So, Oreo was euthanized because the person/people in charge decided that his "quality of life" would not be to whatever standard your organization deems necessary? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a rescue willing to take Oreo in, for life if need be?
If that's the case, then your organization needs to do a reality check. Wasn't the purpose of medically taking care of Oreo done so that he would have a chance at life? Why go through all that, spend all that money, give hope to a community of animal lovers that Oreo would finally be safe to enjoy life without cruelty, just to euthanize him shortly afterwards? If there were people who are willing to deal with a problem dog like Oreo, why would you not have given them a shot at doing so?
Was it a legal matter? Were you afraid you'd be liable for Oreo? I am a bit disturbed that the decision for Oreo's euthanasia is not transparent.
From your statement: "The circumstances that led to this most difficult and heartbreaking of decisions are not widely known. In fact, details such as these are usually closely guarded."
If any individual responsible for making these decisions cannot plainly state *why* a decision is being made when it comes to the life of an animal in your care, maybe they shouldn't be making them. It was a "heart-breaking decision", alright. I would like to know in some detail why the decision was made to euthanize Oreo instead of letting an external rescue take him and willingly deal with his behavioral problems. It would have cost you nothing to do so. I am certainly not satisfied with the "quality of life" nonsense you gave in your statement. Euthanasia certainly stifled any "quality of life" that Oreo might have had. That is a certainty.
Your organization has done much good for animals. Maybe it's gotten too big for itself. It's a sad day when private rescues, with less resources than your organization, can find the compassion and put out the effort to actually save animals when you won't. At the very least, I now know where to put my money when I actually want to *help* animals.
Roary Williams
----------------------
Dear Roary:
Thank you for contacting the ASPCA with your concerns regarding the very difficult decision to euthanize Oreo. A great deal of misinformation regarding Oreo's euthanasia has been passed around on the Internet-- everything from what time Oreo was euthanized (it was 3 p.m.) to Pets Alive's credentials (they are NOT a member of the Mayor's Alliance). In addition, critics have seized on Oreo's plight as an opportunity to discredit the ASPCA, which is interesting when you consider that one of our most ardent critics, Camille Hankins, the Director of Win Animal Rights, was convicted of animal cruelty in 1995 when nearly 100 animals were found stuffed into a tiny, filthy trailer that she rented.
While we certainly think all of these issues merit rebuttal, we believe it is critical that we address the questions and concerns regarding our decision not to send Oreo to a sanctuary.
It is first vital to consider the very definition of 'animal sanctuary.' The mission of animal sanctuaries is generally to be safe havens, where the resident animals are given the opportunity to behave as naturally aspossible in a protective environment. Due to the extreme emotional and physical strain Oreo suffered, her living conditions at a sanctuary would have been anything but "natural," and her quality of life would have been poor at best. She would have been forced to live a life of isolation with extremely limited human contact and virtually no animal contact. For an animal that is distinguished by sophisticated social cognition and communication, such an existence could hardly be defined by the word "sanctuary."
Many groups like Pets Alive dispute that this would have been Oreo's fate. But how can that be anything but empty rhetoric when these groups had no access to Oreo or her evaluations? We had our own professional behaviorists, as well as an independent veterinary behaviorist, conduct
numerous evaluations, and in our experience, the findings were not consistent with sanctuary placement. We spent five months with Oreo- day in and day out- not only evaluating her behavior, but trying to rehabilitate her. This is central to the ASPCA's mission. Just since 2003, when Edwin Sayres joined the ASPCA, we have rehabilitated over 1,200 animal cruelty victims at a cost of over 5 million dollars. Why would Oreo be any different?
The fact is, she wasn't. Despite the sensational nature of her injuries, she was treated with the same love and respect, and given the greatest of care and rehabilitation-- that we afford all of our animals. But at the end of the day, and more often than the animal welfare community discusses, we made the most humane decision we could.
There is no 'Oreo conspiracy,' as some have claimed. This is simply, and tragically, the case of a heartbreaking decision made all the more difficult by the ignorance and hypocrisy of a few.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to email us again.
Sincerely,
Lanie Anton
Senior Manager Internet
Community Outreach
ASPCA®
189 Berdan Avenue, #407
Wayne, NJ 07470
laniea@aspca.org
P: 973-628-9494
212-876-7700, ext. 4701
F: 973-686-0173
www.ASPCA.org
www.ASPCApro.org
----------------------
Thankyou for responding so quickly. To be fair, I do not know much about the rescue who offered to take Oreo, only that it would have afforded Oreo a life. I appreciate your expansion on the reasons for euthanizing Oreo, although I am not sure I would have made the same decision.
I will add, however, that the decision was not an easy one. I've had to make hard decisions regarding my own pets (I currently have 10 ferrets, most of whom were rescues of one sort or another) that I did not like. I have always tried to err on the side of life. What you or I (or the person who made the decision to euthanize Oreo) consider "quality of life" might not be the same if we were making it for ourselves. Again, a conjecture easily stated and most difficultly lived. I did not want to imagine your organization easily deciding to euthanise an animal, and I am reassured somewhat. Thanks for making your reasons more transparent.
We watch our own more than anybody else, as I'm sure you're aware. Keep up the good work of saving animals. We *are* on the same side. I will pass this on to the animal communities I am involved with. Thankyou again.
Roary Williams
----------------------
Dear Roary:
On behalf of the everyone here at the ASPCA, I just wanted to tell you how much your email means to us all. We were all devastated by this decision. Being unable to help an animal is never an easy thing to accept, but in the end the last act of kindness we could give to Oreo was to let her go in peace. As you indicated in your email, we are receiving a lot of negative and angry emails and phone calls and the fact that we have supporters like you who understand - even if you do not agree with - this situation helps us enormously.
Thank you again for your kindness, understanding and support. Continued good luck with the work that you are doing.
Lanie Anton
Senior Manager Internet
Community Outreach
ASPCA®
189 Berdan Avenue, #407
Wayne, NJ 07470
laniea@aspca.org
P: 973-628-9494
212-876-7700, ext. 4701
F: 973-686-0173
www.ASPCA.org
www.ASPCApro.org
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
