Woman finds 'euthanized' dog alive with new owner

[Blue_Tires]

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A New Mexico woman who was told months ago that her Chihuahua needed to be euthanized after it was viciously attacked by another dog has discovered that the dog is alive and has been living with another owner. Lisa Gossett of Albuquerque was originally told by a veterinarian that the outlook was grim for the injured one-year-old Lola. Gossett was given two choices.

"'Pay out all this money and there's a 20 percent chance that she'll live or euthanize her,'" Gossett said. "So, it was hard."

Gossett said she didn't want Lola to suffer so she signed on the dotted line and said a painful goodbye. It hit her 5-year-old daughter Bianca hard, she said. KOB-TV reports that Gossett got a call earlier this week from a company that programs the ID microchips that go into pets. The company said a woman was requesting to switch Lola's chip over to a new owner.

"And I said, 'Oh no, you're mistaken. Lola is not alive. We had her put down,'" she said.

Turns out, the vet had turned Lola over to the foundation "Second Chance" which rehabilitates dogs. Gossett immediately called the vet demanding answers.



http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2012/02/17/20120217new-mexico-woman-finds-euthanized-dog.html


It's very rare to find the story that makes you equally happy and sad...

[RebelOne]

1. All I can say is that I would have been outraged.

I have a Chihuahua and if that had been my dog, I would have been consulting a lawyer. Why did the vet not contact the original owner?

[nadine_mn]

2. ever since we had to put our collie mix to sleep

I have had a similar dream...

She was 13 yrs old and in a great deal of pain - the pain pills were barely making a dent in her suffering and we made the painful decision to put her to sleep. We had the other dogs with us so she wasn't alone - we were all by her side as she crossed over.

Since then, (that was in 2008) I have had a recurring dream that not only did she survive the euthansia, but that she was healthy and happy and living with a new family.


I would feel so awful and happy at the same time if I was Lola's owner - happy about the 2nd chance at life but just awful that I thought she was gone.

[alphafemale]

3. She's upset that her dog IS NOT Dead?

What the fuck is wrong with some people?

You'd rather have a Play Station or shoes than heal your dog.

And then you're upset that some other person or charity did care and gave your pet the care it needed to heal.

And you're upset your animal has a happy life now?

You know what?

Fuck off.

[whistler162]

5. Yes what is wrong with you?

Did you bother to read the story?

The Vet told her that due to the injuries. There was a limit chance that even with surgery the dog would survive.

Now she finds out that the dog survived and was given away by the Vet!

[alphafemale]

7. No. She just didn't want to pay for it.

She couldn't even be bothered to see her cheap ass death sentence through.

A charity stepped in.

The dog has a happy home with someone that values its life over shoes.

Fuck her.

[whistler162]

9. What story are you reading????

not the one from the link.

[alphafemale]

10. She's upset her dog is alive and happy.

Bitch on any other day.

[LisaL]

15. Maybe you should read it again, instead of complaining no one else read it.

She admits the vet told her that dog had 20 % chance of living but she had to pay all this money.

[auburngrad82]

66. Actually what was said

was "'Pay out all this money and there's a 20 percent chance that she'll live or euthanize her,'" Gossett said. "So, it was hard."

So the vet gave her a choice. You can pay all this money and there's a 20% chance OR you can euthanize her. The story does not mention anything about the vet not following either of these scenarios. If those were her options, then how did the dog end up alive and in someone else's home?

I've spent literally thousands of dollars for surgery on one dog. I had to borrow against my 401k to do it. But I knew that I either payed the money or she would die. Those were the choices. The next time it happens I probably won't be in a position to pay that kind of money. But the vet told here there were two, and only two, options. So how did the third option not get mentioned?

If the vet had said, look, it's going to cost a fortune to save the dog. If you don't want to pay for it I know a rescue that will pony up the money and save the dog but you have to surrender the dog to the rescue in order for this to happen, the lady has another choice. But from the story the vet did not give her this option.

[LisaL]

13. Well I bothered to read the story, and the vet didn't tell her there was no chance.

There was 20 % chance the dog was going to make it, but she had to pay for the care. She signed the dog over. So I fail to see what she is complaining about.

[knitter4democracy]

17. They don't say what the cost was, though.

If it were in the thousands of dollars for a 20% chance, and she has a daughter to raise (so money's probably tight), it makes sense to make that choice. At my vet, euthanizing is over a hundred dollars anyway, so it's not like either option was cheap. Still, if my dog had been that badly hurt and I was told that it would cost thousands of dollars I don't have for a very slim chance he'd make it, it would be a very difficult choice, especially if I were told I had to pay up front. I just don't have it, not for anyone.

