http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/29/faked.eu...a.ap/index.html

 

 

Probably one of the craziest things I have ever heard. Considering that the dog ended up being euthanized anyways, you could almost argue that the Vet in question contributed to more pain and suffering for this epileptic dog until it died. It really makes no sense what happened.

Here's where I'm confused. I assume the vet recommended the dog be put down, or can you just walk into a vet's office and have a pet killed on request, even against that vet's advice ??

Here's where I'm confused.  I assume the vet recommended the dog be put down, or can you just walk into a vet's office and have a pet killed on request, even against that vet's advice ??

 

I think you have to have good reason to put an animal down, but i am not positive. The animal in question had debilitating epilepsy, and even after it was given away to another family eventually had to be put down because the siezures were so bad. Basically, this Vet put the animal through more suffering because he/she decided that the family were bad owners(how he/she came to that conclusion I have no idea).

The only conclusion that I can come up with is that maybe the vet didn't think it was neccesary to put the dog down, but they insisted on doing it. Just because it ended up being put down eventually doesn't mean it was neccessary back when the family requested it.

The only conclusion that I can come up with is that maybe the vet didn't think it was neccesary to put the dog down, but they insisted on doing it.  Just because it ended up being put down eventually doesn't mean it was neccessary back when the family requested it.

 

 

it was euthanized 10 months later, its not like this dog lived for years after this happened. You would think the Vet would be able to tell that this dogs illness was not going to get better. Not to mention that he/she deliberately decieved the family.