There is a truly horrific story out of Fort Worth where a well-known veterinary clinic is under investigation for allegedly keeping a dog alive in disgusting conditions to be tapped for blood transfusions . . . months after the family paid to have the dog put down. Camp Bowie Animal Clinic is accused of leaving 5-year-old Leonberger Sida covered in feces as a type of blood factory.
Jamie and Marian Harris say that they took Sid to the clinic to be treated for a minor anal gland issue. However, after the treatment, Sid had trouble walking and the veterinarian said that he had a spine condition that would only grow worse with time. The family said that they were advised to put him down. They paid those costs and said goodbye. However, six months later, they received a call from veterinarian technician, Mary Brewer, who told them Sid was alive and being used for blood transfusions. She said that he could walk and could leave at any time. Several animals were seized and it is not clear what happened to Brewer who is responsible for saving the dog.
The Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners will meet in Austin to discuss the case but the question remains of the range of likely criminal charges. This would seem to be a case of not just cruelty but fraud if the allegations are true. However, the true cost is likely to be secured not in criminal proceedings but a civil lawsuit. There is obvious claims for negligence, infliction of emotional distress, trespass to chattel etc.
The clinic is run by Dr. Lou Tierce who has been arrested on animal cruelty charges. If the police believe the family’s allegation, that would seem an insufficient charge but it is common for additional charges to be add after an initial arrest. The case could present some interesting issues related to the scope (and value) of theft if it involves the blood of a pet as well as basis for fraud in the use of a dog in this fashion. While some countries have moved to change the status of pets as we recently discussed, Sid remains chattel or property in the United States. However, the Texas statute has definition of appropriation, deception, and other key terms that seem to fit this case:
§ 31.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) “Deception” means:
(A) creating or confirming by words or conduct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, and that the actor does not believe to be true;
(B) failing to correct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, that the actor previously created or confirmed by words or conduct, and that the actor does not now believe to be true;
(C) preventing another from acquiring information likely to affect his judgment in the transaction;
(D) selling or otherwise transferring or encumbering property without disclosing a lien, security interest, adverse claim, or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property, whether the lien, security interest, claim, or impediment is or is not valid, or is or is not a matter of official record; or
(E) promising performance that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction and that the actor does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed, except that failure to perform the promise in issue without other evidence of intent or knowledge is not sufficient proof that the actor did not intend to perform or knew the promise would not be performed.
(2) “Deprive” means:
(A) to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner;
(B) to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or
(C) to dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely.
(3) “Effective consent” includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Consent is not effective if:
(A) induced by deception or coercion;
(B) given by a person the actor knows is not legally authorized to act for the owner;
(C) given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is known by the actor to be unable to make reasonable property dispositions;
(D) given solely to detect the commission of an offense; or
(E) given by a person who by reason of advanced age is known by the actor to have a diminished capacity to make informed and rational decisions about the reasonable disposition of property.
(4) “Appropriate” means:
(A) to bring about a transfer or purported transfer of title to or other nonpossessory interest in property, whether to the actor or another; or
(B) to acquire or otherwise exercise control over property other than real property.
(5) “Property” means:
(A) real property;
(B) tangible or intangible personal property including anything severed from land; or
(C) a document, including money, that represents or embodies anything of value.
(6) “Service” includes:
(A) labor and professional service;
(B) telecommunication, public utility, or transportation service;
(C) lodging, restaurant service, and entertainment; and
(D) the supply of a motor vehicle or other property for use.
(7) “Steal” means to acquire property or service by theft.
Tierce is quoted as calling Brewer a disgruntled employee and says “She wanted to get me.” Well it worked if that is true. Brewer said that she quit over the mistreatment of the animals. If these allegations are true, Dr. Tierce is one sick puppy. If they are not true, he has one heck of a defamation action. However, other families are standing behind Tierce. Tierce could argue that he was holding Sid to see if in fact he could recover rather than put him down right away. Of course, this still should require the consent of the family and further raises the question of the original diagnosis (though the dog could legitimately have the degenerative disease). In the end, he presumably took money for the procedure and the disposal of the body but did not perform those tasks. While he can claim that there was no guarantee on when that would be done, the obvious expectation is that it would be done shortly after the contract for such services.
One question on the fraud implications is whether, if he tapped Sid for blood, other patients were charged for the blood that he allegedly got for free. As someone who paid thousands to try to save my prior dog Molly, I can attest to the fact that blood transfusions are a big ticket item. That could be a basis for a claim of fraud or dishonest business practices if the other patients were charged the rate for blood purchased by the hospital when it was getting the blood for free.
Sid is now back with his family.
Source: NBC
People often take guidance from the professionals as to what to do, especially if it is something they haven’t done before. If the vet was reassuring and encouraging them to leave (“If you are upset, it will just frighten him. Go and take care of your daughter, we’ll take good care of him.”) Of course that is entirely made up, as the stories don’t have enough information. But I can easily see caring pet owners leaving a dog under similar circumstances.
pete, You’re given the option to stay there.
as bad as tierce may sound, i wouldn’t be able to take one of my animals to anyone and say “here, you kill it, i’m going home”.
