Dad Kills Dog After Girl's Jaw Ripped Off

[Diva]

It just sounded like 'why wouldn't someone else take responsibility for my problem, it's all 'their' fault' to me really. I don't hold the vet responsible. Although I am always puzzled by how someone could get and keep/feed a dog like a Neo, plus a GSD, but claim not to be able to work out a way to pay a not very large vet bill. Must just be me.

[twodoggies2001]

It just sounded like 'why wouldn't someone else take responsibility for my problem, it's all 'their' fault' to me really. I don't hold the vet responsible. Although I am always puzzled by how someone could get and keep/feed a dog like a Neo, plus a GSD, but claim not to be able to work out a way to pay a not very large vet bill. Must just be me.

There are a lot of people in this world who will have numerous dogs, (especially in the US,) who can barely afford to feed themselves let alone their tribe, and live from day to day. Personally, I think the vet is somewhat to blame for this situation. If these people went to him and asked that the dog be put down, because of this temperament, even given their financial circumstances, he should have obliged. I agree, the parents should have been more vigilant in their responsibilities to their toddler, and now she has paid the price. As to the father chasing the dog out, and not tending the baby, he was most likely in shock/panic mode. All members of that family have now learnt a hard lesson in life which I wouldn't wish on anybody.

[BittyMooPeeb]

It just sounded like 'why wouldn't someone else take responsibility for my problem, it's all 'their' fault' to me really. I don't hold the vet responsible. Although I am always puzzled by how someone could get and keep/feed a dog like a Neo, plus a GSD, but claim not to be able to work out a way to pay a not very large vet bill. Must just be me.

There are a lot of people in this world who will have numerous dogs, (especially in the US,) who can barely afford to feed themselves let alone their tribe, and live from day to day. Personally, I think the vet is somewhat to blame for this situation. If these people went to him and asked that the dog be put down, because of this temperament, even given their financial circumstances, he should have obliged. I agree, the parents should have been more vigilant in their responsibilities to their toddler, and now she has paid the price. As to the father chasing the dog out, and not tending the baby, he was most likely in shock/panic mode. All members of that family have now learnt a hard lesson in life which I wouldn't wish on anybody.

Why? Vets are not responsible for every pet owners costs that they decide they don't want to pay. Most of the 180 pounds was probably the fee that the vet would have to pay for disposal of the body.

Now if they had contacted the council and said their dog had bitten and they wanted it euthed for free, and the council had said 'no' that might be a different matter ...

[twodoggies2001]

It just sounded like 'why wouldn't someone else take responsibility for my problem, it's all 'their' fault' to me really. I don't hold the vet responsible. Although I am always puzzled by how someone could get and keep/feed a dog like a Neo, plus a GSD, but claim not to be able to work out a way to pay a not very large vet bill. Must just be me.

There are a lot of people in this world who will have numerous dogs, (especially in the US,) who can barely afford to feed themselves let alone their tribe, and live from day to day. Personally, I think the vet is somewhat to blame for this situation. If these people went to him and asked that the dog be put down, because of this temperament, even given their financial circumstances, he should have obliged. I agree, the parents should have been more vigilant in their responsibilities to their toddler, and now she has paid the price. As to the father chasing the dog out, and not tending the baby, he was most likely in shock/panic mode. All members of that family have now learnt a hard lesson in life which I wouldn't wish on anybody.

Why? Vets are not responsible for every pet owners costs that they decide they don't want to pay. Most of the 180 pounds was probably the fee that the vet would have to pay for disposal of the body.

Now if they had contacted the council and said their dog had bitten and they wanted it euthed for free, and the council had said 'no' that might be a different matter ...

I agree, vets are not responsible for pet owner's costs, but I feel they should have a moral obligation and responsibility to the community If someone brings them a native animal for treatment, they treat that animal free of cost. That vet could have set up some sort of payment plan with the owners. I wonder how he feels now after this poor child has been ripped apart, that is if he has any conscience.

[stormie]

Of course, blame the vet, who had absolutely nothing to do with the fact the dog mauled the kid. The vet had a fee for the service which the owners couldn't afford. How on earth is it the vets fault? Some people will take any opportunity to have a dig a vets...

Maybe we should also blame the company that disposes of the body? If they didn't charge the vets so much, the vets wouldn't have to charge the owners what they do.

