Central Valley County's Lone Hospital Closes | All-Female West Sac ...
Annual Pet Clinic Helps Both Community, Students
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (WKBN) — Pets and their owners lined up outside of Stambaugh Stadium on Sunday for a pet clinic.
Pets could get a free health exam and their nails cut. Vaccines were also offered at a low cost and were done by licensed veterinarians.
The annual Marjorie Hartman Family Foundation Pet Clinic offers low-cost pet health care options. The event is hosted by Youngstown State University's Pre-Veterinary Society and Buster's Brigade.
Students from multiple veterinary programs had the opportunity to work hands-on alongside the vets.
Dr. Tina Costarella is a part-time teacher at YSU and is also a veterinarian. She is grateful that this event can benefit not only the community, but also students.
"This is a fantastic opportunity. I really feel, before a student goes on to become a veterinary technician or a veterinarian, that they understand not only how to handle the animal — which is needed, they'll get that experience here — but to understand the need in a community and to always be willing to give back to their community," Costarella said.
She says it's amazing to see how the event has grown over the years.
Maricopa County Expanding Mobile Pet Clinics To Reduce Stray Population, Shelter Numbers
Maricopa County Animal Care & Control attempts to lower pet population
SHARE
SHARE
TWEET
SHARE
What to watch next
Putin signs two new decrees related to Ukraine
CNN
CNN on scene after fatal Russian missile strike on apartment building
CNN
7th grader stops bus after driver passes out
Reuters
Several hundred Americans departed Sudan - State Dpt.
Reuters
Presidents of Slovakia and Czech Republic visit Kyiv
CNN
Pope Francis visits Hungary, meets Prime Minister Orban
CNN
Environmentalist warns Mexico train project destroying ancient Mayan cave system
Reuters
Republican policy on climate change takes a turn for the absurd
MSNBC
Rio community concerned as caiman habitat fills with city's trash
NBC News
At least 25 Ukrainians dead after Russian airstrike
MSNBC
Alito complains about criticism amid Supreme Court legitimacy's downward spiral
MSNBC
Capehart: GOP attacking Kamala Harris shows 'her strength' ahead of 2024 election
MSNBC
Trump embraces woman convicted in Jan. 6 case
MSNBC
'Exonerated Five' member wishes fair justice for Trump but recognizes 'karma'
MSNBC
Billionaire GOP donor says DeSantis won't return his calls
CNN
Never-before-seen images show inside White House on the day Osama Bin Laden was killed
CNNClick to expand
UP NEXT
The parking lot outside the evangelical church at Polk Street and 29th Avenue would normally be quiet on a Friday.
But on March 31, it saw steady traffic as neighborhood residents approached a large white trailer. They came with dogs and cats in tow — and sometimes, in their arms.
Inside, a veterinarian team from Preferred Pets Vet Clinic was working to spay and neuter the animals. Heart monitors attached to dogs and cats beeped incessantly in the cramped space as three people worked to prep, medicate and alter the pets. The orderly buzz of activity was interrupted only by the opening of the trailer door as aides took pets in for appointments and out to be reunited with their owners.
Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.
"We start at 7:30 for our first check-in, and by noon, we like to have 20 done, if possible," said veterinary tech Paula Motyka amid dosing out anesthetic drugs and shaving animals to prepare each one for their procedure.
The mobile clinic is part of an ongoing effort by Maricopa County Animal Care and Control to fight overpopulation in its shelters. Once a month, the department uses grant money to pay for an equipped and staffed trailer to park in one of the Valley's ZIP codes that see the most stray animals coming into the county's shelter system. During each session, the staff will alter 30 to 40 animals free of charge for their owners.
County employees are betting that if more pets are fixed, the stray population in these areas will decrease over time, and fewer animals will end up at the kennels. With that goal in mind, they're poised to begin offering clinics more often with a new funding source: $1 million of COVID-19 recovery money from the federal government.
"The historic best practice to reduce the surrender numbers is to alter the animals in the specific areas," staff wrote in a justification form for a contract with one of its mobile clinic vendors, Fix-Adopt-Save, filed with the county's Office of Procurement Services. "Historically, it has been shown that when mobile clinics have offered these services for no cost ... Within three years the surrender rates have dropped up to 60% from these areas."
In total, the county's shelters can comfortably hold 500 dogs, said spokesperson Kim Powell. During the work-from-home era of the pandemic, staff saw record lows in stray animals. But in recent months, there's been a sharp uptick, and the kennels have regularly been over capacity with more than 600 dogs.
Nearly 18,500 animals entered the department's care last year, and at times, the staff has been forced to turn away animals because of a lack of space.
"Over the last year or so, we started to see more animals coming in," Powell said at the mobile clinic. "I believe today we only have six available kennels at our West shelter. That number changes all the time, but sometimes, and oftentimes, there are more animals coming in than going out."
