[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: A couple who euthanized their dog for apparent aggression did not breach their duty of care or commit animal cruelty, while the veterinarians who performed the euthanasia did not violate the Code of Ethics, the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS) reported on Tuesday. (September 15).
In its research findings, AVS said the owners had explored various options prior to euthanasia, including medication, training and relocation, and did their best to care for Loki, the dog.
The owners and the vet did not violate COVID-19 safety measures by euthanizing Loki during the “circuit breaker,” as veterinary acts upholding public safety were considered an essential service during that period, the AVS found.
The findings come after AVS opened investigations into the case in May following a complaint from Exclusively Mongrels, the dog protection group from which the owners had adopted Loki. The group said Loki was healthy and would have been three years old at the time of euthanasia.
The AVS, formerly known as the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority, is a unit under the National Parks Board.
The case sparked outrage among some netizens who felt the euthanasia was not justified. Some have identified and exposed the owners and criticized the Mount Pleasant Veterinary Group that carried out the euthanasia.
READ: Dog euthanized case for investigation, AVS should be able to do their job ‘without public pressure’: Shanmugam
In its findings, AVS said that Loki was adopted in December 2017 and was shy, fearful of loud noises, averse to men, and nervous around children. Between 2018 and 2019, he grew to 25 kg and became “more confident and aggressive.”
The dog also had panic attacks with no known triggers, with more frequent and severe biting incidents or attacks, AVS said. Loki was finally euthanized on April 20.
AVS listed 12 times between 2018 and 2020 where Loki had bitten or attacked other dogs, the owner, the owner’s family member, the owner’s friends, and the children of the owner’s friends.
In two of the most recent cases this year, Loki had bitten a child on the face and the owner on the lip. Both visited the Accident and Emergency Department (A&E) of a hospital.
A list of incidents involving Loki biting or attacking others. (Photo: NParks)
OTHER CONSIDERED OPTIONS
In January 2019, Loki underwent a blood test to rule out hormonal causes of aggression, while medication was administered to control possible separation anxiety, which could be causing the aggression. The owners also visited vets regularly to make sure Loki was healthy, AVS said.
Loki was sent to train between November 2019 and February this year. During the first session, the trainer assessed that Loki had medium to high levels of anxiety and reactivity, and was nervous around strangers.
AVS said that Loki’s behavior did not improve with training, noting that Loki had bitten the boy when training was in progress.
During the last training session in February, Loki’s owners told the trainer that they wanted to euthanize Loki. The trainer tried to convince them to consider other options, including behavior modification, mood-altering medication, and rehousing.
READ: After Loki Dog Euthanized, Veterinarians and Animal Groups Discuss How to Euthanize Healthy Pets
In March, the owner and a Mount Pleasant vet discussed options for Loki. They decided that Loki could be rehoused, rehabilitated with medication and behavior modification training, or euthanized as a last resort.
Loki was given behavioral drugs as an interim measure. The vet approached the trainer, who said he was willing to rehabilitate Loki with drugs. But the coach said that Loki would need at least another six months of training before he could be reevaluated.
The vet then persuaded the owners to try rehousing Loki. However, AVS said the coach and owners were unable to find new owners for Loki despite “multiple efforts.”
“We understand that what the owners did was reach out to their own acquaintances. We also understand that the trainer himself tried to look at rehoming options and even the vets contributed, ”said an AVS spokesperson.
“In the end, it was only (one) animal shelter in Malaysia that came back as an option, and unfortunately that could not be put into action due to the COVID-19 situation.”
Mount Pleasant vets suggested that the owners send Loki to a shelter in Malaysia, but after the owners agreed, Malaysia implemented their motion control order. Plans to send Loki there were shelved, and the owners decided to keep them in the meantime.
AVS said owners did not approach Exclusively Mongrels for relocation assistance. The group has started legal proceedings against the owner for what it said was a breach of the adoption agreement.
“That is a decision of the owners,” said the AVS spokesman. “It was not part of our investigation, in the sense of why the owners chose certain rehousing methods and not others.”
He added: “The adoption agreement is a private agreement between Exclusively Mongrels and the owner, so it was not part of our investigation.”
INFLECTION POINT
In early April, Loki’s owners had a newborn son. The owners noted that Loki was uncomfortable and nervous with his son, AVS said.
On April 19, the husband approached Loki to get a cover that the dog was lying on, something he had done many times before, when Loki bit him on the lips. The husband went to the ER and received stitches, a tetanus shot and a course of oral antibiotics.
The next day, the wife made several calls to a veterinarian and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for Loki to be euthanized, but was rejected or redirected.
The wife called the AVS to clarify whether euthanasia was allowed during the circuit breaker. The AVS said it was allowed as an essential service if it was performed in the interest of public safety.
The wife approached the Mount Pleasant vet who had been involved in Loki’s case. She told him that Loki had attacked a family member and that the safety of his family was a “great concern”.
The vets agreed that they had explored all other options and that Loki’s aggression and unpredictability was a risk to the family’s safety, AVS said. Euthanasia was scheduled for that night. Loki was put to sleep with the owners present, having given their consent in writing.
OWNERS REPEATEDLY REQUESTED HELP
AVS said the owners went out of their way to care for Loki and had “repeatedly” sought help for Loki’s behavior problems, trained him, and looked for relocation options.
There was also no evidence of animal cruelty, as Loki had been observed to get along with the owners, with no evidence of abuse or mistreatment.
The veterinarians who performed the euthanasia did not violate the Code of Ethics for Veterinarians, AVS said, noting that they had worked with the owners for several weeks to explore rehoming, training and the use of modification drugs to help Loki.
Veterinarians also contacted the dog handler to explore the use of rehabilitation drugs and contacted an overseas animal shelter on their own initiative, AVS added.
“Euthanasia was performed as a last resort to safeguard the safety of the family,” AVS said, noting that it had conducted a “detailed” investigation based on the facts of the case.
Moving forward, AVS said that since August 2019 it has been conducting a pet industry review in consultation with veterinarians, trainers and institutes of higher education conducting veterinary training.
NParks will introduce measures to improve standards in the breeding and boarding industry, before considering the veterinary industry.
“We have received feedback and comments from various stakeholders after the Loki case, so all will be taken into consideration as part of our review of the pet sector of the veterinary industry,” the spokesperson said.
When asked if the euthanasia protocol will also be reviewed, the spokesperson said “there will be quite a few things that we are looking at.”
“Our approach to reviewing the pet industry has always come from a holistic angle,” he added.