If people choose to own giant breeds, they need to accept the costs involved, both whilst the animal is alive and after. I can assure you no mechanic would service my car for free because they have a 'moral obligation'. Nor would a plumber come out to fix your toilet for free because he felt bad you couldnt pee in it.

The poor little girl. Something that will affect her life for, and could have been prevented had her parents taken action sooner.

Edited March 29, 2010 by stormie

[twodoggies2001]

Of course, blame the vet, who had absolutely nothing to do with the fact the dog mauled the kid. The vet had a fee for the service which the owners couldn't afford. How on earth is it the vets fault? Some people will take any opportunity to have a dig a vets...

Maybe we should also blame the company that disposes of the body? If they didn't charge the vets so much, the vets wouldn't have to charge the owners what they do.

If people choose to own giant breeds, they need to accept the costs involved, both whilst the animal is alive and after. I can assure you no mechanic would service my car for free because they have a 'moral obligation'. Nor would a plumber come out to fix your toilet for free because he felt bad you couldnt pee in it.

The poor little girl. Something that will affect her life for, and could have been prevented had her parents taken action sooner.

I agree that if you choose to own a giant breed, or a miniature one for that matter, you should be able to financially look after it. Your example of the service to your car and the toilet is not a fair comparison. In fact, it's world's apart. These people apparently approached said vet and he denied them. I still believe that he is morally incorrect, and as I said before, he could and should have worked out a payment plan. Say for example, if an owner presents with a very sick animal to the vet, and at the time is short of funds, does the vet turn him/her away, or does he/she do whatever possible to save that animal? Again, a payment plan could be arranged. It's not that difficult.

[Sayly]

Stormie said pretty much what I was going to say.

Why is it the vet's fault the dickhead father couldn't afford the vet bill to put it down? Not having enough money to look after your own dogs (including BASIC vet bills) does not mean others should foot the bill, just means you are an idiot.

How does the vet know the dog was dangerous? And not some moron who didn't want the dog anymore and simply said it was dangerous, put it down? Or stole their neighbour's/ex's/enemy's dog and said here it's dangerous put it down?

ETA: How do you know he didn't try work out a payment plan with the owners? And if they were that desperate perhaps they could have tried another vet?

And 180 pounds, I have the equivalent (well more actually) saved just for vet fees for one dog (the rest are my parent's but they also have money saved).

Edited March 29, 2010 by Lyndsay

[stormie]

Of course, blame the vet, who had absolutely nothing to do with the fact the dog mauled the kid. The vet had a fee for the service which the owners couldn't afford. How on earth is it the vets fault? :D Some people will take any opportunity to have a dig a vets...

Maybe we should also blame the company that disposes of the body? If they didn't charge the vets so much, the vets wouldn't have to charge the owners what they do.

If people choose to own giant breeds, they need to accept the costs involved, both whilst the animal is alive and after. I can assure you no mechanic would service my car for free because they have a 'moral obligation'. Nor would a plumber come out to fix your toilet for free because he felt bad you couldnt pee in it.

The poor little girl. Something that will affect her life for, and could have been prevented had her parents taken action sooner.

I agree that if you choose to own a giant breed, or a miniature one for that matter, you should be able to financially look after it. Your example of the service to your car and the toilet is not a fair comparison. In fact, it's world's apart. These people apparently approached said vet and he denied them. I still believe that he is morally incorrect, and as I said before, he could and should have worked out a payment plan. Say for example, if an owner presents with a very sick animal to the vet, and at the time is short of funds, does the vet turn him/her away, or does he/she do whatever possible to save that animal? Again, a payment plan could be arranged. It's not that difficult.

Why should the vet, who would be a complete stranger to the owners, pay for treatment for THEIR dog, out of his/her own pocket? I don't see how its any different to a mechanic or plumber - both are a profession which offer a service. If I had faulty brakes on my car, my mechanic wouldn't fix them for cheap or with a payment plan. As the owner of the vehicle, it is my responsibility to ensure I can pay for my car.

How do you know that these clients were previous bat debtors with the vet? Perhaps they already had bills racked up?

And if an animal presents sick on a clinics doorstep, they are only required to give first aid and prevent suffering. If a dog presents with a broken leg and the owners have no money, the vet is not under any obligation to fix that leg free of charge.

Also, if a person presents with an otherwise healthy dog requested euthanasia, the vet is well within their rights to deny. Simple - the clients can find someone else to put to sleep their dog. No one likes putting to sleep animals whom are otherwise healthy - vets are often presented with unwanted christmas puppies etc to be put to sleep because owners no longer want them and a vet is well within their rights to decline the euthanasia.

I still can't believe, that given the information from the article about the dogs previous actions, that you are pointing the finger at the vet. There would have been other options for the father - gees, even if he tied the dog up for the authorities to deal with.

[twodoggies2001]

Of course, blame the vet, who had absolutely nothing to do with the fact the dog mauled the kid. The vet had a fee for the service which the owners couldn't afford. How on earth is it the vets fault? :D Some people will take any opportunity to have a dig a vets...

Maybe we should also blame the company that disposes of the body? If they didn't charge the vets so much, the vets wouldn't have to charge the owners what they do.

If people choose to own giant breeds, they need to accept the costs involved, both whilst the animal is alive and after. I can assure you no mechanic would service my car for free because they have a 'moral obligation'. Nor would a plumber come out to fix your toilet for free because he felt bad you couldnt pee in it.

The poor little girl. Something that will affect her life for, and could have been prevented had her parents taken action sooner.

I agree that if you choose to own a giant breed, or a miniature one for that matter, you should be able to financially look after it. Your example of the service to your car and the toilet is not a fair comparison. In fact, it's world's apart. These people apparently approached said vet and he denied them. I still believe that he is morally incorrect, and as I said before, he could and should have worked out a payment plan. Say for example, if an owner presents with a very sick animal to the vet, and at the time is short of funds, does the vet turn him/her away, or does he/she do whatever possible to save that animal? Again, a payment plan could be arranged. It's not that difficult.

Why should the vet, who would be a complete stranger to the owners, pay for treatment for THEIR dog, out of his/her own pocket? I don't see how its any different to a mechanic or plumber - both are a profession which offer a service. If I had faulty brakes on my car, my mechanic wouldn't fix them for cheap or with a payment plan. As the owner of the vehicle, it is my responsibility to ensure I can pay for my car.

How do you know that these clients were previous bat debtors with the vet? Perhaps they already had bills racked up?

And if an animal presents sick on a clinics doorstep, they are only required to give first aid and prevent suffering. If a dog presents with a broken leg and the owners have no money, the vet is not under any obligation to fix that leg free of charge.

Also, if a person presents with an otherwise healthy dog requested euthanasia, the vet is well within their rights to deny. Simple - the clients can find someone else to put to sleep their dog. No one likes putting to sleep animals whom are otherwise healthy - vets are often presented with unwanted christmas puppies etc to be put to sleep because owners no longer want them and a vet is well within their rights to decline the euthanasia.

I still can't believe, that given the information from the article about the dogs previous actions, that you are pointing the finger at the vet. There would have been other options for the father - gees, even if he tied the dog up for the authorities to deal with.

First of all. we DON'T know that the owner is not known to the vet. You state that the vet would be a complete stranger to the owner and then you say that how do I know that the clients were previous bad debtors with the vet I think you intended to say 'were not' bad debtors. I am only pointing the finger at the vet, because in my opinion a little heart and compassion could have been shown. Anyway, it seems that we will not agree on this subject, and that is our right to freedom of speech. You have your firm views and I have mine, so let's just agree to disagree

[Sayly]

Exactly stormie - why should the vet pay out of their own pocket for the owner's mistakes? Their mistakes in judgement and upbringing of the dog?

ETA: Perhaps the vet had more compassion for the dog than the client? And had only the owner's word on it being dangerous? And didn't want to take the life of an otherwise healthy animal? An animal they had no proof of being dangerous, except the word of a man who couldn't afford the euth costs and was brutal enough to kill his own dog by stabbing it?

Edited March 29, 2010 by Lyndsay

[I love dribbly dogs]

Don't blame the vet.. don't blame the dog.. blame the parents.. blame the 'responsible' adults at the scene of this tragedy.

Obviously a very aggressive dog if it ran away from the owner into the back yard..

How old was the animal, had it shown aggression before? How do we KNOW the animal had bitten the uncle a week before? who's to say they didn't make it up to make the dog look worse? Who's to say they even went to a vet to ask to have the dog put to sleep?

Frankly if you are stupid enough to have an 'aggressive dog' near a toddler you are very likely to lie to make yourself 'appear' responsible.

Edited March 30, 2010 by I love dribbly dogs

[Souff]

Spare a thought for the child.

IMO everyone involved here has failed the child.

Parents, and other family members who had seen the situation.

And yes, the vet. If the vet was told the dog was dangerous then the dog should have been euthanased.

The cost of euthanasia is far less than having a child's needless death, or in this case horrific injuries that will scar a little girl mentally and physically, on your conscience.

If anyone were to set up a public fund to cover the cost of euthanasia of dogs that were aggressive, then I for one would happily give a donation.

Ultimately the dog is going to end up being put down - and too often this is AFTER the worst has happened. As a dog lover I find this inexcusable.

Far better for the dog to have been euthanased in the first instance - BEFORE tragedy happens.

A dog is literally on death row from the time euthanasia is first discussed. It is going to happen - 99 times out of 100.

The cost of euthanasia should never stand in the way of commonsense.

Souff

[Sayly]

The vet has a right to refuse treating an animal, especially if they are asked to do it for free.

As I said before, how does the vet know that the healthy dog in front of him isn't just being put down because the owner doesn't want him anymore? Or it's a dog stolen from an ex or neighbour? If the vet had PROOF the dog was dangerous then it would be different.

If I was the vet and was put in the situation it would not be an easy decision to make.

ETA: The owner obviously knew it was dangerous and yet it was still around his child! I feel so sorry for the poor girl.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Lyndsay

[MolassesLass]

Terrible for the poor child.

Not the vets fault at all though - parents 100%, frickken idiots who need to be sterilised.

[OSoSwift]

Anyone with half a brain wold keep a dog well away from a small child if it had bitten someone previously. Especially if it is a large breed.

It is the owners responsibilty to control their dog. IT obviously wasn't muzzled, wasn't under control and had access to a small child.

The child has been seriously let down in this circumsatnce by the people that are meant to protect her.

I hope she recovers soon and it would be silly of me to think it will not affect her for the rest of her life, - but I hope it has as minimal an impact as possible for the poor little mite.

[Loving my Oldies]

I agree that if you choose to own a giant breed, or a miniature one for that matter, you should be able to financially look after it. Your example of the service to your car and the toilet is not a fair comparison. In fact, it's world's apart. These people apparently approached said vet and he denied them. I still believe that he is morally incorrect, and as I said before, he could and should have worked out a payment plan. Say for example, if an owner presents with a very sick animal to the vet, and at the time is short of funds, does the vet turn him/her away, or does he/she do whatever possible to save that animal? Again, a payment plan could be arranged. It's not that difficult.

A bit off topic, but I am sick and tired of seeing vets blamed for things like this.

A relative of mine was a vet with his own practice for over 30 years. I still have nightmares about some of the stories I wish he hadn't told me. Of the pensioners who would come in in the latest fashion with a brand new car sitting in the driveway demanding a pensionr's discount; of the people who would come in last thing on a Sunday night with an animal who had been obviously ill for some time saying the dog just suddenly became ill, of the people who would bring in their dog who had obviously been ill for some time and no matter how hard the vet tried, the animal died and then the people would reefuse to pay their account because the vet didn't save their dog's life; stories of how the vet's wife had to call the police because the vet was being threatened; of the dangerously ill Dalmatian who was on a very strict diet, but after a visit from the owner was violently ill bringing up about a kilo of peanuts fed to it by the stupid stupid stupid owner, of the people who would swear on their children's lives that they never used poisons when it was obvious the animal had been poisoned by something in the house or garden ..... and that is just the tip of the iceberg. One of these days, I may tell on DOL a story that I think of too often which even now I can't put into words.

Just consider how many animals that vet had seen that day (that week, that month, that year), twodoggies, and how many time he had heard people making excuses as to why they couldn't pay their account.

Get real, twodoggies, and look at both side before you start blaming someone.

[Souff]

I agree that if you choose to own a giant breed, or a miniature one for that matter, you should be able to financially look after it. Your example of the service to your car and the toilet is not a fair comparison. In fact, it's world's apart. These people apparently approached said vet and he denied them. I still believe that he is morally incorrect, and as I said before, he could and should have worked out a payment plan. Say for example, if an owner presents with a very sick animal to the vet, and at the time is short of funds, does the vet turn him/her away, or does he/she do whatever possible to save that animal? Again, a payment plan could be arranged. It's not that difficult.

A bit off topic, but I am sick and tired of seeing vets blamed for things like this.

A relative of mine was a vet with his own practice for over 30 years. I still have nightmares about some of the stories I wish he hadn't told me. Of the pensioners who would come in in the latest fashion with a brand new car sitting in the driveway demanding a pensionr's discount; of the people who would come in last thing on a Sunday night with an animal who had been obviously ill for some time saying the dog just suddenly became ill, of the people who would bring in their dog who had obviously been ill for some time and no matter how hard the vet tried, the animal died and then the people would reefuse to pay their account because the vet didn't save their dog's life; stories of how the vet's wife had to call the police because the vet was being threatened; of the dangerously ill Dalmatian who was on a very strict diet, but after a visit from the owner was violently ill bringing up about a kilo of peanuts fed to it by the stupid stupid stupid owner, of the people who would swear on their children's lives that they never used poisons when it was obvious the animal had been poisoned by something in the house or garden ..... and that is just the tip of the iceberg. One of these days, I may tell on DOL a story that I think of too often which even now I can't put into words.

Just consider how many animals that vet had seen that day (that week, that month, that year), twodoggies, and how many time he had heard people making excuses as to why they couldn't pay their account.

Get real, twodoggies, and look at both side before you start blaming someone.

Souff has the utmost respect for vets and their patience and diplomacy. Most busy vets would scarcely have a day where they didn't have some of the incidents you mention. Souff would have throttled half the fibbers. Saw enough of it with dogs that didn't get groomed ..... and heard enough of the excuses of how it was always somebody elses fault that the dog now needed medical treatment because of neglect!

Heard enough of "those tablets didnt work!" stories too. No, they don't work very well if they are still sitting in the container!

Would I take an owner's word that a dog was dangerous if I were a vet? You bet I would. If they didnt want the dog and sent them back home with the unwanted dog, then the dog is going to develop issues, if he hasn't already, and a large breed with "issues" is not the sort of animal that can safely live with little children in society. And I am pleased to say that most of the vets I know would have put that dog down the first time the owner asked for it to be done.

Payment can be chased up later, if there is a problem.

It wouldn't be the first time and it wont be the last.

LITTLE KIDS COME FIRST.

Dangerous dogs like this one in the hands of idiot owners is simply a lethal incident waiting to happen.

The cost of the green dream and disposal of the dog would be a small investment in the protection of little children and I would sleep well at night.

Allowing this dangerous dog to go back home with the owner brought consequences that cannot be as easily fixed.

Also, it is not the vet's role to doubt the claims of the owner.

Sometimes a handler gets the job of taking a dog to the vet for euthanasia after a nasty incident.

The vet has to take the word of the handler that the dog is deemed to be dangerous and does what has to be done - professionally.

Ethics before emotion. Every time.

Souff

[Bullbreedlover]

Souff has the utmost respect for vets and their patience and diplomacy. Most busy vets would scarcely have a day where they didn't have some of the incidents you mention. Souff would have throttled half the fibbers. Saw enough of it with dogs that didn't get groomed ..... and heard enough of the excuses of how it was always somebody elses fault that the dog now needed medical treatment because of neglect!

Heard enough of "those tablets didnt work!" stories too. No, they don't work very well if they are still sitting in the container!

Would I take an owner's word that a dog was dangerous if I were a vet? You bet I would. If they didnt want the dog and sent them back home with the unwanted dog, then the dog is going to develop issues, if he hasn't already, and a large breed with "issues" is not the sort of animal that can safely live with little children in society. And I am pleased to say that most of the vets I know would have put that dog down the first time the owner asked for it to be done.

Payment can be chased up later, if there is a problem.

It wouldn't be the first time and it wont be the last.

LITTLE KIDS COME FIRST.

Dangerous dogs like this one in the hands of idiot owners is simply a lethal incident waiting to happen.

The cost of the green dream and disposal of the dog would be a small investment in the protection of little children and I would sleep well at night.

