Hi theemx,
I did read the thread, and yes! I have been in a posistion that I couldn't afford a vets fee or sometime food for my children. I was brought up middle class. But! after a divorce ended up paying grands of  debt off, my xhusband left us in, plus rearing six children all under 16years on my own. On benifit!! It was living hell!!
But! We survived, we have always had dogs in our family.I have been there! I know!!
Would you have done what he did?
In my opionion he had months to look for help. Before! it got that bad.
If this is excepted as O.K. where will it stop!!!
I do agree that it is diisgusting how hard it is to find PDSA, or RSPCA and get help  it falls on deaf ears. As you know many of my comments are why vets, have ridiculous prices for the same thing. Did you know the xray plate they use for hip scores only costs £1.00 I would like to know how many of you would have carried out the same treatment on your dogs, if you hadn't got the money for a vet!!!
It would have broken my heart, but I would have given the dog to a dogs home or simliar, then they would have then seen to the dog. It wasn't long ago, you where all telling me not to be so soft on the
tread"dying pup" remember? You were all probly right!!
Where do you think the line should be drawn on cruelty???
Regards
Denese

No, of course i wouldnt cut my own dogs leg off!

I read a couple of other reports on the same story, and apparently he was told by vets that there was no urgent need to have the leg amputated, so that would account for him not having it treated!

Em

Hi theemx,
I only read the thread here! I do feel that the vets has to take part of the blame.
With NO excuses, They are intellegent people. But!! how! probly it is up to us sometimes,
to travel and support the vet's who don't ripe us of. But! some of us are probly lucky living nearer cities.
As there are more vet, and some very good one's. The Vet should have been named and shamed.
But! they are not. Some one like the KC should give lists of recommended vets in area's that
are in some way price coded. Also an easy payment scheme. Or advertise, I am sure the fare Vet's would agree with it.
Regards
Denese

Haven't read the other thread, but 'gangrene' is definately an emergency, there is a huge risk of septicaemia if it is not treated as a matter of urgency ;) and the only cure is amputation :(

The dog didnt have gangrene for ten months though!

The dog had paralysis down one side, making it drag that leg. Amputation not urgent at all, BUT some time later the dog injured the leg, because he couldnt feel it, and THAT is how he got gangrene!

Em

Hi Em - Is there another link to another report on this that you can post - I've read the one that admin have posted and I can't find anywhere on that report saying that the leg was further injured which caused the gangrene to set in

Thanks in advance, Tara x

The very sad fact I find about this whole episode is that no-one has been able to communicate sufficiently with the owner of the dog so that the owner could voice his fears about costs of treating the poor animal, and that no-one was able to suffiently help the owner before he carried out the amputation!   If people were shocked that he did this, weren't the same people shocked to see that the dog needed veterinary attention?

It's very sad that no-one was able to intervent at an earlier stage :(

Margot

Agree Margot and something I voiced earlier in the thread - where were these concerned neighbours and why didn't they help out sooner when they 'saw the dog dragging it's leg' ?  

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/page.cfm?method=full&objectid=15952628

There.

Em

Thanks for sharing Em.

I'm not sure if from this report though that we can assume that gangrene set in from a wound as the report is a bit unclear :

"He bound the dog's leg to stop it dragging on the ground but the dog developed a wound and he saw signs of gangrene"  Now did he see signs of gangrene a while after the wound or did he look closer at the leg when the dog wounded it and then realised that gangrene had set in ? 

As always the press like to report on the juicy bits only and leave 'more important' factors hazy which leaves people no alternative than to make up their own minds which often leads to wrong conclusions - when will the gutter press learn !

One full report that is shared amongst all the press would be far easier would it not - or is that too intelligent a suggestion for them ?

The article says:

>Prosecutor Katy Hanson said Prosser had contacted the RSPCA and payment was authorised to cover short-term treatment of the dog.
>She said Prosser had made inquiries about paying for the amputation in instalments, but was advised there was no urgency in the procedure taking place.
>But he did not return to the vets and the dog received no further treatment.

Was this a private vet practice or a vet at the RSPCA? Again, it isn't clear.

