Where does an animal owner's rights end?
Interesting/difficult situation in this Sunday's TU Advocate column: Guilderland police took a cat suffering from multiple health problems after a vet reported its owner wouldn't have the animal euthanized. The vet -- and presumably the police -- believe the owner was being cruel by not euthanizing the cat. [TU]
Say Something!
We'd really like you to take part in the conversation here at All Over Albany. But we do have a few rules here. Don't worry, they're easy. The first: be kind. The second: treat everyone else with the same respect you'd like to see in return. Cool? Great, post away. Comments are moderated so it might take a little while for your comment to show up. Thanks for being patient.
Comments
"He insists that, to the naked eye, Charmer II showed no outward sign of illness or distress. He and his sister took the cat to Cheever, he said, because the animal had been refusing to eat."
*facepalm*
I want to say that you shouldn't be able to euthanize without a court order. But this case is just like the myriad of hoarder cases we see, where animal control goes in, takes out the animals, and either treats them or euthanizes, as necessary. We shouldn't feel any differently because only one cat was involved. I'm sure the hoarders also feel that they should have been allowed to keep their neglected, nearly dead animals, too.
This is a sad story, for sure. But his rights ended when he didn't properly care for the animal.
... said ktvorwald on Jun 25, 2012 at 3:44 PM | link
When I read this on Sunday, I was a bit confused as to whom the Advocate was citing for inappropriate behavior. As a longtime client of Dr. Cheever and her partner Dr. Michael McCarthy, I can say that Dr. Cheever is an amazing and compassionate vet who has always, in my experience, taken into account not only my dogs' interest, but my family's, as pet owners, as well. I'm sure that she did not make the decision to recommend euthanasia or inform the police of the cat's condition lightly.
The article mentions that the owner adopted the cat knowing of its health condition and that continuing care was necessary, yet he only took the animal to the vet when it stopped eating (which was a sign of the end for both of my beloved dogs). Just because animals do not react to pain like humans does not mean that they are not in pain.
As for the Advocate, while he did offer Dr. Cheever a fair opportunity to explain her position, I am surprised and a bit disgusted that he would take up the mantle of someone who would abuse or neglect an animal. I guess the sensationalism of the story was simple irresistible. I hope that this article won't discourage other veterinarians from reporting suspected abuse or neglect.
... said Gretchen on Jun 25, 2012 at 7:43 PM | link
Gretchen,
It wasn't my intention to "take up the mantle" for Mr. Sacliocca. My only intention was to tell this story fairly, because I think it raises thought-provoking points about the treatment of animals in our society and about how the expectations for animal care is changing. There are times in our not-too-distant past where no one (wrongly, in my opinion) would have batted an eye at the care given to either of the cats described in the story.
... said Chris Churchill on Jun 25, 2012 at 9:50 PM | link
I liked how points from both sides of the argument were weighed and measured. Without being there, it's hard to say what was really going on, but I'll believe Cheever when she said the cat was in a bad way. It's a difficult situation, to be sure.
... said Irina on Jun 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM | link