reds Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 Will cross-post article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 But David Roberts, defending, claimed there was no evidence that such young puppies could experience pain. His view was supported by Steven Lomax, a vet with 28 years' experience, who told the court: "I have heard no evidence to hear that the drowning of a puppy is inhumane." This bit about there not being evidence of young puppies experiencing pain makes no sense to me. What about the ban on tail docking - puppies were docked very young and they were noted to experience pain weren't they? From having a part of their body amputated. So how can they be arguing in court that there's no evidence these puppies could experience pain Take from the RSPCA site (about tail docking) Docking is a surgical amputation, which involves cutting or crushing a puppy's skin, muscles, up to seven pairs of nerves, and bone and cartilage - and is performed without anaesthetic when pups are just three to five days old. At this age they can feel pain, and research indicates they do so at a greater intensity than adult dogs because the ability to suppress pain develops with age and experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zico's mum Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 More in depth coverage on the case here.The vet involved comes out even worse as far as I'm concerned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 While there is no excuse for what he did, I find it really sad that he contacted several rescues who did nothing to help. His responsibility of course if he bred his dog, but even so, I find that really sad. Have to say(and in no way aimed at you lady ) we dont know the rescues didnt do anything. They may well have done everything in their power at that time which for most rescues right now is offer advice on how to cope and contact nos of other rescues to try. We get asked daily to take in around 10-to 20 bullbreeds of all ages. Look at my post in poundies, a 9 week old,9mth old and 11 mth old. None have found places. There isnt any room left for bullbreeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Bones Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 I wonder if this was also a very devious solicitor - i mean we know that drowning a puppy is inhumane - but is there actually any (legal and therefore evidencial in court) any evidence of it? I sincerely doubt it... cos i bet it hasn't been studied. I'm not therefore sure that the vet was "wrong". Ethically I don't think I could've (if i were a vet) stood in court and defended such an individual but he had a right to do so... morally I think he was wrong but factually and legally... I reckon he was probably right. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 This bit about there not being evidence of young puppies experiencing pain makes no sense to me. What about the ban on tail docking - puppies were docked very young and they were noted to experience pain weren't they? From having a part of their body amputated. So how can they be arguing in court that there's no evidence these puppies could experience pain Take from the RSPCA site (about tail docking) Agree completely. Sorry but I just cannot believe that not one single study exists which shows that puppies of that age can feel pain. But then I guess it depends on what the 'vet' considers to be evidence. Random Controlled Trials? Maybe not if that's all he deems to count but as far as I'm concerned the 'owner' was extremely lucky to get away with it and to have the JP that he did. Shoestring lucky!!! What also is really annoying is that the defence solicitor will no doubt be delighted about his win and how clever he/she was to get his/her client off. Someone on the OBUK site has just posted this http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2004/March20...04/scottish.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
safneo Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 OMG!! This vet wants striking off the register! He is disgusting!! I hope he rots in hell. I hope no fugees use his practise!! I doubt they will continue after reading about him T0sser!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 I wonder if this was also a very devious solicitor - i mean we know that drowning a puppy is inhumane - but is there actually any (legal and therefore evidencial in court) any evidence of it? I sincerely doubt it... cos i bet it hasn't been studied. I'm not therefore sure that the vet was "wrong". Ethically I don't think I could've (if i were a vet) stood in court and defended such an individual but he had a right to do so... morally I think he was wrong but factually and legally... I reckon he was probably right. This is why I quoted the bit from the RSPCA site earlier Dee ... Docking is a surgical amputation, which involves cutting or crushing a puppy's skin, muscles, up to seven pairs of nerves, and bone and cartilage - and is performed without anaesthetic when pups are just three to five days old. At this age they can feel pain, and research indicates they do so at a greater intensity than adult dogs because the ability to suppress pain develops with age and experience. Because according to that, in the argument against tail docking, the RSPCA claimed there IS research to say puppies of just 3-5 days old can feel pain. I don't think there was anything right about what this vet did I agree with others that he's not the only one to blame, the man who drowned the puppies is of course responsible, along with the magistrate (or whoever) ruled against it being animal cruelty. However I would have expected, or at least hoped, that someone who has spent 28 years being a vet to be aware, as we all are, that such young animals are more than capable of experiencing pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happylittlegreensquirrel Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 my comment got through , Rather