PeterD – the vet will have his day in court. We’re all upset by the accusations. But either they can prove they paid for euthanasia, and the dog is still obviously alive, or they cannot. Evidence that they paid to put a dog down who was alive is an ethical violation. And then they can either prove the dog was used as a blood donor, or they cannot.
If the vet is found guilty, it reminds me of how neighbors often say how nice a serial killer seemed to be. You just never know how a vet really feels about animals unless you see him in unguarded moments when the owners are not there.
Going through vet school, you do have to desensitize to a degree, or you’ll never get through all the dissections, or your first euthanasia. One hopes that the vet finds the right balance between protecting himself from empathizing too much, and becoming hardened.
We’ll see how this plays out. I hope Prof Turley posts an update on the outcome of the case.
This story turned my stomach.
Her defense that she wanted to “get him well” does not hold water. I volunteered at a vet for a summer, many years ago. There was one time when, indeed, the owners could not afford treatment. The vet had them surrender the dog and worked via a rescue to help him. He did not charge them for euthanasia and then use him for blood.
Leonbergers are absolutely huge dogs that can be gentle giants. I love the breed. What a traumatic experience for the dog. Being kenneled like that for 6 months with no socialization can turn any dog cage crazy.
A spinal issue that suddenly showed up after an anal gland expression, or whatever procedure was done, sounds odd, too.
But it brings me to something that I learned from my time at the vet. Unless your dog is scheduled for surgery or some other long stay, it is wise to stay in the room with your pet. Animal Health Technicians take pets to the back so that owners don’t see them struggle with a fearful pet, such as when they have to take blood from a cat’s jugular. But if they explain what is going to happen, the presence of an owner can help calm a frightened pet. You have no idea if an AHT is being as gentle and calm as possible if you’re not in the room.
When I read this story, I was saddened that the owners did not choose to be present at the time their beloved dog was supposed to be put down. Euthanasia is a difficult choice, and a pet should not have to go through it without someone who loves him in the room. I do not blame the owners for the fraud, but I do think it is more humane for an owner to be with an animal when it’s put down, whenever possible.
Also, it appears they did not elect to have him cremated or buried, or they would have questioned what was taking so long to release his remains.
I think the other clients who support this vet must just be unable to believe that someone they trusted could do this to a dog. Sounds like pure denial.
This vet should lose his license.
How on earth did this monster make it out of vet school?
Someone could remove the animals from the barn and burn it. With Tierce in it.
All me ex es live in Texas but I forget which county. They would chip in on this –so to speak.
PeterD, Thanks for a personal perspective on Dr. Tierce. Was Dr. Tierce compensated for the hip repair? What was the quality of life of that dog after the procedure?
What’s this – guilty until proven innocent? Our society is spiraling downward with these newsmedia lynchings.
I have an appointment this Saturday to bring my 19-year-old cat to see Dr. Tierce. She has been his patient since being a kitten and was not the first animal I brought to him. He has been an excellent vet all this time, and I think by now I know him pretty well. He loves animals and works tirelessly with great skill to help them. About four years ago I brought him a dog that I had found on the highway run over. Another vet recommended the dog be put down, but Dr. Tierce repaired his hip with a plate and the dog now lives with me, my wife and our two cats. We are very satisfied customers and would deeply regret if we are forced to find a another, i.e. lesser, vet.
Tragic.
This would not have happened if the owner had been there when the animal was put down. My vet supplies a room and blanket for all of us and then administers the drugs in our presence, when we are ready. We are there as our dog passes.
Having said that, these people paid the vet to put the animal down. If the animal is still alive, the vet has not carried out his contract. And since the vet seems to have harvested blood from the dog, the original owner is due some or all of the proceeds.
She wanted to “get him” well I do to. Can you imagine how this man treats humans, he needs to lose his vets license and go to jail.
SMH
Put him in a cave w/ vampire bats.
The depraved cretin known as Dr. Lou Tierce should be locked in a cage for for a few months while being forced to supply blood in the same manner as Sida the dog.
Does the Hippocratic Oath govern animal treatment? Vets have to complete medical school, do the medical licensing boards police this?
Yeah–hard to good forward today feeling good about humanity. Hopefully the Professor will have a new human interest story demonstrating some profoundly positive ideals a few are able to lift themselves to.
In Australia what happens to greyhounds surplus to the needs of the greyhound industry is even worse.
Before being put down these animals are drained of all their blood which is used for transfusions for other dogs. Apparently the blood from greyhounds can be safely transfused into ant dog, they are universal downers.
This is the most depraved vet I have heard of. Calling his tech a “disgruntled employee”…who wouldn’t be disgruntled having to work under that environment. I’d wear that label like a badge of honor if I was her.
If found guilty of what is alleged I hope the judge maxes him out.
UN – f……n REAL!
Haughty is as fiendish does!