In October, the county's East Valley shelter also saw an outbreak of distemper, a highly contagious viral disease that can cause coughing, decreased appetite and vomiting in dogs. It can be fatal. Staff had to temporarily quarantine all of the animals in the county's kennel facilities. Ultimately, 240 animals were infected, and several were euthanized to stop the spread. That ignited criticism from animal advocates, who accused Animal Care and Control of failing to protect and properly manage dogs in its care.
Amid that tension, Animal Care and Control saw the departure of director Michael Mendel, who left his role after several employees alleged he bullied and berated them during an emotional outburst over criticism of the department.
So, officials said, relief from the constant influx of strays is sorely needed.
"We're seeing more puppies and kittens, and we're trying to change that," Powell said.
© Cheryl Evans/The Republic Maricopa County Animal Care and Control's mobile clinic spays and neuter dogs and cats in areas that have very high rates of stray animals on March 31, 2023. These areas see the most animals coming into the shelter system and the county is trying to stem the flood. Where are strays coming from? Animal Care and Control tracks where stray animals are picked up before being brought to the county's shelters.
The top ZIP codes where dogs and cats are found include:
Until now, the county has largely focused on tackling the problem through mobile clinics in the 85009 and 85041 ZIP codes, where they see the most strays. The department has limited resources, officials said, and they face a shortage of vet providers.
Meanwhile, most private veterinary practices are booking spay and neuter appointments months in advance. Those procedures can cost $300 to $600 per pet, depending on the size of the animal, said the team with Preferred Pets Vet Clinic.
The new federal money will allow the county to hold mobile clinics more frequently and update its contracts with private veterinary partners to be more competitive, giving more pet owners from the targeted ZIP codes the chance to have animals altered at no cost.
Lucy Amaya, 33, lives five blocks away from the church where the county booked its March appointments. She arrived at 11 a.M. Sharp to get her nearly-year-old puppy, Pumpkin, spayed. Amaya said she wouldn't be able to afford the procedure without the mobile clinic.
She also can't afford a litter. Amaya said her mother has a dog, 6-year-old Sujey, who gave birth last year to 12 puppies, including Pumpkin. Amaya and her family had to find people to take them off their hands, and she said she doesn't want to go through the experience again.
"It was hard to find ownership for them," she said. "We put them on Craigslist, and we just sold them to whoever was able to take care of them."
© Cheryl Evans/The Republic U.S. Lexical Diaz holds onto Cookie who was recently spayed at Maricopa County Animal Care and Control's mobile clinic on March 31, 2023. Mobile clinics a vehicle for owner education, other pet care The mobile clinics only offer spay and neuter services for free. But the clinics are a good opportunity for Maricopa County and veterinary staff to educate owners and address other problems, too.
Some animals, including Pumpkin, had fleas and ticks and were sprayed down with Frontline treatment. Amaya and other owners were given the option upon pickup of purchasing treatment to help protect their pets from the pests going forward.
Others got their animals vaccinated and microchipped for an extra fee. The county also often holds grant-funded events where similar services can be accessed at reduced or no cost to pet owners.
Microchips in particular can help get pets home faster and keep them out of the shelters, Powell said.
Methods for identifying animals are especially important in the summer, she said, when shelter overcrowding gets worse because of monsoon storms, holiday fireworks and intense heatwaves.
The Arizona summer brings loud noises and lights that can spook animals, leading some pets left outside in poorly fenced areas to run away and get lost. Plus, wild winds can blow down fences and walls, allowing for unexpected escapes.
"We are running out space," she said. "Especially as we head into the summer season."
Sasha Hupka covers Maricopa County, Pinal County and regional issues for The Arizona Republic. Do you have a tip about county government? Reach her at sasha.Hupka@arizonarepublic.Com. Follow her on Twitter: @SashaHupka.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Maricopa County expanding mobile pet clinics to reduce stray population, shelter numbers
Should Pet Euthanasia Against Owners' Wishes Be Legal?
Recently, an individual in the United Kingdom contacted me after reading a post I had written here back in 2011, titled, "Is It Ethical to Euthanize Your Dog?"
"They killed my dog against my will," she declared. "If I had known for one moment that they could legally do that without my permission, there's no way that I would have even brought him there."
This pet owner said that she brought her 14-and-a-half-year-old golden retriever to the emergency vet late one evening after noticing some blood in his urine. The dog was subsequently diagnosed with a urinary tract infection, anemia, and dehydration. The vet recommended euthanasia, which the owner refused. According to the owner, although her dog had eaten before going to bed that night and had eaten breakfast the next morning, the veterinarian continued to recommend euthanasia because the dog was suffering. The owner denied that her dog had shown behavioral signs of suffering, however.
In the end, according to the pet owner, the senior vet contacted another vet at animal welfare who read the dog's chart and agreed the dog needed to be euthanized. The senior vet then disallowed the owner from getting her own, independent veterinary opinion, threatened to press charges against her if she continued to refuse euthanasia (in England and Wales, it is an offence to cause any vertebrate to "suffer unnecessarily"), and, ultimately, euthanized the dog. "I was forced to put my 14-and-a-half-year-old golden retriever to sleep…and I'm having a very hard time coming to terms with it. I feel consumed with grief," she confided.
My purpose here is to shed light on some of the thorny ethical issues raised by this and other cases like it. In particular, are unilateral decisions by veterinarians to kill ("destroy") an owner's pet, without the owner's fully informed and freely given consent, ethical, and, if not, should they even be legal?
According to the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RACS), which is the association that sets and upholds the educational, ethical, and clinical standards of veterinary surgeons and nurses in the U.K.:
Where a veterinary surgeon is concerned that an animal's welfare is compromised because of an owner's refusal to allow euthanasia, a veterinary surgeon may take steps to resolve the situation, for example, an initial step could be to seek another veterinary opinion for the client, potentially by telephone (italics added).
Further, the RACS states:
If, in the opinion of the veterinary surgeon, the animal's condition is such that it should, in its own interests, be destroyed without delay, the veterinary surgeon may need to act without the owner's consent and should make a full record of all the circumstances supporting the decision in case of subsequent challenge (italics added).
So, in the U.K., it appears that, in a case such as the present one, where the veterinarian deems that a dog should be euthanized, for the purpose of relieving the animal's suffering, but the owner refuses, the veterinarian can "seek another veterinary opinion for the client, potentially by telephone" and, if the other veterinarian concurs, euthanize the dog without the owner's consent.
Making the decision to euthanizeAccording to the RACS, such a decision to euthanize an animal is based on several factors such as:
... The extent and nature of the disease or injuries, other treatment options, the prognosis and potential quality of life after treatment, the availability and likelihood of success of treatment, the animal's age and/or other disease/health status and the ability of the owner to pay for private treatment (italics added).
In the above list of considerations, the term "treatment" appears four times. Curiously, there is not any mention of "palliative measures"; that is, not treating the patient and, instead, only providing comfort care, including pain medication. Instead, the bifurcated options appear to be to treat, if feasible, and to euthanize, if not feasible.
There is also no mention of environmental considerations, as part of the decision-making calculus, such as whether the dog should die in a familiar environment, such as the home, or in a sterile veterinary clinic. "I feel so sad," said the reader, "that in his final moments, he was in a strange place surrounded by strange people."
Consider also that the veterinarian's subjective idea of quality of life might be different than that of the owner. Is the quality of life for a dog acceptable when it requires a wheelchair to be mobile? Does a dog in its advanced years with kidney failure and, in need of dialysis, have a quality of life worth preserving? Indeed, such questions are largely subjective value determinations, not ones that can be answered by medical expertise alone.
The rights of owners vs. Healthcare providersIn human healthcare, the patient, or the patient's representative (in the case of patients who lack capacity), typically make such decisions, and if the physician is unwilling to provide a given intervention, the patient/patient representative is still free to seek another physician who may be willing to provide it. The physician, however, is never permitted to force a patient to be euthanized, even in nations where euthanasia is a legal option for human patients.
There is also lacking, in the above RACS statement, any clearly stated provision that the owner can seek his or her own second, or even third, opinion. Instead, it appears that, in the interest of preventing the animal's suffering, the veterinarian can select the second opinion, for the client, without the owner's input.
Undoubtedly, in the case of dogs and cats, many owners want to keep their pets alive because it is very painful to let them go. As a clinical ethicist, I have seen this quite frequently in the case of human patients, so there is often need to remind families that the decision is about what the patient would have wanted, not about what the family wants. However, we do not know what our beloved pets would have wanted because they are not (and never were) capable of expressing such wishes.
In this respect, our pets resemble very young (human) children. But for many of us, euthanizing very young children is unthinkable. Instead, we may seek comfort measures only, for children for which treatment would be futile and only prolong suffering. So, why are we humans so inclined to prescribe euthanasia for our pets? Could our double standard be based on a subjective bias, a form of speciesism that lacks consistent ethical justification? Why does contemporary human medical ethics recognize palliative measures only (including hospice) as an ethical alternative when treatment is not a feasible option, but not so much for nonhuman animals?
In the case considered here, it is arguable that the dog's owner, and, therefore, his legal representative, had a moral right to seek her own, independent second, or even third opinion. Arguably, she also had a moral right to decide whether her dog was to die in his own home with loved ones by his side, instead of in a sterile veterinary clinic. Palliative care is both a legal and ethical option for humans. Should it likewise be a protected, well-recognized, universal, ethical alternative to euthanasia for our beloved pets too?
Comments
Post a Comment