[nadine_mn]

25. But it also said the dog was viciously attacked...she may have thought

The dog was suffering from the injuries and a surgery with only a 20% chance may have seemed cruel. Age and health of the dog is a factor and surgery can be very traumatic. Healthy dogs die in routine surgeries everyday. Here, it's a small dog already traumatized by what was quoted as a vicious attack, add the risk of surgery...she may have thought she was doing the humane thing.

Who knows if she saw the attack, her state of mind when making the decision etc. when we made the decision to put our collie mix down it was the hardest thing we ever did and we had time. We did not have a traumatized daughter nor faced with our dog surviving an attack by another dog and having to look at its mangled body.

Our collie had major surgery 2yrs before she died...it was well over $3k and needed to be paid in full up front before they would do the surgery. We didn't have the money or credit cards, they would not accept any payment plans and she had a ruptured spleen. Thankfully my in- laws helped us otherwise we would have had to put her down then, instead we had 2 more wonderful yrs with her.

I can't judge the owner...but I am pissed that the vet wasn't more upfront about not euthanizing and turning it over to a rescue

[bluedigger]

4. The vet needs a good ass kicking.

I don't understand why everyone in the story is identified but the vet. They need to be publicized as well, so customers can take their business elsewhere.

[LisaL]

14. The vet needs a big

Thank You for not killing the dog.

[knitter4democracy]

16. As does the rescue group, frankly.

Why didn't they call the former owners on the ID chips?

The vet conned the original owner. She was told she'd pay all that money for a 20% survival chance, and with a child, she decided she didn't want the dog to suffer and paid the vet for a service the vet never did.

The rescue group took the dog without question, didn't double-check to make sure the original owner had given up the dog (something I would hope rescue groups would do if there are ID chips and therefore easy to check), and they ultimately are just as culpable. It would be like someone taking a neighbor's barky dog and "donating" it to a rescue group and the group giving the dog to a new owner without checking the ID chip--which is there for this very reason. I understand wanting to believe a vet, but seriously, it's in their best interest to double-check so this sort of thing doesn't happen.

I'd want more than an apology and refund from the vet. I would want a new dog, too.

[LisaL]

18. Oh you have got to be kidding me.

The rescue group saved this dog's life and according to you they should make sure it's o'key with the original owner? She signed the dog over to the vet's and its no longer her dog.

[knitter4democracy]

19. She signed the dog over under fraudulent circumstances.

If the vet had told her that, if she couldn't pony up the money, the dog would be given to a group that would and would care for the dog and she'd chosen that route, that's one thing. She was not told that the vet was planning on giving the dog to someone else--she was told the dog was going to die. The vet obviously had zero intention of putting the dog down and so lied to the owner, making her think the dog was going to die. She made her choice based on the information she was given by the vet.

If the rescue group had called the former owner to make sure that it wasn't just a money situation, offered financial help if that was the real reason she'd given up the dog so that the dog could stay with the original family, then there wouldn't have been a problem with saving the dog.

The rescue group didn't save the dog's life--the vet had no intention of putting the dog down. The owner would have chosen to save the dog had she had that as a real option (sorry, but if a vet tells me it's going to cost thousands of dollars for only a 20% chance of survival and I'm already trying to raise a child, I'm not taking that bet). If the vet had been honest and if the rescue group had been honest, the dog could have stayed with his family and his child and gotten better.

I just don't see why the rescue group would want to remove a dog from its family. Surely that's traumatic for a dog already dealing with a traumatic situation.

[LisaL]

20. Oh for crying out loud!

Of all the things to be upset about, I sure as hell am not going to be upset over the fact that dog isn't dead! And yes, she didn't take the bet of spending presumably a large amount of money for 20 % chance, but somebody else did. Good for them, I say.

[knitter4democracy]

21. I'm not upset about that. Not sure where you got that.

I'm peeved that a little girl lost her dog because the vet lied to her mom. I'm irked that a vet would make it all about money and when a patient's owner couldn't pony up thousands of dollars up front, took money for a service never rendered (and never intended to be rendered), lied further in giving paperwork saying the dog was dead (they have to provide a certificate/paperwork on the death and probably charged her for remains disposal as well), and then gave the dog to a group that never bothered to check to see if the original owner really did want the dog but couldn't afford the treatment.

That the dog is alive is a good thing. That a little girl lost her dog because of a money-grubbing vet is not.

[LisaL]

24. The little girl didn't lose the dog because the vet lied to mom.

If the vet did exactly as mom wanted, the dog would have been dead, and the little girl would have lost it anyway. So please don't make things up.

[knitter4democracy]

28. The mom's choice was based on fraudulent information, though.

If the vet had told the mom exactly what was going to happen, then she would have made an informed decision. In all reality, the vet didn't get informed consent because s/he deliberately didn't inform the patient's owner of all the real possibilities.

So, if I'm understanding you properly, you really believe that the vet would have put the dog down but that the rescue group magically came in at the last second and talked the vet into providing thousands of dollars of free care and giving the dog to a new owner. It seems pretty clear to me that the vet had this planned all along, lied to the owner, got her money, and then turned the dog over to a group that didn't ask any questions about how any of it had happened.

Either way, if the owner had gotten the same consideration the rescue group did and had been offered financial assistance as well as the truth of the situation, chances are, the decision would have been different.

[LisaL]

30. What was the truth of the situation?

She was told even if she paid the dog could still die. She decided not to pay. Somebody else apparently took the chance. I am also really confused as to what financial assistance you think this woman should have gotten. Its expensive to own a pet. I've yet to meet a vet that would offer financial assistance to care for pets.

[knitter4democracy]

35. What if the rescue group offered it?

What if, instead of finding new owners, they offered financial help to the original owners instead? It's not like people are happy-happy, joy-joy about putting very sick animals down. It pretty much always is a gut-wrenching decision, one not made lightly and always agonized over.

[LisaL]

40. That's not what rescue groups do.

[riderinthestorm]

51. I agree, why doesn't the rescue group help pay for the surgery and keep the "family" intact?

Not only did the dog have to suffer the trauma of the attack and surgery, but it also had to suffer being re-homed.

The vet's position is the most indefensible here if you ask me - s/he didn't give the owner all the details. But the fact that the rescue group will pay the money for the surgery but won't keep the pet with its human during it's worst crisis?

[LisaL]

55. I think this dog rather "suffer" from being rehomed than being dead.

[riderinthestorm]

59. Uhm, can you clarify this post? It's pretty much a word salad... nt

[knitter4democracy]

22. About your edit: so the vet got paid twice.

The vet took money for euthanasia, disposal services, etc., and then s/he turned around and charged a rescue group for the treatment to save the dog. You think the vet's a fine, upstanding member of the veterinary profession?

[LisaL]

23. I don't see anywhere in the article that the vet charged the rescue group to save the dog.

[knitter4democracy]

27. So, the rescue group got free care?

The owner was told to pay up and did for a service never rendered or intended to be rendered, and the rescue group got a massive amount of care for the dog for free? That doesn't sound rather messed up to you?

[LisaL]

41. WTF makes you think that original vet was the one caring for the injured dog?

This dog was removed and taken to the rescue group.

[alphafemale]

26. "I would want a new dog, too."

It doesn't work that way.

Thank g_d.

If I ever found out one of the animals my mother was too fucking cheap to save, lived somewhere a few happy years somewhere, I'd have been so happy I'd have danced on moonbeams.

This is a selfish ugly person.

[knitter4democracy]

29. She lost her dog due to fraudulent care and information, though.

How is she selfish? Care for a dog at that level of damage runs into the thousands, and she was assured of only a 20% chance of survival. If she's a single mom like I am, that means money out of the food budget, money out of the kid clothing and school budget, money out of the heating budget and anywhere else to cut all for a dog she was practically assured would die anyway.

So, after what the vet tells her, she makes the only decision she thinks she can only to find out later that her vet had lied to her, taken her money, and given the dog to someone else. That's pretty rotten, especially considering there's a child involved.

[LisaL]

31. She was told this dog had a chance to live if she paid.

She decided not to pay.

[alphafemale]

32. But "a new dog" would make it ok. Animals are replaceable like furniture. nt

[knitter4democracy]

34. Yes. Obviously.

I do find it odd that you are blaming the owner when she made her decision based upon information given to her by a medical professional.

[alphafemale]

36. I don't want to pay for the appendectomy for my child...put him to sleep instead.

And by the way you owe me another one.

[knitter4democracy]

42. Apples and oranges. Appendectomies have high success rates.

Also, children, by and large, are considered to be worth more than pets (as I have explained in other posts here). Now, if you disagree with that position and feel that a mother should take thousands of dollars out of her budget to save a dog she was told probably wouldn't make it even knowing that it would hurt her only child to do so because the dog is either equal in worth or worth more than the child, I would look forward to reading it.

Or you can stick with strawman and ad hominem attacks and the occasional sarcastic comment. Your choice.

[LisaL]

46. And if they didn't?

Would it be o'key to put the child down if the child had only 20 % chance of making it?

[knitter4democracy]

65. Like I said, apples and oranges.

I already dealt with that--in my opinion and generally in human cultures, children are considered to have more worth than pets. If you disagree, you're in the minority but very welcome to disagree--we need all points of view and opinions. I personally would do what I could for a child (I'm a teacher, btw, and a mom of two).

[knitter4democracy]

33. Hardly a chance.

Obviously, you would make a different choice, but considering you're not in her shoes and don't know if she can come up with thousands of dollars at a moment's notice for her dog, then applying your religion/morals/belief set to her is a bit specious.

If the vet had said it was a 50/50 chance or had told her that s/he had someone else lined up to take the dog and care for it should she decide she didn't have the money, I'm betting she would have made a different decision, but we'll never know because the vet chose to lie instead.

[LisaL]

37. Why should have vet told her the dog's chances were 50-50 if they weren't?

Fact is, the dog had a chance (20 %) bus she had to pay for it. She didn't. I am glad the dog was not euthanized. The vet could refund her euthanasia fee (which is what she wants) but frankly I don't care if he does or he doesn't.

[knitter4democracy]

43. The vet should have been honest--that's my main point.

The vet told her that her dog died, for crying out loud, and she mourned the loss of her pet. The dog did not die, something she should have known and been able to choose for herself as the pet's owner.

Look, the problem isn't that the dog is alive, that's a great and wonderful thing, the problem is that the owner was told that the dog had died when the vet clearly did not intend to put the dog down at all. Why not let the patient's owner make an informed choice? We have that requirement for humans, for crying out loud, so it would make sense to hold veterinary care professionals to the same standard.

[LisaL]

58. If you sign something, you need to read what it is that you are signing.

[knitter4democracy]

64. I don't disagree. Upset humans, however, tend not to read closely.

She was upset, told to sign this to start the process, and she signed it. If reading level/ESL issues are part of the picture, then that complicates it even further. She was so upset that she couldn't attend the dog's euthanasia. I've seen this in waiting rooms, and I've never seen an owner just callously drop a pet off and walk out--those who can't be in the room are broken up about it to the point of needing help to get home. While I'm sure there are callous/evil people out there who can do that, I doubt this woman and her daughter were in that group.

[HopeHoops]

6. I stay with my pets when it is that time. They need the comfort.

[1monster]

8. I have never had a pet put down except and unless it was obvious

that it was in constant pain and could not be helped. Then I stood there holding my beloved pet until it was no longer breathing. It is a very difficult thing to do, but I believe I owe to the furry, four-legged members of my family to be there for them at the end if it is in anyway possible.

I don't have to worry that my friend will be recycled.

[alphafemale]

11. This so called care giver that couldn't be bothereed to see the act through?

Sounds like she just couldn't care less. Let alone drop some coin to save a friends life.

[1monster]

12. On the other hand, my husband cannot stand the idea of participating in

the death of a loved pet. I'll not condemn the caretaker for not having the emotional fortitude.

We all do as we feel we must.

[TheCruces]

38. No, I'm sorry...if your pet is being put to sleep, it is time to man the fuck up and be there

The owner, the person that animal LOVES, should be there to comfort the animal. You don't let it die alone on a cold metal table with strangers because you are too fucking weak to be there for the final moments.

It sucks. I've done it. I've laid on the floor hugging a dog I had since childhood while she was being put down for bladder cancer. It sucks and it's traumatic, but it's your duty. If you love your pet, you do not let it die alone and scared. You stick around and you comfort it.

[MadrasT]

48. I have to agree with you on this point. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

52. There are some vet clinics where you are not allowed to be with the pet, per insurance regs

My one vet in Wheaton, who we'd used for years, loved, knew us well personally and professionally, told us when we brought in our dog to be put to sleep (advanced lymphoma) that we would not be allowed to be there for the euthanasia because his insurance company forbid it. He'd had too many clients keel over, hit their heads, fall down - whatever, during the procedure that his insurance policy now forbade him from allowing pet owners from being there for the euthanasia.

Of course we only discovered this when we brought him in, in full crisis mode (the one tumour had begun to block his windpipe and he was slowly suffocating that morning)....

The one horse clinic we use, a premier service, won't allow any owners to go make the long walk behind the shed with their horse to put it down because sometimes the horses fall on the owners when they go down, again an insurance issue.

So before you slam anyone who isn't "right there" with their pet, do try to find out exactly why someone may not have been able to do so.

[TheCruces]

60. I have never heard of that before

And clearly, a horse is bigger than a chihuahua. I'm talking about standard pets. Not farm animals.

[riderinthestorm]

62. Nope, pet clinics too. I told the story of one of my dogs that I had to take to the clinic

at the end when his lymphoma had swamped his system and it was his day, and this vet who knew us extremely well, wouldn't allow us to be with the dog at the end, per his insurance regs.

Of course I didn't go back to him again for any of our vet work after that, but in conversations in the few decades since that dog I've since discovered that those clinics are out there. I don't use them, I don't recommend them but they are out there.

It's probably a wise idea for anyone to check with their clinic before they assume their vet will allow them to be with their pet at the end. If this is important to you, it's something to find out ahead of time and not at the time of crisis, like I did with one of my dogs.

And FWIW, I only use horse vets now that also let me be the one stroking their nose at the end... no long lonely walks for them with a stranger to the "back of the shed".

[TheCruces]

63. Yeah, I know it's not a problem at the vet I'm planning on taking my dog to, if needed

So far she hasn't needed a vet since I got her. She's young, came with her shots/spayed and I gave her the annual shots myself this year.

[jmowreader]

39. Something I am wondering...

The vet took money from this woman for euthanizing her dog but instead of doing it, he donated the dog to Second Chance and kept the money. Let's throw out a number and say he made $200 for picking up the phone and pressing the Second Chance speed dial button.

Now, we'll say Ms. Gossett decided to pay the vet thousands of dollars to attempt to save her dog. What would have stopped him from donating the dog to Second Chance, calling her in the morning and expressing "sorrow" that the dog didn't make it through the night, and keeping the money anyway?

The vet sounds unethical as hell to me, because he COULD have given three choices: pay all this money for a 20-percent chance of survival, euthanize the dog now, or donate her to Second Chance with knowledge that if she lives she'll go to a new home.

[knitter4democracy]

44. Interesting point.

If he told her the dog died when the dog clearly did not, why not do it after getting more money?

[LisaL]

45. I really don't see the need to make stuff up.

[jmowreader]

54. The vet certainly did

The woman paid to have her dog killed, not donated to Second Chance. He could have easily called the rescue in for free, but he charged her to do it.

[Doc Holliday]

47. I don't see how

anyone can take the vet's side in this. In fact, I don't even see that the vet has a side to be on.

Of course, my opinion is based solely on my own experience of having to put a beloved pet down. It was one of the hardest decisions I've ever had to make; he was perfectly healthy, but he'd started biting. He bit my wife three different times before we decided (after long discussions of 'our options') to put him to sleep. I stayed with him throughout the process, and we both grieved hard for our little guy-- after all, it wasn't as if we wanted to have our dog killed. I'm not ashamed to admit that I cried like a baby over that dog, and can still get misty-eyed if I allow myself to think about it for too long. If I were to find out afterward that he was not dead after all, I think I'd have to have a little conversation with that vet.

But hey-- what do I know? I only raised him from a pup. I'm proabably too close to the whole issue to see things objectively. Perhaps one of you cooler, wiser heads could give me some insights on how to look objectively at the death of a beloved friend.

[MiddleFingerMom]

49. From AMC's new spin-off zombie thriller series, "Walking the Dead".

[RedCloud]

50. maybe with 2012 disaster approaching dogs shall have the nine lives?

Run Fluffy, run!

[sammytko]

53. Wouldn't you bring the body home for a burial?

I've had to put down several semi-feral cats and I brought them back home.

Our own old pup that died has his little burial plot under the trees.

[nadine_mn]

56. We rent a home - no where to bury, both of our dogs were cremated

Frankly, I think had we brought the body home it would have been even harder for us... We have their ashes. My mom also had her dog cremated so when she dies their ashes can be mixed together.

[LisaL]

57. Well if the dog is cremated there are still ashes.

Clearly this woman didn't get anything. She also didn't read the form.

[yellowcanine]

61. I believe there might be a case for malpractice. At the least the vet committed fraud.

She paid for promised services but the services were not provided and she was permitted to think they had been provided and the vet kept the money. That is fraud.