It is hard to know. Just avoid letting them “take your pet to the back” as much as possible. Stay with them as much as possible.

But how do you know how they handle your pet when you are not there?

“Lisa says:
Is this illegal in all states? I worked for a large vet office who routinely euthanized cats this way. Until reading this I thought it was the norm.”

To everyone (but not Lisa, since she apparently knows it already) — don’t assume vets are animal lovers, or even have the smallest bit of compassion for animals. Frankly many of them seem to hold animals in contempt and use their positions to exercise sadistic urges.

When I worked at a vet office briefly in the mid 1980s they used the gas chamber for cats, and the vet assistant who did this after hours cackled wildly like some unhinged nutcase as she recalled for me the struggles and cries of the cats in the chamber. I later learned they were selling the dead bodies to a rendering plant. The vet who was responsible for this is now on some local lists of “best vets” so it just shows you how ridiculously gullible we pet owners are when it comes to vets.

Sometimes they seem like a bunch of Ted Bundy’s to me. Charming. They really take you in with their fake sympathy. And behind closed doors the sadistic monster comes out.

Stefani

“Stephanie and Jennifer. Vets are not *exempt* in any state of the union en face, they are protected from someone who does not understand the nature of medicine from brining up charges against them. There is a huge difference.”

Tanya, I take it you have some legal language expertise that I lack, and I don’t know what “en face,” means — but YES, vets ARE exempt in, I believe 26 states, PROVIDED that the allegedly abusive behavior was committed WHILE they were practising as vets.

In other words, if a vet sets fire to his neighbors dog, he is not exempt from animal cruelty charges. Because he did not do this while practising.

However, if a vet gets angry at a cat he is trying to intubate, or a dog who cries while a painful procedure is being done, or any patient who otherwise will NOT cooperate, and then body slams the animal to the floor, or punches it, he is exempt because he did this while “practising veterinary medicine.” The rationale for this exemption is that laypeople can’t possibly determine whether the actions were a part of legitimate treatment. So that vet who punched the Dachshund in Arizona and knocked his eye out? Said that this was all in the line of duty, got off.

There are several high profile cases that illustrate my point. Perhaps the most alarming is that of Thomas Sheridan in South Carolina. His employees claim they saw him bang a cats head on the surgical table. The employee reported otherwise rough handling of the cat. The cat died and necropsy results were cited when the abuse charges brought against him.

See http://www.sheridantruth.com/l.....report.pdf

The magistrate threw out the charges because of the veterinary exemption.

See

http://www.sheridantruth.com/l.....missed.pdf

I attended an animal law event in DC last fall, and they distributed a report listing the 20+ (I think it is 26) states in which veterinarians are exempt from animal cruelty prosecution for things they do while practising.

Stefani
The Toonces Project
http://www.TheTooncesProject.com
“Is Your Pet Safe at the Vet?”

Hard as it is to believe, there are people who don’t watch the news, or if they do, the story and name don’t stick. Then, in the future, if he is allowed to practice again, they just end up going to “the corner vet,” only they don’t know about his cruel past.

This is why we have got to get people in the habit of researching their vets.

stef

In the line of work, doctors and vets sometimes have to be “cruel”. killing an animal is generally considered cruelty to animals. you have to make vets exempt from that part, so they can do thier jobs. But that doesn’t mean they have the right to torture animals while doing so. Also, scientists have to have the legal right to do thier (often more than questionable) research, but that doesn’t mean they can sit there and burn a cat with cigraetts for the fun of it, while the cat is there for some other study.

Attorneys are used to working both side of this issue, because cops are generally exempt from some kinds of laws, fire people (including things like right to enter your home without warrent or permission), etc.

It’s a matter of how good both side’s lawyers are at defining what went on, and why it was necessary. but the general principal used by both state and federal courts is “was the action done under teh best medical intent, while in the course of work as a professional”.

hope that helps.

There is nothing nastier that can be said about a person than that the PFI finds them admirable.
If the FDA likes that person too?
It is certain they are evil and should not be trusted with living creatures.