PD
Portia D
1 reviews | Active since Apr 2021
22 Apr 2021, 19:42
SPCA Rooderport: Euthanasia of our puppies
My brother took 2 of our puppies there. One had distemper virus and the other only went there to get a monthly shot. They sickly dog was tested and it was positive for the virus. They decided to euthanise it immediately because it had a seizure. The other dog was not tested and it was perfectly healthy but they decided to euthanize it as well just because they're from the same home. They refused to give us an opportunity to say goodbye and they euthanised the dogs without the official owner. They forced my brother to sign and threatened to send us investigators if we refused to leave the puppies. We are very disappointed and terribly heart broken.
Helpful (0)
Replies (2)0
Replies (2)
SPCA's replyOfficial
23 Apr 2021, 08:44We at the National Council of SPCAs will forward your complaint to the Roodepoort SPCA asking for a response. Their response shall be posted within 7 days. Kind regards Society Liaison Unit National Council of SPCAs
SPCA's reply23 Apr 2021, 08:44
Official
We at the National Council of SPCAs will forward your complaint to the Roodepoort SPCA asking for a response. Their response shall be posted within 7 days. Kind regards Society Liaison Unit National Council of SPCAs
SPCA's replyOfficial
28 Apr 2021, 11:43Roodepoort SPCA response:
Xolani Dhladhla signed the SPCAs Hospital documentation as the official owner of the pups. He also signed the Euthanasia Request documentation for both pups. It was not done under duress.
It is a concern that the pup originally went to PDSA for treatment for Parvo virus but at the SPCA a test for Distemper was positive. Two very different and highly contagious viruses.
I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with the symptoms, poor prognosis and exactly how highly contagious Distemper Virus is. Then you will appreciate why we had to euthanise both pups.
It would be very irresponsible of any veterinarian to allow an animal which is suffering and is positive for a highly contagious disease to leave the SPCA Hospital. It is the responsibility of a SPCA Inspector to ensure that no animal suffers unnecessarily.
The second pup was not tested as the owner did not have the funds to pay for the test and he had informed the veterinarian the pup had been sick. The owner was not charged for the second pups’ euthanasia and cremation as he simply did not have the funds.
The Animal Protection Act No 71 of 1962. Section 5. Gives a veterinarian the power to euthanise any animal should that animal be suffering, which the two pups clearly were.
Xolani Dhladhla signed the SPCAs Hospital documentation as the official owner of the pups. He also signed the Euthanasia Request documentation for both pups. It was not done under duress.
It is a concern that the pup originally went to PDSA for treatment for Parvo virus but at the SPCA a test for Distemper was positive. Two very different and highly contagious viruses.
I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with the symptoms, poor prognosis and exactly how highly contagious Distemper Virus is. Then you will appreciate why we had to euthanise both pups.
It would be very irresponsible of any veterinarian to allow an animal which is suffering and is positive for a highly contagious disease to leave the SPCA Hospital. It is the responsibility of a SPCA Inspector to ensure that no animal suffers unnecessarily.
The second pup was not tested as the owner did not have the funds to pay for the test and he had informed the veterinarian the pup had been sick. The owner was not charged for the second pups’ euthanasia and cremation as he simply did not have the funds.
The Animal Protection Act No 71 of 1962. Section 5. Gives a veterinarian the power to euthanise any animal should that animal be suffering, which the two pups clearly were.
SPCA's reply28 Apr 2021, 11:43
Official
Roodepoort SPCA response:
Xolani Dhladhla signed the SPCAs Hospital documentation as the official owner of the pups. He also signed the Euthanasia Request documentation for both pups. It was not done under duress.
It is a concern that the pup originally went to PDSA for treatment for Parvo virus but at the SPCA a test for Distemper was positive. Two very different and highly contagious viruses.
I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with the symptoms, poor prognosis and exactly how highly contagious Distemper Virus is. Then you will appreciate why we had to euthanise both pups.
It would be very irresponsible of any veterinarian to allow an animal which is suffering and is positive for a highly contagious disease to leave the SPCA Hospital. It is the responsibility of a SPCA Inspector to ensure that no animal suffers unnecessarily.
The second pup was not tested as the owner did not have the funds to pay for the test and he had informed the veterinarian the pup had been sick. The owner was not charged for the second pups’ euthanasia and cremation as he simply did not have the funds.
The Animal Protection Act No 71 of 1962. Section 5. Gives a veterinarian the power to euthanise any animal should that animal be suffering, which the two pups clearly were.
Xolani Dhladhla signed the SPCAs Hospital documentation as the official owner of the pups. He also signed the Euthanasia Request documentation for both pups. It was not done under duress.
It is a concern that the pup originally went to PDSA for treatment for Parvo virus but at the SPCA a test for Distemper was positive. Two very different and highly contagious viruses.
I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with the symptoms, poor prognosis and exactly how highly contagious Distemper Virus is. Then you will appreciate why we had to euthanise both pups.
It would be very irresponsible of any veterinarian to allow an animal which is suffering and is positive for a highly contagious disease to leave the SPCA Hospital. It is the responsibility of a SPCA Inspector to ensure that no animal suffers unnecessarily.
The second pup was not tested as the owner did not have the funds to pay for the test and he had informed the veterinarian the pup had been sick. The owner was not charged for the second pups’ euthanasia and cremation as he simply did not have the funds.
The Animal Protection Act No 71 of 1962. Section 5. Gives a veterinarian the power to euthanise any animal should that animal be suffering, which the two pups clearly were.