No money? We kill your pet.

• Osayidan wrote on 2011-12-29 17:04
  ****ing ridiculous. Can't wait until the employee(s) responsible for this end up in a hospital with no money and have to sell everything they own to live.
  
  

  An Arizona man didn't have the $400 for his injured cat's vet care, and the Humane Society clinic he visited wouldn't take his mother's credit card information over the phone or wait for . So he did what he thought was the best thing for 9-month-old Scruffy: surrender ownership to the organization so she would receive treatment. He was told that he could adopt her back later on. A lack of resources meant that Scruffy, whose injuries were not life-threatening, was euthanized instead.
  
  The cat's owner says that he rescued the kitten from the streets and raised her from a young age, and credits her for helping him stay off heroin. He works for room and board, but kept Scruffy fed and had her spayed. The clinic refused to take a credit card over the phone, citing fraud concerns, and wouldn't hold the cat overnight and wait for the owner's mother to wire him money the next day.
  
  "The Humane Society took that cat with every intention of treating the cat and putting it in foster care," a spokeswoman told the Arizona Republic. "It was never intended for that cat to be euthanized." But there weren't enough resources at the Society's second-chance clinic. Only two out of the three cats transferred there that day could be treated, and Scruffy was the third.

  
  
  http://consumerist.com/2011/12/arizona-shelter-clinic-wont-take-credit-cards-over-the-phone-euthanizes-pet-cat-instead.html
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2011-12-29 17:08
  It sounds like it's a bit more complicated. It depends on the inner workings of the organization. That's still terrible though. The poor guy gave them the cat in the hopes of giving it a future because he was unable to provide for it.
  
  Some people just lack empathy and mercy for animals. I really don't know what to make of it as it doesn't tell the whole story here.
• Cynic wrote on 2011-12-29 17:09
  lolwow. I get that they're tight on resources and sh*t, but c'mon. It's one thing that they killed the poor animal, but after they promised they would care for it? What the f*ck? And the dude was going to get them the money the next day. So that poor cat died in vain just because they're selfish dickwads.
• RicochetOrange wrote on 2011-12-29 17:10
  The cat helped the guy to not take heroin? Guess that guy is about to take sone drugs now, in the depression of losing a beloved pet. D:
  
  He could try and sue them? They did lie to him.
• Piero wrote on 2011-12-29 17:16
  Organizations like that make me so angry >_>.
• Jelly wrote on 2011-12-29 17:22
  That is ****ing ridiculous.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2011-12-29 17:28
  Under the clinics perspective, they probably thought the man will just ditch the cat since he had no money to pay for his treatment. The clinic probably see too much of this happening, and they can't keep all the pets for a long time. Keeping pets in the clinic cost the clinic unnecessary man hours and money.
  
  Also, the article did say he surrendered ownership. If anything, the former owner of the pet is irresponsible.
• Cynic wrote on 2011-12-29 17:40

  Quote from EndlessDreams;711496:

  Under the clinics perspective, they probably thought the man will just ditch the cat since he had no money to pay for his treatment. The clinic probably see too much of this happening, and they can't keep all the pets for a long time. Keeping pets in the clinic cost the clinic unnecessary man hours and money.
  
  Also, the article did say he surrendered ownership. If anything, the former owner of the pet is irresponsible.

  
  
  "He was told that he could adopt her back later on." So no, he is not at fault. They are at fault for falsey stating he would get the kitty back, as-well as that they would actually treat the cat. I highly doubt he'd have given her up if they had said "Oh, but if we don't have the room or means, we'll kill it".
• Hiccup wrote on 2011-12-29 17:42
  ._______. If that happened to my pet I would sue those mother's for all their worth D:
• Zid wrote on 2011-12-29 17:44

  So he did what he thought was the best thing for 9-month-old Scruffy: surrender ownership to the organization so she would receive treatment.

  
  
  I think this means he can't sue them.
  
  Sad, but I don't think this infringes on legal matters as far as I know.
• Sayoko wrote on 2011-12-29 18:20
  Wow bullsh!t.
  
  Let's euthanize Mr. Jones because he is the 3rd person and we only have enough resources for 2. =/
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2011-12-29 19:08
  sad that they gave him false hope
  especially for a pet he's so attached to
• Piero wrote on 2011-12-29 19:13

  Quote from Zid;711517:

  I think this means he can't sue them.
  
  Sad, but I don't think this infringes on legal matters as far as I know.

  
  
  

  He was told that he could adopt her back later on. A lack of resources meant that Scruffy, whose injuries were not life-threatening, was euthanized instead.

  
  
  He was told he could adopt her once they treated her. They killed it instead.
  He most likely could do something about it.
• Ithiliel wrote on 2011-12-29 20:13
  =( That's so sad....
• Adelynn wrote on 2011-12-29 21:47

  Quote from Piero;711599:

  He was told he could adopt her once they treated her. They killed it instead.
  He most likely could do something about it.

  
  
  He's not saying they're right, just that like Nexon, they have their own ass covered just in case. What sticks out to me in particular with stuff like this is..
  

  surrender ownership to the organization so she would receive treatment

  
  If they owned it at that point, then what?
  
  It's sad, yes, but what can really be done about it?