Posted on 02/21/2012 1:38:32 PM PST by iowamark
Lisa Gossett's one-year-old Chihuahua Lola was viciously attacked by another dog four months ago.
The veterinarian told her the outlook was grim and gave Gossett two choices.
"Pay out all this money and there's a 20% chance that she'll live or euthanize her, so it was hard," said Gossett.
Gossett says 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.
"When she prays she says I want to see Lola again - I want to see Lola again," said Gossett.
The family had moved on until this week, when Gossett got a phone call.
It was the company that programs the ID microchips that go into pets.
The caller 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 was in an accident’ and they said ‘no ma'am in fact she is alive and there's a request for ownership for her,’" said Gossett.
Gossett immediately called the vet demanding answers.
It boils down to a document the owner signed when she gave the vet the go-ahead to euthanize the dog.
What she didn't know, and what wasn't explained to her, was she was surrendering all ownership rights to the veterinarian.
The vet chose to turn Lola over to the foundation "Second Chance" which rehabilitates dogs.
They assigned Lola to a foster home for her recovery.
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.
Mason says she recently lost a dog to disease.
She says the only thing that got her through it was nursing Lola back to health - who she named Tinker.
"I want to say take her but then I want to say no, I want her - it's just, it's hard," said Mason.
In an act of complete kindness, Gossett and her daughter decided to let Lola stay at her new home.
"I'm grateful that she's in a place that she's so happy, I'm grateful just to be able to see her again," said Gossett.
Even though there was a happy ending, Gossett still has questions for the vet.
She says it was never explained to her that the vet could choose to keep the dog alive.
She wants an apology and a refund for the money she put down to have Lola cremated.
By the time we found out the full details in this story the vets office was closed, so we couldn't get their response.
ping
All I have to say is a child’s prayer was answered.
I’d have that vet’s head on a stick *and* my dog back.
Kindness? I don't think she really had a choice. She should just be happy someone was willing to do what she was unwilling to do and the dog lived.
So who the heck's ashes did she receive?
We've cremated all our dear, lost pets and I've often wondered about the, um, integrity of pet cremation businesses. Do they just fill little bags with the right sized scoop of a group cremation?
“”Pay out all this money and there’s a 20% chance that she’ll live or euthanize her, so it was hard,” said Gossett.”
That hardly sounds like she was “unwilling”.
She trusted the vet’s grim [and apparently incorrect] prognosis and got stabbed in the back for her trouble.
That’s why you get the *body* back.
Not ashes, not *nothing*. Then there’s no question what happened.
Funny, that’s the same way I look at people that take their animal to a vet to get them euthanized.
They are getting somebody else to do what they aren’t willing to do.
“So who the heck’s ashes did she receive?”
Possibly the local woodpile.
Cremation is totally unverifiable - unless you witness a DNA test.
A little more reading up on it, and it turns out Lola was attacked by another dog owned by her owner — who then left her to die with strangers performing euthanasia.
I’d say Lola is lucky to have survived the unsafe environment and to have gotten a second chance of life in a home where, one hopes, she won’t be viciously attacked by other pets.
Actually, this sounds like fraud and the basis to abrogate the release she signed. The vet could be looking at a lawsuit if she is of such a mind.
I think the 2nd woman should’ve had pity on the little girl and given the dog back. IMO.
Crying..scaring dog. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who was willing to do what she was unwilling to do?
The vet said pay ($X) and have a 20% chance of recovery, or pay ($0), and the dog will be put down.
She was unwilling to pay ($X). The dog survived.
So who paid ($X)? Nobody.
The vet gave her dog to “Second Chances”. The dog lived, despite not paying ($X), and the vet then gave her dog away.
Note that the woman was charged for cremation fees.
The vet is scum. The dog obviously did not need ($X) to have a chance to survive, since it survived with ($0) paid. Also, the family was charged for the euthenasia and cremation of their pet.
What did it cost the vet? A bed for the night, $2 for food and water, a phone call to “Second Chances”, and printer ink and paper to print up a phony bill for services not rendered to a family in grief over having to put their family pet down.
I would NEVER leave any dog or other pet to be euthanized. I would never leave them in their last moments with strangers. The times that I’ve had to do it, I’ve held them in my arms, and spoken quietly to them. Then I take them home. I did leave one with the vet for cremation, but I’ve never done that again. It felt wrong.
This is the way I view it, too...
CA....
Gotta wonder.
My husband’s elderly uncle’s body was found in the woods outside the Tri-State Crematory while what everyone thought were his ashes rested in a beautiful urn on the mantel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1828385.stm
If indeed her vet actually lied to her. She may be lying about the vet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.