Veterinarian Debarks Neighbor's Puppy
Jun. 10th, 2006 04:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
draggonlaadyOk kids. Here's one to read and think about from a couple different angles. After you stop laughing and/or gaping, that is.
Couple files complaint against vet
By Donna Hales
Phoenix Staff Writer
Muskogee veterinarian Dr. James Risch admits he impulsively neutered and de-barked his neighbor’s 10-week-old puppy, thinking it was a stray.
“He maimed my puppy,” Nancy Miller of 3210 Cromwell wrote in a May 10 complaint about Risch to the Oklahoma State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. “This man is a menace to animals and should not be allowed to continue to practice.”
The Phoenix met an investigator with the state board recently at Miller’s home in connection with the state investigation, but he said he could not comment, that it would be against the law for him to do so.
Miller’s complaint states she had the puppy, Max, two days when Risch took it from her fenced-in yard and neutered it and de-barked it.
The puppy already had been wormed by Miller’s vet and given antibiotic for a toxic condition because of tick infestation, the complaint said.
Risch, a former Muskogee City Councilor, e-mailed the Phoenix that he found the puppy barking on his porch and there was no “evidence of ownership.” He emphatically denies getting the puppy from his neighbor’s yard.
Miller’s complaint states she has an entirely fenced yard and that the puppy could not get out on his own. The Phoenix observed no gaps in the high wooden fence that appeared to be anchored into the ground.
Risch wrote he gave the puppy vaccinations, bathed it, treated it for ear mites, neutered it and de-barked it. Risch described de-barking as a ventriculocordectomy, which he said was a “simple procedure that reduces the volume of the bark but does not inhibit the dog’s ability to bark.”
He wrote he often does that with a stray when it appears it might take awhile to find it a home.
State expert says investigation needed
Dr. Charles Helwig, executive director of the Oklahoma Veterinary Medical Association, said he is glad the puppy’s owners contacted the Oklahoma State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
“It sounds like there definitely needs to be an investigation here,” Helwig said.
Miller said her puppy was in her fenced-in yard when she went to work April 24. Miller was gone from home for one hour and 20 minutes when her husband got home and discovered the puppy was missing. He called her at work and 12 minutes later she was home helping him scour the neighborhood for the missing puppy.
Risch pulled up in his vehicle and asked if they were looking for a puppy, she said in her complaint.
Nancy Miller contends Risch knew the puppy was hers and not a stray. He denies that.
“I had never seen that pup before — ever,” Risch e-mailed the Phoenix.
Miller’s complaint states Risch told the Millers that his daughter, Olivia, and wife, Fran, had told him the Millers had a new puppy.
“You’re right, I did it for myself. It was wrong,” Miller’s complaint states Risch told her. “I feel bad that I upset Fran. She told me not to do it and I did it anyway.”
Risch said he did not tell Miller that. In his handwritten apology to the Millers, Risch wrote that he did not talk to his wife and check around before he “impulsively took the stray pup from our front porch to the clinic.
“I admit my wrongdoing. I would like you to know that I have sought counseling to understand and correct my impulsive behavior.”
Risch also wrote that he did not dislike the Millers’ other dog, Phil, “but rather it is the barking at nothing that can be like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. I have made progress recently and have been more able to tune out the barking.”
Risch wrote that he had called another neighbor at 3 a.m. to complain of his barking dog.
Neutering and de-barking strays
“A vet doing the castrating or neutering or de-barking on a stray, I would say that’s pretty unusual,” Helwig told the Phoenix in a phone interview.
De-barking is an acceptable procedure but is done “very, very rarely,” Helwig said. “I call it life threatening surgery. If behavior training doesn’t work, then de-bark. It makes them sound like they’re kind of hoarse. De-barking is awfully unusual if the animal is not their animal.”
Risch said his preference would be behavior modification, “but this was a stray dog.”
Miller’s complaint states Risch would have had to find the “loose” puppy, put it in his car, take it to his office, perform all the procedures listed on a $185 invoice (exam, anesthesia, neuter, cut vocal cords, treat ears, bathe/dip, injections) and then return home and “bump into” her husband and say he had the puppy — in less than one hour and 15 minutes.
A copy of the $185 bill for the unauthorized procedures Risch gave Miller is a part of the official state complaint. She said he gave the bill to her but told her not to worry about paying it. It is made out in his wife’s name instead of Miller’s name.
Risch said he never intended for Miller to pay the bill.
Miller told the Phoenix she was distraught and crying about what happened to her puppy. She said she learned five people she works with had dogs or cats die under Risch’s care.
