Pa. Vet Accused of Faking Dog's Death

Brutuskend

Lifer
Apr 2, 2001
26,558
4
0
Pa. Vet Accused of Faking Dog's Death
By Associated Press
5 hours ago

ALLENTOWN, Pa. - A couple who thought they were watching their epileptic dog being euthanized actually witnessed a simple sedation procedure concocted so the veterinary clinic could later give the canine to another owner, they claim in a lawsuit.

Dana and Gary Ganyer said they cried while watching what they thought was the death of Annie, a 2-year-old German shepherd that had increasingly frequent and debilitating seizures.

But in a lawsuit filed in Bucks County last week, they contend Annie was not euthanized in February 2005 at the Mill Pond Veterinary Clinic in Milford.

Instead, the lawsuit says, the dog was given a sedative to make it appear she was dead. The clinic then gave Annie to a new owner, Gene Rizzo of Northeast Philadelphia, who cared for the dog until he had her euthanized on Nov. 2, according to the lawsuit.

"When I heard she was still alive I literally screamed and went into hysterics and I was in shock for three days," Dana Ganyer said. "My nerves were totally torn up that this vet could do this."

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, accuses Mill Pond Veterinary Clinic, Mill Pond Kennels and three of its employees of fraud, negligence and defamation.

A lawyer for the veterinary clinic did not return a call Friday from The Associated Press.

In the lawsuit, the Ganyers say they were told by a former employee of the clinic that they were considered "heartless" and that a meeting was called the morning Annie was scheduled to be euthanized to devise a plan to "rescue" the dog.

The Ganyers contend they are loving owners who decided to put Annie down only after weeks of research and soul-searching.

On June 30, the Ganyers received a call from the former clinic employee, who told them Annie was still alive.

A few days later they drove to Rizzo's home. The Ganyers told Rizzo they were Annie's rightful owners, but he refused to give her back.

Rizzo said Annie had seizures every few weeks, but between them "she was perfectly normal."

Annie was euthanized after Rizzo said she lapsed into a coma-like state for two days and his veterinarian told him the dog was "really suffering."

 

Caesar

Golden Member
Nov 5, 1999
1,686
178
106
I am on the vets side. As long as there is someone to take care of the dog why kill it if its not in pain?
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
2
76
I'd side with the vet for two reasons:

1) The couple was probably as the vet said, heartless. It is his judgement call, and considering all the employees agreed...
2) The fact that the couple is trying to get a lot of money out of it immediately tells me what kind of people they are.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,344
126
The Vet had perfectly legitimate intentions, he just went about them in a terrible manner.

Good idea, horrible implementation.

Both sides are wrong here. He shouldn't have done it the way he did on his side. On their side I hope the lawsuit gets thrown out. Trying to milk money out of this is a joke. If for no other sort of vindication, revoke the vet's license and be done with it.
 

AnonymouseUser

Diamond Member
May 14, 2003
9,943
107
106
Wow. With all the healthy dogs readily available at the local shelters, the fact that people will do utter bullshit like this is totally unfathomable.
 

Babbles

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2001
8,253
14
81
Wow, that's sort of a toughie. I think I would favor the vet clinic because they *may* have had the dog's best interest at heart.

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Only in Pennsylvania.

Do you enjoy saying brainless and stupid things? Seriously, your idiotic comment makes no sense what so ever. The state in which this happened has no significance at all. And, hell I really don't like PA but I think to somehow correlate the state with what happened is moronic at best.
 

Brutuskend

Lifer
Apr 2, 2001
26,558
4
0
Originally posted by: CaesaR
I am on the vets side. As long as there is someone to take care of the dog why kill it if its not in pain?

I tend to agree with this, but on the other hand, watching any pet "dieing" is a traumatic experience so I can see the other side as well. And if they truly thought they were doing the right thing (the dogs owner) ... well I can understand why they would be upset.

Years ago I had a girlfriend put down a otherwise healthy dog simply because she didn't want to take care of it any longer. (Yeah, what a BITCH) :| In a case like THAT I would definitely side with the Vet!
 

DaiShan

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
9,617
1
0
I don't get it. What's the difference if the dog is dead or with another family? Either way the original owners don't have it...
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
If someone was willing to care for the dog, why should the dog be put down if she was having seizures once every few weeks. I hope the vet wins.
 

