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

Forum Index » Pets

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]As many have pointed out on this thread, the shelter form said that the dog would be euthanized “if necessary.”  As someone who is dealing with a sick pet and may not be able to afford all of the vet bills that would be associated with treating the pet, I can understand why the owner may have decided to surrender the pet to the shelter rather than watch a euthanasia in the vet’s office. The outcome of the story is the dog did get the medical treatment he needed and survived- so why is the decision the dog owner made so horrible? Why does that make the person a terrible pet owner?  She was in a position for whatever reason she could not take care of the sick dog, so she did the responsible thing of taking the dog to qualified professionals to handle the dog.  Deciding how to handle a sick pet is a very fragile decision for people- and she didn’t leave the dog abandoned, starving, or injured (or alone - obviously the dog was left with vets and qualified professionals as it got the surgery it needed).  Perhaps some people would make a different choice and would hand an animal off to a no-kill shelter or a charity organization, but it seems unfair to say she was an irresponsible pet owner.  Shelters exist, and she used one.  We have already spent thousands on our sick pet, with no diagnosis yet.  We are at a point of having to decide whether we can spend thousands more to continue to try to get to a diagnosis, and then potentially spend thousands to treat the illness (if it’s even treatable). But given we don’t really have a diagnosis and it only *may* be treatable, I have to grapple with can I handle having my pet be out there without me if I did surrender her, versus what I would view as potentially selfish and euthanizing her if she continues to decline.

What I can’t understand is why the rescue organization felt like this woman is not a suitable candidate to adopt a dog that is available for adoption.  That she is “ineligible” because it was previously her pet seems like an absurd policy.  I don’t think removing that policy would create the consequence some describe of everyone surrendering their pet to get free medical care and then re-adopting because there would be no guarantee you’d be the first one to try to adopt your pet, etc. but if the pet was saved and then is still available for adoption, I don’t understand why the rescue would think she was any less good of a home than a different applicant. The dog is with a foster while being treated that isn’t financially responsible for the dog at all- and the next owner was not responsible for any of the expenses either.  This bright line rule that the pet rescue has set around who is worthy of pet ownership seems like the concerning part of this story- they are treating this woman like she put the dog in a dumpster.  If they don’t think a person who can’t afford 7k (and probably plus for miscellaneous expenses) for an unexpected illness should own a dog- they should be charging significantly higher adoption fees (which would help fund their organization anyways). 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics