with myself if I lost my dog to preventable illness or fixable injury on account of my poverty.

Yes, I do without a lot of things so I can afford her insurance. My phone is 5 years old and frustrating to use for more than talk/text because it is so clunky. I have a super cheap phone plan. I have no streaming services or anything else for entertainment beyond what I can access via the library. I eat a lot of beans and rice - but that’s healthy so no worries!

Not even close to uber rich, but the dog is a priority because she’s my #1 anti-depressant.

Pet insurance is still a relatively new thing and I’ve not seen any pet insurance that will immediately pay out to the vet. You still need the funds and then you get reimbursed. Even if you would get back the $7k for surgery you still need $7k to front.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rescue’s statement. It seems the owner didn’t do any diagnostic testing and decided to euthanize based on someone’s opinion only. I cannot imagine being so irresponsible.

https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

They are covering up their tracks. She called them for help and they refused to help her directly. They could have helped her find a vet and helped with the costs if that was an issue. Lots of better ways to handle this.

No. The "owner " was irresponsible.

No, the rescue was. They should have helped her. They gave her a sick dog. The shelter lied to her, so did the rescue. Now this dog has been at the rescue over a year with no family. That's not ok.

For the majority of the year, the dog was not available for adoption as it was receiving nearly $7K of medical care on the rescue’s dime. It’s not like they were letting it starve in a kennel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rescue’s statement. It seems the owner didn’t do any diagnostic testing and decided to euthanize based on someone’s opinion only. I cannot imagine being so irresponsible.

https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

They are covering up their tracks. She called them for help and they refused to help her directly. They could have helped her find a vet and helped with the costs if that was an issue. Lots of better ways to handle this.

No. The "owner " was irresponsible.

No, the rescue was. They should have helped her. They gave her a sick dog. The shelter lied to her, so did the rescue. Now this dog has been at the rescue over a year with no family. That's not ok.

They did not knowingly give her a sick dog. No rescue or even breeder knows what the future holds for any dog. When you adopt or buy a dog you take that risk.

No rescue is going to pay medical bills for dogs that are no longer in their care. When you adopt that dog they are your responsibility. She chose to not get further testing further dog and to instead try to euthanize. She didn’t want to spend the money and take the risk, the rescue was willing to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it is entirely possible that the first vet was knowingly pushing an unnecessary surgery.

I lost a lot of faith in vets when my beloved 10 year old cat got cancer. I ended up paying almost 10k for treatment/surgery, which caused her more trauma and suffering, only for the cancer to continue unabated and for her to be euthanized a month later. It's hard to believe the vet really believed that surgery was a good idea, but it was also easy to get me to shell out the 10k as I sobbed, desperate save my beloved pet. I used to have faith that vets would do the right thing for the animal, but now I'm not so sure.

Agree. I had a similar experience with my dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of y’all can’t read. The shelter is a totally different thing than the rescue where she got the dog. Anyways, she sucks and hope she doesn’t get the dog back.

She signed paperwork to be euthanized. That is what the shelter said they'd do. Instead they choose not to and handed the dog back to the rescue to resell. The shelter should have contacted her and told her and said what would you like us to do we can save your dog. Both acted unethically.

The paperwork said the shelter would treat and adopt out the dog if the shelter deemed that appropriate (source: Washington Post). She wasn't contacted because she gave up the dog. It's pretty reasonable for them to assume she'd taken all the vetrinary steps she was willing to. The fact her vets (two vets?) were wrong is terrible and if anything, that is the story - not the shelter/rescue.

She did not exactly give up the dog. She went to two vets who diagnosed the dog with a serious issue and either an expensive surgery and who knows if it would help or to euthanize. She didn't know what to do, didn't have the money for the surgery (which sounds like it was wrong) and brought it to the shelter for advice/euthanized. When they choose to have the vet look at the dog, which was appropriate as that vet was probably the one euthanizing, the vet said something else, cheaper surgery and dog was ok. They should have contacted the owner immediately when they said the dog didn't need to be euthanized as that was what she agreed/signed for.

That's the problem right there. She gave the dog up and signed him over to the MCSPcA shelter. When she did that she was NO LONGER the owner and had NO rights to the dog. When she signed the paperwork to give him to MCSPCA she checked the box stating that they would evaluate him and only euthanized IF necessary. She brought him there to be killed, NOT for advice. They never told her "we'll look him over and call you if we find a fixable diagnosis". She gave up on the dog and gave up her rights to him.

Now I do agree that it is unfortunate that the initial vets she visited did not properly diagnose or give her a good outlook and, as a previous poster noted, that is the real story here. But instead of that being the story new organization have thrown the rescue under the bus when all they did was the opposite of this woman- not give up on him and spending thousands to save him and give him a good quality of life. Now they are facing criticism from a bunch of keyboard warriors, many of whom lack reading comprehension skills, who read one story, and one side of the story at that, and want to persecute them in the court of public opinion. They do incredible work and work insanely hard to save the lives of dogs and cats.

This woman does not deserve to get this dog back.

The bolded is both factual, and an utterly garbage policy. If an animal is brought in for euthanasia, it should be put down, and the owner allowed to stay with the animal. If an animal is surrendered, the rescue should make that clear up front "If you sign this, the dog is no longer your dog, and the shelter will make whatever decisions we deem fit from this point forward, including rehoming, foster, euthanasia..."

But the whole "maybe we will, maybe we won't" serves no one. Not the owner, not the shelter, not the dog.

FWIW, I was at HRA over the weekend and someone was there to put their dog down. They were allowed to stay with their dog to the end. Some places do it better than others.