She wrote in her complaint that within seven days after her puppy was allegedly maimed she learned of three more pet deaths while under Risch’s care.
The list denoted eight pet owners who had taken their dog or cat to Risch for treatment. Pet illnesses including everything from grooming and spaying to treatment for a broken leg. Anesthesia had been used on all the pets, Miller said.
She said Monday she has since learned that one of the eight people on the list did have a dog that died in the care of a vet but that it was not Risch.
Helwig told the Phoenix that “even with something major, pre-anesthesia blood work and the safety of anesthesia — it’s minimal that you would ever lose an animal. I’m not saying it wouldn’t happen with older animals with heart disease. But loss from surgery is minimal.”
The percentage of animals that die under the care of a vet has a lot to do with the condition of the animals when taken in for care, Helwig said.
Some of the people listed as losing animals on Miller’s complaint talked to the Phoenix.
Steve Hines said that about a year and a half ago he took a stray yellow lab with a broken leg to Risch. The dog was about a year old, Hines said.
Instead of just working on the dog’s leg, Hines said Risch “went ahead and tried to neuter it. I had not asked him to neuter it.”
The dog died, Hines said.
Jody Blankenship told the Phoenix that in 2004 she took Sadie, a calico cat she’d had a year, to Risch. The cat had started tearing up her carpet. Risch planned to declaw the cat, she said.
“He called me at 9 p.m. that night and said she didn’t react well to the anesthesia — she was not dead but he was keeping an eye on her.”
She said Risch told her the next day that her cat had died.
“I was crying,” Blankenship said. “I think he just overdosed her.”
Jim Henry and Shirley Williams said they took their kitten to Risch to be neutered about six months ago and Risch called and said the kitten had had a cardiac arrest.
Shirley Williams said Risch said he’d used the wrong anesthesia and there would be no charge.
“It (Willie’s death) really made me angry,” she said. “I’d had him three or four months and gotten attached to him. I was crying and upset.”
Dean Williams remembered his mother taking her healthy dog to Risch to be bathed probably in 1990. The dog died.
“He was putting dogs to sleep to give them a bath,” Williams said.
“Some of those go way back,” Risch said of the cases in question.
Risch’s customers laud his performance
Roberta and Rodney Brook of Muskogee laud Risch’s expertise as a veterinarian.
“We’re really, really pleased — he would come out on the weekend and help us out with one of our dogs,” Roberta Brook said. “He’s honest and forthright. He’s outstanding — I can’t understand (complaints).”
Muskogee attorney Mark Green said he’s been really pleased with Risch’s services, saying he’s used Risch to take care of his dogs’ services for 15 to 20 years.
“I’ve never seen him do anything inappropriate,” Green said. “I can only tell you that Dr. Risch is a real good vet — I’m tickled to death with his services.”
Green added that he’s seen Risch find homes for dogs over the years.
“I’ve got one that lives at my house right now. I know he was charged with finding a home for her.”
Millers used doctor previously
Miller’s complaint states she and her husband earlier had used Risch as a vet for their dog, Phil. They switched to another vet after Risch performed surgery on Phil one morning and when picked up in the late afternoon, Phil “was still in a semi-conscious state and limp as a rag doll and covered in feces.
“The dog was handed to my husband, and we were told he would come out of it eventually. This was certainly not normal procedure when releasing an animal after surgery.”
Miller’s complaint also states at the time Phil was left for surgery, Risch told the Millers he would like to perform a ventriculocordectomy while Phil was sedated.
“We vehemently opposed this and told him we would sue him if he did it,” the complaint states.
Miller wrote that Risch’s letter of apology to her and her husband did not excuse him from maiming their new puppy, “but it certainly confirms that he knew his actions were wrong.”
Reach Donna Hales at 684-2923 or dhales@muskogee.gannett.com.
Originally published June 6, 2006
Alrighty then. My thoughts...
I don't know the local laws there, but in Washington State, the law says you have to hold a stray for at least 72 hours before you can do anything other than emergency treatment on it--so neutering a puppy immediately when it shows up on your porch seems a tad sketchy. Debarking a stray is WAY off the normal list of things normal vets do, even the vets that work with shelters and rescues to neuter and place strays. So yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with the statement about an investigation being necessary.
That said, some of the comments later in the article make me cringe for a different reason. I don't personally consider anything the doctor did to be "maiming" the puppy--neutering is a pretty standard procedure, and very few people that aren't in the fanatic animal-rights set object to it.
I've got a dog that can get out of damn near any "entirely fenced" yard, so I have a hard time accepting that there's no way the dog could have escaped...if nothing else, it may have slipped out the gate behind the Mrs when she left for work. So I don't know that we can automatically assume that the doctor was so malicious as to steal the puppy.
The dragging a list of other people in with complaints is what really gets to me though--I'm currently on the recieving end of a complaint by a client about a case that ended poorly (sorry, not allowed to give more detail than that until i know if she's gonna actually go get herself a lawyer), and I know just how out-of-context things can be taken by upset owners, and the tendency to blame the doctor even if they didn't do anything wrong. So I'm gonna throw a couple "devil's advocate" thoughts out on the other complaints (just thoughts, mind you, I know nothing more than what was printed in the article).
The dog with the broken leg: I rather doubt that it was an otherwise perfectly healthy dog that just happened to have a broken leg. Most of the broken legs we see involve other trauma, being hit by a car, for instance, tends to injure more than just one leg. No mention was made of how badly the leg was broken, how old the injury was, or what other injuries were present. So the dog's death in all likelihood had nothing to do with neutering him at the time of fixing the leg.
The declawed cat: Yes, anesthesia is generally very safe. But there ARE animals who for whatever reason cannot handle the anesthetic. We're not told how old this cat was, or if any bloodwork was done before anesthesia (at our clinic, anyway, this is an optional thing--and most clients don't want it done.) This happened 2 years ago--why didn't the lady complain then? She thinks the doctor overdosed her, but does she have any evidence for that other than the poor outcome?
Ok, the cat that the vet gave the wrong drugs to was a bad deal. can't really defend him on that other than to say at least he owned up to it at the time and didn't try to hide it. I'd think people would take that as a sign of some underlying honesty.
The dog that was there for a bath: This was SIXTEEN YEARS ago. How desperate are these people to find complaints? Anyway--No idea why someone would anesthetize a dog for a bath, but we've got quite a few that we have to sedate because otherwise they'll try to take the face and/or hands off of the tech doing the bathing. These would probably be called normal, healthy dogs by their owners--but there would be no reasonable way to do anything with them without some drugs on board. And for that very reason, doing bloodwork prior to sedating them isn't gonna happen--they'd have to be sedated for the blood draw.
Unfortunately, I hear horror stories about other vets on a regular basis--and I'm sure other people hear horror stories about the clinic I work for. Most of those stories are based on misunderstandings and emotional overreaction. As I've pointed out before, I seriously doubt that someone would go through the hell of vetschool and spend tens of thousands of dollars to learn to better torment animals.
Couple files complaint against vet
By Donna Hales
Phoenix Staff Writer
Muskogee veterinarian Dr. James Risch admits he impulsively neutered and de-barked his neighbor’s 10-week-old puppy, thinking it was a stray.
“He maimed my puppy,” Nancy Miller of 3210 Cromwell wrote in a May 10 complaint about Risch to the Oklahoma State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. “This man is a menace to animals and should not be allowed to continue to practice.”
The Phoenix met an investigator with the state board recently at Miller’s home in connection with the state investigation, but he said he could not comment, that it would be against the law for him to do so.
Miller’s complaint states she had the puppy, Max, two days when Risch took it from her fenced-in yard and neutered it and de-barked it.
The puppy already had been wormed by Miller’s vet and given antibiotic for a toxic condition because of tick infestation, the complaint said.
Risch, a former Muskogee City Councilor, e-mailed the Phoenix that he found the puppy barking on his porch and there was no “evidence of ownership.” He emphatically denies getting the puppy from his neighbor’s yard.
Miller’s complaint states she has an entirely fenced yard and that the puppy could not get out on his own. The Phoenix observed no gaps in the high wooden fence that appeared to be anchored into the ground.
Risch wrote he gave the puppy vaccinations, bathed it, treated it for ear mites, neutered it and de-barked it. Risch described de-barking as a ventriculocordectomy, which he said was a “simple procedure that reduces the volume of the bark but does not inhibit the dog’s ability to bark.”
He wrote he often does that with a stray when it appears it might take awhile to find it a home.
State expert says investigation needed
Dr. Charles Helwig, executive director of the Oklahoma Veterinary Medical Association, said he is glad the puppy’s owners contacted the Oklahoma State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
“It sounds like there definitely needs to be an investigation here,” Helwig said.
Miller said her puppy was in her fenced-in yard when she went to work April 24. Miller was gone from home for one hour and 20 minutes when her husband got home and discovered the puppy was missing. He called her at work and 12 minutes later she was home helping him scour the neighborhood for the missing puppy.
Risch pulled up in his vehicle and asked if they were looking for a puppy, she said in her complaint.
Nancy Miller contends Risch knew the puppy was hers and not a stray. He denies that.
“I had never seen that pup before — ever,” Risch e-mailed the Phoenix.
Miller’s complaint states Risch told the Millers that his daughter, Olivia, and wife, Fran, had told him the Millers had a new puppy.
“You’re right, I did it for myself. It was wrong,” Miller’s complaint states Risch told her. “I feel bad that I upset Fran. She told me not to do it and I did it anyway.”
Risch said he did not tell Miller that. In his handwritten apology to the Millers, Risch wrote that he did not talk to his wife and check around before he “impulsively took the stray pup from our front porch to the clinic.
“I admit my wrongdoing. I would like you to know that I have sought counseling to understand and correct my impulsive behavior.”
Risch also wrote that he did not dislike the Millers’ other dog, Phil, “but rather it is the barking at nothing that can be like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. I have made progress recently and have been more able to tune out the barking.”
Risch wrote that he had called another neighbor at 3 a.m. to complain of his barking dog.
Neutering and de-barking strays
“A vet doing the castrating or neutering or de-barking on a stray, I would say that’s pretty unusual,” Helwig told the Phoenix in a phone interview.
De-barking is an acceptable procedure but is done “very, very rarely,” Helwig said. “I call it life threatening surgery. If behavior training doesn’t work, then de-bark. It makes them sound like they’re kind of hoarse. De-barking is awfully unusual if the animal is not their animal.”
Risch said his preference would be behavior modification, “but this was a stray dog.”
Miller’s complaint states Risch would have had to find the “loose” puppy, put it in his car, take it to his office, perform all the procedures listed on a $185 invoice (exam, anesthesia, neuter, cut vocal cords, treat ears, bathe/dip, injections) and then return home and “bump into” her husband and say he had the puppy — in less than one hour and 15 minutes.
A copy of the $185 bill for the unauthorized procedures Risch gave Miller is a part of the official state complaint. She said he gave the bill to her but told her not to worry about paying it. It is made out in his wife’s name instead of Miller’s name.
Risch said he never intended for Miller to pay the bill.
Miller told the Phoenix she was distraught and crying about what happened to her puppy. She said she learned five people she works with had dogs or cats die under Risch’s care.
She wrote in her complaint that within seven days after her puppy was allegedly maimed she learned of three more pet deaths while under Risch’s care.
The list denoted eight pet owners who had taken their dog or cat to Risch for treatment. Pet illnesses including everything from grooming and spaying to treatment for a broken leg. Anesthesia had been used on all the pets, Miller said.
She said Monday she has since learned that one of the eight people on the list did have a dog that died in the care of a vet but that it was not Risch.
Helwig told the Phoenix that “even with something major, pre-anesthesia blood work and the safety of anesthesia — it’s minimal that you would ever lose an animal. I’m not saying it wouldn’t happen with older animals with heart disease. But loss from surgery is minimal.”
The percentage of animals that die under the care of a vet has a lot to do with the condition of the animals when taken in for care, Helwig said.
Some of the people listed as losing animals on Miller’s complaint talked to the Phoenix.
Steve Hines said that about a year and a half ago he took a stray yellow lab with a broken leg to Risch. The dog was about a year old, Hines said.
Instead of just working on the dog’s leg, Hines said Risch “went ahead and tried to neuter it. I had not asked him to neuter it.”
The dog died, Hines said.
Jody Blankenship told the Phoenix that in 2004 she took Sadie, a calico cat she’d had a year, to Risch. The cat had started tearing up her carpet. Risch planned to declaw the cat, she said.
“He called me at 9 p.m. that night and said she didn’t react well to the anesthesia — she was not dead but he was keeping an eye on her.”
She said Risch told her the next day that her cat had died.
“I was crying,” Blankenship said. “I think he just overdosed her.”
Jim Henry and Shirley Williams said they took their kitten to Risch to be neutered about six months ago and Risch called and said the kitten had had a cardiac arrest.
Shirley Williams said Risch said he’d used the wrong anesthesia and there would be no charge.
“It (Willie’s death) really made me angry,” she said. “I’d had him three or four months and gotten attached to him. I was crying and upset.”
Dean Williams remembered his mother taking her healthy dog to Risch to be bathed probably in 1990. The dog died.
“He was putting dogs to sleep to give them a bath,” Williams said.
“Some of those go way back,” Risch said of the cases in question.
Risch’s customers laud his performance
Roberta and Rodney Brook of Muskogee laud Risch’s expertise as a veterinarian.
“We’re really, really pleased — he would come out on the weekend and help us out with one of our dogs,” Roberta Brook said. “He’s honest and forthright. He’s outstanding — I can’t understand (complaints).”
Muskogee attorney Mark Green said he’s been really pleased with Risch’s services, saying he’s used Risch to take care of his dogs’ services for 15 to 20 years.
“I’ve never seen him do anything inappropriate,” Green said. “I can only tell you that Dr. Risch is a real good vet — I’m tickled to death with his services.”
Green added that he’s seen Risch find homes for dogs over the years.
“I’ve got one that lives at my house right now. I know he was charged with finding a home for her.”
Millers used doctor previously
Miller’s complaint states she and her husband earlier had used Risch as a vet for their dog, Phil. They switched to another vet after Risch performed surgery on Phil one morning and when picked up in the late afternoon, Phil “was still in a semi-conscious state and limp as a rag doll and covered in feces.
“The dog was handed to my husband, and we were told he would come out of it eventually. This was certainly not normal procedure when releasing an animal after surgery.”
Miller’s complaint also states at the time Phil was left for surgery, Risch told the Millers he would like to perform a ventriculocordectomy while Phil was sedated.
“We vehemently opposed this and told him we would sue him if he did it,” the complaint states.
Miller wrote that Risch’s letter of apology to her and her husband did not excuse him from maiming their new puppy, “but it certainly confirms that he knew his actions were wrong.”
Reach Donna Hales at 684-2923 or dhales@muskogee.gannett.com.
Originally published June 6, 2006
Alrighty then. My thoughts...
I don't know the local laws there, but in Washington State, the law says you have to hold a stray for at least 72 hours before you can do anything other than emergency treatment on it--so neutering a puppy immediately when it shows up on your porch seems a tad sketchy. Debarking a stray is WAY off the normal list of things normal vets do, even the vets that work with shelters and rescues to neuter and place strays. So yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with the statement about an investigation being necessary.
That said, some of the comments later in the article make me cringe for a different reason. I don't personally consider anything the doctor did to be "maiming" the puppy--neutering is a pretty standard procedure, and very few people that aren't in the fanatic animal-rights set object to it.
I've got a dog that can get out of damn near any "entirely fenced" yard, so I have a hard time accepting that there's no way the dog could have escaped...if nothing else, it may have slipped out the gate behind the Mrs when she left for work. So I don't know that we can automatically assume that the doctor was so malicious as to steal the puppy.
The dragging a list of other people in with complaints is what really gets to me though--I'm currently on the recieving end of a complaint by a client about a case that ended poorly (sorry, not allowed to give more detail than that until i know if she's gonna actually go get herself a lawyer), and I know just how out-of-context things can be taken by upset owners, and the tendency to blame the doctor even if they didn't do anything wrong. So I'm gonna throw a couple "devil's advocate" thoughts out on the other complaints (just thoughts, mind you, I know nothing more than what was printed in the article).
The dog with the broken leg: I rather doubt that it was an otherwise perfectly healthy dog that just happened to have a broken leg. Most of the broken legs we see involve other trauma, being hit by a car, for instance, tends to injure more than just one leg. No mention was made of how badly the leg was broken, how old the injury was, or what other injuries were present. So the dog's death in all likelihood had nothing to do with neutering him at the time of fixing the leg.
The declawed cat: Yes, anesthesia is generally very safe. But there ARE animals who for whatever reason cannot handle the anesthetic. We're not told how old this cat was, or if any bloodwork was done before anesthesia (at our clinic, anyway, this is an optional thing--and most clients don't want it done.) This happened 2 years ago--why didn't the lady complain then? She thinks the doctor overdosed her, but does she have any evidence for that other than the poor outcome?
Ok, the cat that the vet gave the wrong drugs to was a bad deal. can't really defend him on that other than to say at least he owned up to it at the time and didn't try to hide it. I'd think people would take that as a sign of some underlying honesty.
The dog that was there for a bath: This was SIXTEEN YEARS ago. How desperate are these people to find complaints? Anyway--No idea why someone would anesthetize a dog for a bath, but we've got quite a few that we have to sedate because otherwise they'll try to take the face and/or hands off of the tech doing the bathing. These would probably be called normal, healthy dogs by their owners--but there would be no reasonable way to do anything with them without some drugs on board. And for that very reason, doing bloodwork prior to sedating them isn't gonna happen--they'd have to be sedated for the blood draw.
Unfortunately, I hear horror stories about other vets on a regular basis--and I'm sure other people hear horror stories about the clinic I work for. Most of those stories are based on misunderstandings and emotional overreaction. As I've pointed out before, I seriously doubt that someone would go through the hell of vetschool and spend tens of thousands of dollars to learn to better torment animals.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-11 05:40 am (UTC)The fact that the vet apparently *immediately* brought the dog off to be neutered and de-barked is even sketchier, to me. Especially the de-barking. Why would you de-bark a lost dog you'd only just met? How could he know if the dog had had a barking problem? One hour (at most) with a lost animal doesn't strike me as a good way to get an indication of the dog's usual behavior. The fact that he de-barked the dog suggests that he either is very much against barking dogs and that he let his personal opinions cloud is professional decisions (in which case, he shouldn't be practicing) or that he knew the dog already and had already formed an opinion about the dog's behavior.
I agree that the cases prove nothing significant in the context of the news story. I suspect he's going to get a professional review; I'm sure that any such stories will be heard and considered by more informed individuals in the course of the investigation.
This all makes me this much happier with our vets.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-11 06:00 am (UTC)As for the escaping thing, that doesn't take long--certainly wouldn't expect it to take an hour unless the pup had to dig a new hole under the fence. since the article mentioned that there were no holes found, i'd be more suspicious of a loose board or gap, or as i said before, following the woman out the gate when she left. Sure, it's possible that the vet went into the yard and took the pup, but I was trying to play devil's advocate here :P
No argument that de-barking the dog was a weird and not easily justifiable thing to do. I expect the guy will get some sort of suspension of his license and/or a loverly fine. I wasn't trying to say that i think the guy was spot-on, I was just pointing out some things that made me cringe about the whole situation.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-11 02:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-11 11:22 pm (UTC)I have to agree that taking a "stray" puppy that I just found on my door step to my clinic and neutoring and de-barking it would definitely not be the first thing on my mind [keep in mind however, I am not a vet]. I think his actions are definitely worth an investigation regarldess, especially the de-barking bit. I hate to say anything against the vet without more information but if you include his own admissions it sounds like it might be time for him to take a break for awhile and re-evaluate why he became and continues to be a vet.
I understand also from the emotionally distressed side. When I lost Nakyta to a sudden illness she had just recently seen her regular vet and gotten a clean bill of health (minus Adrenal Disease). The only thing we did was renew a maletonin implant that she had received 6 months earlier when diagnosed with Adrenal Disease. He stated she was was responding well enough to just the implant, she had grown the little hair she had lost back and was plump, active and happy. 6 days later she died at an emergency vets office. I of course became susicious of my regular vet and thoughts of negligence on his part went through my mind. This was just the histeria and emotional roller-coaster caused by the loss of someone I loved dearly though. My vet is a great vet and I trust him with my babies to no end and suggest him to everyone I know. Sometimes our babies just get sick and sometimes things don't make themselves apparent until its already to the critical point. When We lose a loved pet, before we go blaming anyone we need to remember to step back and evaluate things. It's always easier to blame a vet for the loss of your pet than yourself for not getting them into the vet when they first show symptoms or realising that there are always risks with even some "simple" procedures like dental cleaning.
Horror stories
Date: 2006-06-27 12:55 am (UTC)Re: Horror stories
Date: 2006-06-27 01:04 am (UTC)Re: Horror stories
Date: 2006-07-05 01:22 pm (UTC)Re: Horror stories
Date: 2006-07-06 12:34 am (UTC)hmm. sounds icky. hope you're out of there and into a better/more reasonable clinic.
Re: Horror stories
Date: 2006-07-06 04:23 am (UTC)Re: Horror stories
Date: 2006-07-05 01:25 pm (UTC)Re: Horror stories
Date: 2006-07-06 12:37 am (UTC)Re: Horror stories
Date: 2006-07-06 04:20 am (UTC)Re: Horror stories
Date: 2006-07-06 04:27 am (UTC)Re: Horror stories
Date: 2006-07-07 07:53 am (UTC)Re: Horror stories
Date: 2006-07-08 02:06 am (UTC)Re: Horror stories
Date: 2006-07-08 10:54 pm (UTC)Re: Horror stories
Date: 2006-07-08 11:44 pm (UTC)