than blaming overstretched rescues for not helping perhaps people should judge the epidemic of back yard breeders and just one litter owners who allow there dogs to breed when there are already thousands of unwanted dogs in rescue centres and pounds countrywide. Not all pounds have no kill polices and every day healthy animals are destroyed. As for a Vet saying there is no evidence the pups suffered I am stunned. Posted by Samantha Green on June 20, 2007 1:44 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fee Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 The really awful thing is that this gives people carte blanche to drown unwanted pups. I don't know enough about the law to know whether a decision in a magistrate's court sets a legal precedent, but it certainly sends all the wrong signals. And if it's 'OK' to drown 10 day old pups I don't see how you can set a cut-off point to say it isn't OK to drown dogs of any age - how could you prove that a six month pup would suffer any more than a 10-day one? This ruling is just so totally wrong in every way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 (edited) I wonder if this was also a very devious solicitor - i mean we know that drowning a puppy is inhumane - but is there actually any (legal and therefore evidencial in court) any evidence of it? I sincerely doubt it... cos i bet it hasn't been studied. I'm not therefore sure that the vet was "wrong". Ethically I don't think I could've (if i were a vet) stood in court and defended such an individual but he had a right to do so... morally I think he was wrong but factually and legally... I reckon he was probably right. :( Legally, I can understand where you are coming from but I'd disagree that he was factually correct as whilst admittedly it appears there was no direct evidence to prove greater suffering is caused by drowning than lethal injection (& sometimes judges have to act on laws facts despite what common sense says) nor does it appear that there was there any evidence presented to support some of his own evidence & opinions - eg that the average owner with unwanted dogs drowns them appears to have been nothing more than an opinion rather than something which the evidence presented proved to be so. Undoubtedly it happens, but on average? Amongst other things The RCVS guidelines issued to vets and shown on their website state Guide to professional conduct - 1B. a. make animal welfare your first consideration in seeking to provide the most appropriate attention for animals committed to your care b. ensure that all animals under your care are treated humanely and with respect e. uphold the good reputation of the veterinary profession 1E. Your responsibilities to the general public g. promote responsible animal ownership h. use their professional status to provide only factual information to the general public about veterinary products and services. Annex m. Professional witness The Veterinary Surgeon as a Professional Witness in the Magistrates' Court Care should be taken not to show bias in the report. Matters which do not assist your argument should be disclosed since failure to do so could damage your credibility. Extreme language should be avoided and personal opinions should be muted. Whilst I appreciate the puppies may not have been in his care at the time of death I nevertheless feel that his evidence has provided support for the owners actions and a precedent for others to argue upon. In my opinion it is therefore very questionable whether this vet has complied with any of these points & I'm going to ask them to consider & clarify whether or in what way each has been complied with. Edited June 20, 2007 by Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 This Lomax character seems to be making a nice little career for himself defending animal abuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happylittlegreensquirrel Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 just noticed a comment after mine http://www.rykat.org/forums/index.php?s=&a...st&p=491394 These comments are interesting, but please please could they be typed with correct spelling, apostrophes, capital letters where appropriate and so on. It upsets me to see English so badly written in the Daily Telegraph. Readers may believe that mistakes are acceptable which they are NOT. I will correct them for you, for a small fee. Posted by Virginia Wiltshire on June 20, 2007 4:48 PM Its highly likely my post was one of the ones with incorrect spelling, apostrophes etc ( although I spell checked ) nice to know that mine ( and others ) dodgy spelling/written English concerns Ms Wiltshire more than the dead pups Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 To quote myself from RMF ... Sam, don't let the silly woman make you feel bad (I know that's easier said than done) If she chooses to pick up on someone's spelling rather than the fact a guy drowned a litter of puppies and got away with it, well that reflects badly on her, not you My husband's spelling can be a tad sh1te at times, I generally proof-read important stuff for him, but it doesn't change the fact he's a lovely, intelligent, caring person, just as you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 nice to know that mine ( and others ) dodgy spelling/written English concerns Ms Wiltshire more than the dead pups Sam You're very polite - some people have poor spelling, grammar etc, some people just think faster than they type & make errors that way (if I haven't spotted it & altered it I could sometimes kick myself for daft things like typing look instead of luck recently - I do know the difference but mistakes happen). I don't know whether she meant you but either way in relation to the reason for posting is it important? You probably cant print on here what I muttered to myself when I read her comment! Those poor pups maybe, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over her if I were you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts