Then give the owner a chance to pay the bill. ? Why send it to a new home. Am I missing something?
this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
165 points (93.2% liked)
News
23259 readers
3386 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The rescue’s reason:
“LDCRF does not re-home an owner-surrendered dog with its former adopter/owner,” Floyd said in her written statement. “Our mission is to save adoptable and safe-to-the-community dogs from euthanasia.”
It's a valid reason. If you surrender the dog because you don't have the resources to take care of the dog, then that's it - youve made a one time deal. Your ownership for the animals life.
She signed the animal away. She saved its life by surrendering it, but now she needs to move on with the knowledge that the dog will be safe and loved - the end result is no different for her. She no longer has the dog.
It's not meant to be harsh. It's the reality of rescue. The rescue has to protect itself and the animal. When she's in a better place, she can adopt again - there are so many animals that need help.
Yeah but that's not what happened here. Read the article.
I have read it now, thank you. I am at work and just made a quick assumption.
In most cases I would still stand by what I said above. There has been a few times a cat has come to us to be euthanized and we managed to pull them back from the brink of death and we've adopted them back out to other people after considering the animals welfare.
This sounds like a PR nightmare - and there are always exceptions to policies.
In this case - it would sound like she might have legal ground as she was coached by the rescue to put the dog down. I amend my opinion as stated above and side with her. I would fight my rescue if this happened where I volunteer.
I will leave my other comment as is for posterity.
Edit - formatting, clarification, and grammar
Yeah but that’s not what happened here. Read the article.
- She took it to her Vet.
- Vet said it was best to put the dog down.
- She took the dog home instead
- "Following several sleepless nights with Beau clearly in pain, Pereira said she took Beau to Montgomery County Animal Services" So she didn't take the dog back to her vet but to a shelter.
- "paid $15 for him to be euthanized. She was told that the shelter’s policy does not allow people to stay with their pets as they are put down."
Not that I would have assumed this outcome, but it does sound like she signed the dog over to the shelter to be euthanized (for $15). My guess is her vet would charge more, but would have been with the dog when it was put down. So it DOES sound like she signed over the dog to the shelter.
Yes, to be euthanized. Because she was told by three different vets AND the shelter staff that euthanasia would be the best action. And then the shelter staff turned around, kept the dog, performed a liver surgery, and is now refusing to make it right to her.
Yeah. Hell I might be making some phone calls to a shelter VM when I get off work.
Encourage you all to do the same.
If the surgery hadn't worked and the dog had suffered more, what a different story this would be. Owner makes painful decisions to euthanize animal that is suffering. Shelter says they'll do it but she can't watch. Decides not to do it and makes the rest of the dog's brief life miserable.
now that you mention it - thats really fucking weird. Anytime I have had to euthanize one of my animals, ive always been allowed to be there with them.
It's the 10th of Stan Rawlinson's 10 Pet Commandments:
-Stay with me on the ultimate difficult journey. Never say, “I can’t bear to watch” or “Let it happen in my absence”. Everything is easier for me if you are there. Remember, regardless of what you do I will always love you.
What a strange, cruel policy from the vet. When I had to put my cat down, my vet had me hold her in my arms while she administered the shot, and then she left the room so it could be just me and my cat til the end. Since I decided to take her body home to bury on my parents' property, my vet recommended that I show her to my remaining cat so that we could mourn together. She said he would understand what death meant if he got to see her, but he would be distressed more if she just disappeared.
What a hideous policy for everyone involved, shame on this vet/shelter for so many reasons.
Yeah, she did sign it - what I said applies. But other factors are being overlooked - this clearly isnt as black and white as the shelter seems to be making it.
Just as a comparison we recently had our cat euthanized (they were end of life and in pain) and it cost us ~200 CAD for the euthanasia and ~300 CAD for cremation. Vet services can be quite expensive and it's extremely sad that people without disposable income wouldn't be allowed to be with their pet through euthanasia.
I'm very sorry to hear about your cat. What was your cats name and can you tell me a fond memory of your cat?
Sorry, but I'm not ready to talk about them yet.
I'm assuming they do this to prevent people from abusing this as a way to get someone else to pay for veterinarian bills and then adopting the pet right back.
At least they didn't re-Noem it.
Kinda sounds like she threw the puppy out and someone else fixed it and won't give it to her. Which seems reasonable to me.
Didn't read the article, did you?