NationStates Jolt Archive

""I told my daughter she was in doggy Heaven," Oaks said.

However, eight months after the dog was left to be euthanized, Oaks received a call from the veterinarian, Dr. Peggy Stubblefield.

"She told you they never euthanized Candy?" Local 6's Jessica Sanchez said.

"Yes," Oaks said.

Oaks found out that Candy was being kept alive."

http://www.local6.com/news/14611947/detail.html

As for myself, I accept this dog who ascended into doggy heaven and on the 248th day, rose again as my personal God.

*praises doggy Jesus*

if I was the mother I would sue the vet and take the dog "out back" so that the kids remember that my word is absolute!

Obviously, this all happened in Florida. Maybe Terry Schaivo is also still alive and recovering in Orlando.

Obviously, this all happened in Florida. Maybe Terry Schaivo is also still alive and recovering in Orlando.

No no, she's been moved to Area 51 and is actually now super intelligent and is being used by the Aliens and US Government.

waitaminute...

The letter said Stubblefield was the owner of Candy and she not only wanted to practice a surgical procedure on her but she wanted to personally study Candy's recovery.
so the vet took the animal for an experimental procedure and to see the results... all without the family's consent?

However, any veterinarian who accepts payment for a service, such as euthanasia, is legally bound to follow the pet owner's wishes. If the vet doesn't, he or she could be charged with fraud and have his or her license revoked.
While I am happy that the dog recovered, think about the trauma the daughter suffered thinking her furry friend was gone... and now is back.

I wonder how many other vets "rescued" animals from euthanasia that was paid for and "practiced" on them?

Obviously, this all happened in Florida. Maybe Terry Schaivo is also still alive and recovering in Orlando.

Who do you think painted this on the ceiling of Spaceship Earth at Epcot Center?
http://www.shooterdog.com/michelangelo_adam.jpg

That reminds me of one of my neighbors ....
http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2007/11/16/news/regional/518653a2a393ac6687257394006d107b.txt

So the family is upset that the vet unjustly took their dog and saved its life, instead of killing it like the family wanted.

I hate people. So, so fucking much.

So the family is upset that the vet unjustly took their dog and saved its life, instead of killing it like the family wanted.

I hate people. So, so fucking much.
Mind boggling huh?

So the family is upset that the vet unjustly took their dog and saved its life, instead of killing it like the family wanted.

I hate people. So, so fucking much.

Indeed:


"Is there anything Peggy Stubblefield could say or do to make this better?" Sanchez asked.

"No," Oaks said. "Absolutely not."

So she had the dog euthanised only because she couldn't afford to pay for treatment, the vet treated the dog anyway, for free, and now the owner is complaining? Fucking heck.

So the family is upset that the vet unjustly took their dog and saved its life, instead of killing it like the family wanted.

I hate people. So, so fucking much.

So she had the dog euthanised only because she couldn't afford to pay for treatment, the vet treated the dog anyway, for free, and now the owner is complaining? Fucking heck.

Think about it this way. The vet took their dog, a dog they said goodbye to. and experimented on it. she used the dog to practice a medical procedure and study it. now if the animal died, and the owners found out about it, would you be so quick to praise the doctor?

now add to the fact that Eight months later, after your little one cried each night about her now missing friend... you get a call saying "sorry ma'am. I know you wanted us to painlessly put your pet to sleep. But your animal is alive and one of our vets kidnapped her."

and then there is this part of the article.
Local 6 obtained a letter that Stubblefield's attorney sent to the veterinarian.

The letter said Stubblefield was the owner of Candy and she not only wanted to practice a surgical procedure on her but she wanted to personally study Candy's recovery.

So the vet not only stole the dog, but claimed it for her own and use that animal as a guinea pig, with no intention of returning the animal to the oaks family. and it was ANOTHER VET who rescued and reunited the dog with her family.

I think the only reason why the Oaks family isn't pressing the issue is because Candy lived and is back with her family.

Think about it this way. The vet took their dog, a dog they said goodbye to. and experimented on it. she used the dog to practice a medical procedure and study it. now if the animal died, and the owners found out about it, would you be so quick to praise the doctor?

now add to the fact that Eight months later, after your little one cried each night about her now missing friend... you get a call saying "sorry ma'am. I know you wanted us to painlessly put your pet to sleep. But your animal is alive and one of our vets kidnapped her."

and then there is this part of the article.


So the vet not only stole the dog, but claimed it for her own and use that animal as a guinea pig, with no intention of returning the animal to the oaks family. and it was ANOTHER VET who rescued and reunited the dog with her family.

I think the only reason why the Oaks family isn't pressing the issue is because Candy lived and is back with her family.
You may have won my thread but you get no prize. You're going to have to accept that.