AnonymouseUser

Diamond Member
May 14, 2003
9,943
107
106
Originally posted by: classy
If someone was willing to care for the dog, why should the dog be put down if she was having seizures once every few weeks. I hope the vet wins.

Why couldn't the couple have rescued a healthy dog instead of prolonging the life of a sick dog? The vet could have at least asked permission of the owners to allow the dog to live with another couple, rather than pulling a stunt like this.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,344
126
Even being a pet owner I can't say that what he did was right. It wasn't. His intentions were good but you just can't operate like that.

He needed to bring up the adoption first and if they rejected the proposal he should have said "I won't put this animal down". And left it at that.
 

EyeMWing

Banned
Jun 13, 2003
15,670
1
0
Originally posted by: Babbles
Wow, that's sort of a toughie. I think I would favor the vet clinic because they *may* have had the dog's best interest at heart.

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Only in Pennsylvania.

Do you enjoy saying brainless and stupid things? Seriously, your idiotic comment makes no sense what so ever. The state in which this happened has no significance at all. And, hell I really don't like PA but I think to somehow correlate the state with what happened is moronic at best.

Okay, fine, I take it back. It could have also happened in California and Florida.
 

Sphexi

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2005
7,280
0
0
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
I'd side with the vet for two reasons:

1) The couple was probably as the vet said, heartless. It is his judgement call, and considering all the employees agreed...
2) The fact that the couple is trying to get a lot of money out of it immediately tells me what kind of people they are.

1) It is NOT his call. He can refuse to put the dog down, but he has no right, legal or otherwise, to lie to the people, and to basically steal their animal. And I say their, because yes, people can own animals.

2) Perhaps they're trying to teach the vet a lesson. Perhaps the woman really is suffering emotionally, that she really did love this dog, and finding out that it wasn't put down like they thought, and instead was still alive somewhere fvcked her up in the head. A jury/judge will decide what that's worth, but it's her right to ask for what she feels is required.
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
47
91
I have a toy poodle. She's about 3 years old and has seizures. She only has them maybe once every 6 months or so, but she is on medication, phenelbarb sp? that she takes twice a day.

It's really sad to watch b/c she'll just be walking around like normal, then she'll get stiff and just fall over on her side with her legs sticking straight out :( Then she'll try to get up to move, but her body won't let her :( It's a really sad thing to watch, but luckily they aren't too frequent.

I don't think I could ever stoop to the level of having her put down though over frequent seizures. I'd rather take a bullet myself
 

Shadowknight

Diamond Member
May 4, 2001
3,959
3
81
Didn't something similar happen on another story posted on ATOT? It wasn't in the news, but the vet thought he could save the dog, kept putting off giving the "ashes" of the pet, and managed to save the dog, then gave it back to the owners? Of course there, they weren't denied getting their pet back...
 

AnonymouseUser

Diamond Member
May 14, 2003
9,943
107
106
Originally posted by: Shadowknight
Didn't something similar happen on another story posted on ATOT? It wasn't in the news, but the vet thought he could save the dog, kept putting off giving the "ashes" of the pet, and managed to save the dog, then gave it back to the owners? Of course there, they weren't denied getting their pet back...

That was a case where the owners couldn't afford the operation necessary to save the pet. The vet secretly saved the pet and performed the operation out of the kindness of his heart. He held off the "ashes" to make sure the operation was successful before giving the pet back to it's owners.

Totally different circumstances. Totally different reasons. Totally different outcome.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: NFS4
I have a toy poodle. She's about 3 years old and has seizures. She only has them maybe once every 6 months or so, but she is on medication, phenelbarb sp? that she takes twice a day.

It's really sad to watch b/c she'll just be walking around like normal, then she'll get stiff and just fall over on her side with her legs sticking straight out :( Then she'll try to get up to move, but her body won't let her :( It's a really sad thing to watch, but luckily they aren't too frequent.

I don't think I could ever stoop to the level of having her put down though over frequent seizures. I'd rather take a bullet myself

It might look sad or odd to watch, but that doesn't necessarily mean she is in pain.

I mean, humans with epilepsy don't really experience pain when they have a seizure.