Allowing this dangerous dog to go back home with the owner brought consequences that cannot be as easily fixed.

Also, it is not the vet's role to doubt the claims of the owner.

Sometimes a handler gets the job of taking a dog to the vet for euthanasia after a nasty incident.

The vet has to take the word of the handler that the dog is deemed to be dangerous and does what has to be done - professionally.

Ethics before emotion. Every time.

Souff

I wholeheartly agree with what you say.

[twodoggies2001]

I agree that if you choose to own a giant breed, or a miniature one for that matter, you should be able to financially look after it. Your example of the service to your car and the toilet is not a fair comparison. In fact, it's world's apart. These people apparently approached said vet and he denied them. I still believe that he is morally incorrect, and as I said before, he could and should have worked out a payment plan. Say for example, if an owner presents with a very sick animal to the vet, and at the time is short of funds, does the vet turn him/her away, or does he/she do whatever possible to save that animal? Again, a payment plan could be arranged. It's not that difficult.

A bit off topic, but I am sick and tired of seeing vets blamed for things like this.

A relative of mine was a vet with his own practice for over 30 years. I still have nightmares about some of the stories I wish he hadn't told me. Of the pensioners who would come in in the latest fashion with a brand new car sitting in the driveway demanding a pensionr's discount; of the people who would come in last thing on a Sunday night with an animal who had been obviously ill for some time saying the dog just suddenly became ill, of the people who would bring in their dog who had obviously been ill for some time and no matter how hard the vet tried, the animal died and then the people would reefuse to pay their account because the vet didn't save their dog's life; stories of how the vet's wife had to call the police because the vet was being threatened; of the dangerously ill Dalmatian who was on a very strict diet, but after a visit from the owner was violently ill bringing up about a kilo of peanuts fed to it by the stupid stupid stupid owner, of the people who would swear on their children's lives that they never used poisons when it was obvious the animal had been poisoned by something in the house or garden ..... and that is just the tip of the iceberg. One of these days, I may tell on DOL a story that I think of too often which even now I can't put into words.

Just consider how many animals that vet had seen that day (that week, that month, that year), twodoggies, and how many time he had heard people making excuses as to why they couldn't pay their account.

Get real, twodoggies, and look at both side before you start blaming someone.

Souff has the utmost respect for vets and their patience and diplomacy. Most busy vets would scarcely have a day where they didn't have some of the incidents you mention. Souff would have throttled half the fibbers. Saw enough of it with dogs that didn't get groomed ..... and heard enough of the excuses of how it was always somebody elses fault that the dog now needed medical treatment because of neglect!

Heard enough of "those tablets didnt work!" stories too. No, they don't work very well if they are still sitting in the container!

Would I take an owner's word that a dog was dangerous if I were a vet? You bet I would. If they didnt want the dog and sent them back home with the unwanted dog, then the dog is going to develop issues, if he hasn't already, and a large breed with "issues" is not the sort of animal that can safely live with little children in society. And I am pleased to say that most of the vets I know would have put that dog down the first time the owner asked for it to be done.

Payment can be chased up later, if there is a problem.

It wouldn't be the first time and it wont be the last.

LITTLE KIDS COME FIRST.

Dangerous dogs like this one in the hands of idiot owners is simply a lethal incident waiting to happen.

The cost of the green dream and disposal of the dog would be a small investment in the protection of little children and I would sleep well at night.

Allowing this dangerous dog to go back home with the owner brought consequences that cannot be as easily fixed.

Also, it is not the vet's role to doubt the claims of the owner.

Sometimes a handler gets the job of taking a dog to the vet for euthanasia after a nasty incident.

The vet has to take the word of the handler that the dog is deemed to be dangerous and does what has to be done - professionally.

Ethics before emotion. Every time.

Souff

Thank you. I've been trying to say this from very early on in this thread. Souff, you've put into words my feelings to a tee. This two doggies IS real.

[stormie]

If the owners couldn't afford the 180pound fee to have their dog euthanased by that vet, or if that vet outright refused, there were plenty of other options out there. Eltham isn't exactly a tiny town in the middle of no where.

Oh, and the South East London Branch of the RSPCA is 23mins from Eltham, according to google maps. So IMO, it's no reason to blame that vet for declining, particularly if the owner admitted from the start they couldn't afford their fees.