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.
What she didn’t know, was that she had surrendered all ownership rights to the veterinarian when she signed over Lola to be euthanized. After finding out about the miscommunication, Second Chance put Gossett in touch with Lola’s new owner, Leslie Mason.
“When I was asked to take it I didn’t believe it had an owner and it was just in bad shape and needed to be nursed back to health,” said Mason, who recently lost a dog to disease.
She said the only thing that got her through it was nursing Lola back to health — who she renamed Tinker.
Gossett and her daughter decided to let Lola stay at her new home. But Gossett wants an apology from the veterinarian and a refund for the euthanization fee.
Information from: KOB-TV, http://www.kob.com
I’ll bet Bianca was happy! The vet should have been honest. He should have asked permission to turn her over to the agency and not collected a fee to euthenize the dog.
I am thinking that the vet is not ethical and maybe needs to go to court.
I’m hoping the vet did not let his/her malpractice premium lapse. Charging and taking money for services not rendered, isn’t that theft?
Very sneaky and unethical.
This vet needs to lose his license, period. Playing with people’s feelings is wrong and unprofessional besides very distrubing to the people involved. He did it for a extra fee so it’s FRAUD>
What a shock that would be. It is nice that they allowed the dog to stay with the new owner, obviously a loving, caring person, since they took the effort to nurse the dog to better health. Looks like the vet took the money from the euthanasia, pocketed it and sent the dog on its way, I hope he loses most of his business from this!
Outrageous– hope she wins her case…
if that was my dog the vet would need a doctor this was wrong in so many ways its should be taken to court and someone sued if there was money around to help the dog.. let the owner benefit from it
I would never use that vet again for anything, sounds like they are only in the business for the money they can charge. what a cruel thing to do to Lola’s owner. I would demand, not request the euthanization fee back.
This is why any time I’ve had to have an animal put to sleep I stay with them right to the end. They are my family, I will not let them “die alone”. The Vet should have to undergo a complete audit. If he did it to this family, how many others has he done it to?
I’m pretty sure that all veterinarians are well aware that most pet owners look upon their pets as family members and that they grieve terribly when they die, so for this vet to suggest that Lola should be put down, and then turn around and donate her to an organization is despicable. I hope he treats the pets better than he does their owners.
So, some would call collecting a fee for service not performed fraud. However, from the dog’s perspective, it worked out great.
Just goes to show: “one man’s Lola is another man’s Tinker” –zing.