Puppies Born Without Front Legs

[Nekhbet]

Does Faith look and act like a happy dog?

Yes but does the dog have a choice? It's an animal - they have an instinct to get up and go which can override pain unless it's absolutely overbearing. That and chronic pain sufferers will still be mobile, doesnt mean life is comfortable at all. We tend to justify it to ourselves when we see animals like this 'oh but they're trying! Moving, eating, drinking etc' - doesnt mean it's right. I know of a woman who had a dogs bottom jaw totally removed due to cancer... it went about life having to be hand fed and watered with its tongue hanging out. What kind of a life is that ...

I too have a dog with chronic problems. Everything is wrong with him, he cheated death twice but he can get around and still go for walks. The surgical option of repeairing 4 limbs on a big dog to me was unthinkable - imagine the pain and physio from multiple operations on a creature that has no say in the matter. The day basic comfort stops happening he takes a one way trip to the vet.

The biggest thing that plays with a sick animal is - what happens if the inevitable pain really begins when one goes out (eg for a shift at work) and they have to lie there like that for hours.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Nekhbet

[Steve]

Im not advocating bumping them off now. But humans shouldnt have interferred and kept them alive. When you see something like that being born you have three choices. Let it try to survive and watch it die a slow death, gently and quietly put it to sleep or interfer and do what these idiots did.

Now they are older and entities that's a completely different set of choices which the person responsible shouldnt have introduced.

[Souff]

Im not advocating bumping them off now. But humans shouldnt have interferred and kept them alive. When you see something like that being born you have three choices. Let it try to survive and watch it die a slow death, gently and quietly put it to sleep or interfer and do what these idiots did.

Now they are older and entities that's a completely different set of choices which the person responsible shouldnt have introduced.

I don't think anyone here is advocating that Steve .... the tough decision should have been taken in the neo-natal stage. These pups have such a lot going against them but it is too late to turn back now.

If others can learn that it is kinder in the long run to take the hard decision early on, then something will have been achieved by this thread.

Deformed animals should never be exploited by humans in any way at all, and their long term prospects must always be put ahead of the emotions of humans. jmho.

Souff

[SkySoaringMagpie]

It is no better than the old freak show tents at the circus.

People gawk and pay money.

Agree with this, and Nek, Jaxx, Souff, Steve and Fifi. There is a lot of stuff around that masquerades as sympathy that is actually just voyeurism - not just in this area but in animal cruelty matters as well.

We also have a companion dog with a leg deformity who is a much loved member of the family. So we are certainly not of the "bucket them if they are inconvenient" school. However, raising a puppy that cannot fend for itself with other dogs and/or in ordinary life situations is incredibly irresponsible. Apart from anything else, resources ARE finite. A rescue spending $$$ raising dogs that require massive amounts of ongoing intervention when there are healthy dogs being PTS is madness.

[persephone]

Deformed animals should never be exploited by humans in any way at all, and their long term prospects must always be put ahead of the emotions of humans. jmho.

[Rebanne]

How about dog breeds that are bred deformed? Pugs, Daschunds, French Bulldogs, Bulldogs, Pekingese, Cavaliers (with their small skulls), Basset Hounds, Ridgebacks, amongst others... there is another serious issue yet we pay $$$$ for these pups up front! Yet they can also live long happy lives with the right care.

Just a thought...

[Jed]

Sweet-E-Newf

How about dog breeds that are bred deformed? Pugs, Daschunds, French Bulldogs, Bulldogs, Pekingese, Cavaliers (with their small skulls), Basset Hounds, Ridgebacks, amongst others... there is another serious issue yet we pay $$$$ for these pups up front! Yet they can also live long happy lives with the right care.

Just a thought...

Like Rebanne, I am rather confused, Sweet-E-Newf. Would you mind explaining what the deformities are that the above breeds have, and why life would be more difficult for them, than, say a Kelpie?

Thanks.

[Alyosha]

I was wondering the same Rebanne...??

[fifi]

I just assumed it was the list of breeds targetted in the BBC doco that went after purebreds.

fifi

[puglvr]

How about dog breeds that are bred deformed?

Excuse me, but Pugs are not bred deformed. They are no more deformed than any other "man made breed"

[Alyosha]

And, it's never too late to put an animal's welfare before your own wants and emotional needs. We once had a foster kitten who had physical deformities. And they were human induced. At just 9 weeks old he already had healed fractures to his pelvis, tail and back legs. He also had spinal damage - a stretch type injury that left abnormally large gaps between several vertebrae.

We loved him to absolute bits. What he had gone through in his little life we couldn't imagine. But he was destined for more. As he got older and heavier, that quirky, wobbly walk and run that earned him the name Zigzag wsa turning into a limp. Sometimes his back legs would pause as nerve function started to fail.

It was inevitable that he would make a wrong move one day and sever his spinal cord. We couldn't do it to him. He had a few months of love an joy with us and then we let him go. I agonised over it, I wanted him to stay. But that was just me, it wasn't fair to him - to gradually increase his discomfort and risk of more serious injuries. So I made the decision for him, not for me, or any other person.

[kinsella]

I feel that every person that has suggested euth'ing these puppies has done so with the dogs' welfare foremost in their minds. It is not a first choice any dog lover makes unless the future is assuredly dire to say the least.

In this thread, as with the "inspirational" one in General, the future for these dogs is grim. No self sufficiency, unable to even get a drink if they need it without assistance - in fact no autonomy at all. This is not living. It is existing at the whim of someone whose own psyche demands kudos for their caring so much. Bloody Munchausen by proxy.

No one likes to lose a dog or puppy. As dog owners, if we haven't already, we will one day. It's a shame that some can't see that death is not the worst thing that can happen to a dog.

[Souff]

I feel that every person that has suggested euth'ing these puppies has done so with the dogs' welfare foremost in their minds. It is not a first choice any dog lover makes unless the future is assuredly dire to say the least.

In this thread, as with the "inspirational" one in General, the future for these dogs is grim. No self sufficiency, unable to even get a drink if they need it without assistance - in fact no autonomy at all. This is not living. It is existing at the whim of someone whose own psyche demands kudos for their caring so much. Bloody Munchausen by proxy.

No one likes to lose a dog or puppy. As dog owners, if we haven't already, we will one day. It's a shame that some can't see that death is not the worst thing that can happen to a dog.

Totally agree. Nobody likes to lose a dog or puppy - it is never easy. I like to plant something on those occasions so then I know another beautiful living thing has a chance at life.

But geez, I would like to find the person who has the entire bitch or dog that is producing whole litters of pups without front legs ... and ensure that both parents are sterilised.

Very likely that the parent dogs are still entire and likely to produce another batch.

[Greytmate]

REAL Animal welfare organisations know that such animals are destined to a short life of pain, yet those that sell themselves as animal welfare organisations today will sell their actions as "helping" these poor little dogs, when in fact they are not helping the animals at all, it is simply helping to generate publicity for the organisation.

Many animal welfare organisations, the ones run ethically, would NEVER rehome a dog like that.

It would be illegal in Victoria to do so anyway.

Some rescues are ethical, some are not, just the same as some breeders are ethical and some are not.

This thread is both a breeder and a rescuer FAIL thread.

This thread has had some better arguments put forward than the nauseatingly "Inspirational" thread in General Discussion.

Would be good to have some more comments from some of you in there.

What disturbs me the most is the expectation some people have that rescuers are supposed to be doing this type of thing, because rescue dogs are expected to have problems.

If bleeding hearts stopped rehoming faulty dogs and just rehomed the many healthy, sound dogs that need homes, rescue might have a better reputation as a good place to get a good dog. More dogs would get homes.

But this sort of disgusting behaviour gives rescue a really bad name.

Promoting dogs to the "pity market" is actually quite a low act in my opinion. It devalues dogs terribly and is pure emotional blackmail. And there are some scary, sick, people out there who revel in the attention that comes with 'rescuing dogs like these.

[Little Gifts]

They're terribly cute.

Sadly, they should have been euth'd when born. However, they are alive, they are being assisted and trained to live with the deformity, and I am sure they will live long happy lives.

The mindset of "euth at any opportunity" can be just as wrong as the "save everything" train of thought. There should be a balance.

I agree with you Anne. My position on things was that the dogs were alive and in need and that the time to pts them has passed but I was a little scared to say it. I think breeders and rescue have every right to decide if an animal is viable enough to live according to their own beliefs, values, ethics, whatever you want to call it. I've read on here about breeders doing everything possible to save a pup without knowing if it would be healthy long term. Same with rescue spending money on very ill animals with no guarantee of long term health or survival. Everyone does their best at the time. Having worked with physically and intellectually disabled young people I would readily take on an animal with special needs meeting the costs and doing my best in conjunction with my vet to know when human intervention wasn't enough. I can't be the only person willing to do that for an animal.

I can totally understand the arguments presented against this idea when there are so many dogs in need, but my personal values mean that once something is alive it deserves a chance. For those of you who have watched the video I am surprised by the strength and mobility of two of the pups but the third one looks more dependant. That dog's future concerns me more than the other two at present. I also wondered what someone like the Bionic Vet would be able to do with their missing legs? To me I would want to know what is happening inside their skeletal and muscular structures and if their organs were ok before deciding on pts, but accept that others see things differently.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

They're terribly cute.

Sadly, they should have been euth'd when born. However, they are alive, they are being assisted and trained to live with the deformity, and I am sure they will live long happy lives.

The mindset of "euth at any opportunity" can be just as wrong as the "save everything" train of thought. There should be a balance.

I agree with you Anne. My position on things was that the dogs were alive and in need and that the time to pts them has passed but I was a little scared to say it. I think breeders and rescue have every right to decide if an animal is viable enough to live according to their own beliefs, values, ethics, whatever you want to call it. I've read on here about breeders doing everything possible to save a pup without knowing if it would be healthy long term. Same with rescue spending money on very ill animals with no guarantee of long term health or survival. Everyone does their best at the time. Having worked with physically and intellectually disabled young people I would readily take on an animal with special needs meeting the costs and doing my best in conjunction with my vet to know when human intervention wasn't enough. I can't be the only person willing to do that for an animal.

I can totally understand the arguments presented against this idea when there are so many dogs in need, but my personal values mean that once something is alive it deserves a chance. For those of you who have watched the video I am surprised by the strength and mobility of two of the pups but the third one looks more dependant. That dog's future concerns me more than the other two at present. I also wondered what someone like the Bionic Vet would be able to do with their missing legs? To me I would want to know what is happening inside their skeletal and muscular structures and if their organs were ok before deciding on pts, but accept that others see things differently.

With all due respect, I think the pain and retraining required to get a dog to use artificial limbs is animal experimentation taken to its worst end.

I remember seeing the post about the cat and I was sickened at the lengths humans will go to in the name of science.

I could not bear to see an animal struggle so much for what end?

PTS is sometimes a better option than experimentation

[fifi]

Sadly the people who cannot bear the idea of animals like this being pts, are usually not there to see their daily struggle.

Life at all costs only makes the non suffering part of the equation feel better.

fifi

[Little Gifts]

I thought the same Jaxx. I remember seeing some man with a GR or lab pup on an Aussie show (Bondi Vet maybe?) that had to have frames around all its legs and they had to be screwed regularly to make the limbs straighter. I cried thinking you can't explain that kind of ongoing pain to an animal and I doubt I could do it because of that - how much intervention is too much? The dog seemed to accept things quite well though and still ambled around like a pup. What the Bionic Vet is doing is very informed and ground breaking stuff for animals. It did not seem experimental. He is very clear on why he is doing it and at what point he stops and has lots of technology available to him to do it. The show on that cat and how quickly it recovered mobility - even jumping on its first use of its new legs, was quite amazing. It showed no signs of pain and even the vet was shocked at its progress. Not sure I could do it but the cat now has a life that wasn't possible before. For some owners and animals it will be the right thing to do.

[Little Gifts]

Sadly the people who cannot bear the idea of animals like this being pts, are usually not there to see their daily struggle.

Life at all costs only makes the non suffering part of the equation feel better.

fifi

Fifi I am only for keeping an animal alive if it is viable to do so and that includes from the animal's perspective and the owner's perspective. I've spent thousands on the rescue dogs with issues that I chose to keep and I will continue to do so as is needed. That is just who I am. I am not immune to their struggles and had one boy pts because he gradually damaged nerves in his spine that could not be fixed. It broke my heart. The old girl I have here was booked in for pts on 29/01. I still kept the appointment but the vet and I agreed that it wasn't her time, that she had picked up again. She is sitting under my chair right now 6 weeks later.

Maybe some of this for me relates to my childhood. My parents used to have a theme park that was also full of animals that people had discarded - animals that would've been killed, animals that some people may have thought looked freaky. But we loved them and cared for them and even when the park closed the animals stayed with us till they passed on in old age. We had things like livestock born with extra legs, wildlife that had lost body bits from traps or car accidents or fences, beakless and wingless birds. I think nature is fantastic how it naturally culls the sick and weak but if an animal continues to survive then I'd prefer their future is informed by a full assessment by a knowledgeable vet before I make a decision to end their life.

And this is of course about me and any animals in my care - I am not proposing my position as being right for others, just showing a different perspective and why I feel like I do. I remain ok about the plans for 2 of the pups based on the video but am not so sure about the one who didn't move much. And I also don't want to see the bitch or dog these came from breed again.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Puppy_Sniffer

[fifi]

Yes puppy sniffer, but I bet you didn't need to carry those animals to be toileted, or manually evacuate their bowels / bladders, or watch that they didn't aspirate their food or water because they were utterly helpless.

That's the point I have been trying to make, there are inuries and disabilities that don't prevent quality of life, yes, they make for high maintenance or special adapting - but not total dependancy for their every drink, meal or real movement. Heck, I've had my lion's share of high needs rescues and wildlife.

I know a woman who was very proactive with her parylised dog, even though we gently suggested it was past time to give the dog its wings.

Well the poor thing wriggled on its tummy out of its shady spot whent he woman went shopping, and died a dreadful death of heat stroke because it couldn't move the ten feet of so back to its shady spot with water :-(

Animals like these in this thread and the other in general will envitabley succumb to medical complications, injuries or human error.

fifi