I agree JG - the whole report is hazy, mis-matched and basically a mess ! :(  What VET would say that an amputation of limb is not urgent ?  It's just a complete confusing mess.

It is all very unclear.

The dog could NOT have had gangrene for 10 months or anywhere NEAR that long though, or it would have died.

I really dunno -- search for some more reports, i found that by googling aberfan rspca.

Em

Of course it couldn't !  But did the gangrene set in and he didn't notice until the dog further wounded the leg ?  Report is unclear and, unfortunately unless anyone on here knows the man personally we will only have the press to tell 'their' story.

Or did the dog injure the paralysed leg (something paraplegic people have to be very careful about) - perhaps because the man had bandaged it too tightly (only guessing but I've known it happen before - isn't gangrene caused by lack of blood supply?) - some time after the original accident and that's when the infection set in?

Deffinition :
Gangrene is necrosis and subsequent decay of body tissues caused by infection, thrombosis or lack of blood flow. It is usually the result of critically insufficient blood supply sometimes caused by injury and subsequent contamination with bacteria. This condition is most common in the extremities. The best of all possible treatments is revascularization (restoration) of the affected organ, which can reverse some of the effects of necrosis and allow healing. Depending on the extent of tissue loss and location, treatment other than revascularization runs the gamut from allowing digits to auto-amputate (fall off), debridement and local care, to amputation, the removal of infected, necrotic tissues.

Sounds like a lack of blood flow to me :(

So, a possible scenario is that the dog had an accident, the man took it to the vet (funds provided by RSPCA) at which time it wasn't too bad, though further treatment was advised. The man didn't take it back to the vet after that, even though the leg didn't improve and he bound it up to try to prevent it getting in the dog's way. However at some time something went wrong, and either the blood supply was compromised causing gangrene or some other injury (easy in a paralysed and numb limb) caused an infection. (Don't the reports say the man 'thought it looked like gangrene'?). And we know what happened next. :(

(I love detective stories - shame this one's not fiction.)

This story is about as clear as mud! I'm not making any more assumptions about who went where, did what or offered help. I do feel a slight tinge of compassion for the dog's owner. He made some very bad decisions - maybe due to his state of mind, who knows - but it was not seemingly done with the inention to cause the dog suffering. He's not even in the same league as that sadistic and allegedly sane monster who killed the family's cat in her washing machine and then told her husband in front of her  daughters what she'd done. Or the bloke that got a pathetic 3 year ban for throwing his girlfriend's dog off a 15 ft balcony, breaking it's leg. However, the bottom line is this poor dog did suffer unnecessarily. The important thing is that the dog survived and is safe now.

>I would like to know how many of you would have carried out the same treatment on your dogs, if you hadn't got the money for a vet!!!

Probalbly none of us. But then again, probably none of us are suffering from a mental illness severe enough to get us sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Thats not the point anyway Denese we all know it's wrong but it should never of got that far in the first place that he felt he had to amputate it himself to save the dogs life.  What makes me sick is the fact the vets wouldn't do the operation anyway without a fee.  There used to be a vets years ago when i was a child in Allerton, he was a private vet (Randles)  and all he asked was a small donation, he was excellent and he'd never turn any dog away, no matter how much money the owner had.  He'd always treat your dog, but thats the difference he loved animals it weren't just a job what he'd became sensitised to.

Warm regards Susan

She (defence lawyer) said Prosser had made inquiries about paying for the amputation in instalments, but was advised there was no urgency in the procedure taking place.

Now maybe I'm being cynical here, but has anyone ever known a vet say that an amputation isn't urgent when it concerns a limb that is obviously dragging on the ground and at risk of further injury?  When the cat at my OH's work place got the same injury amputation was considered urgent to prevent further damage :rolleyes:  I think its more likely the vet didn't want to do the op and have the customer pay in instalments :rolleyes: yep - definately cynical, but it comes from experience ;)

I think that also Dill, sad really though you think they'd do it anyway.

Warm regards Susan

That story has made me feel sick.. that man is a #$%%$#$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10years is outrageous!! he needs a life ban from owning animals and a lengthy prison sentence!