Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
BARRINGTON, R.I.A Rhode Island man who says he couldn't afford medical care for his dog has been charged with illegally operating on the animal.
Alan MacQuattie removed a cyst from the leg of his 14-year-old Labrador mix. The dog was operated on again by professionals to deal with an infection from the first surgery.
E.J. Finocchio, a veterinarian and president of the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, calls the surgery a "heinous crime."
Court records show MacQuattie pleaded no contest last week to misdemeanor charges of animal cruelty and unauthorized practice of veterinary medicine.
It was Peter Griffen and Brian, wasn't it.
I better watch out. I'm from Rhode Island, and last year I had to pull out one of my cat's fangs. Poor thing was suffering and I didn't have the money to hire a vet. He is doing fine now.
Interesting discussion. My mind goes to a bigger question.
Are you all saying that cruelty to animals depends on your intent? And if your intent is good it's irrelevant what pain and suffering the animal undergoes?
Interesting discussion. My mind goes to a bigger question.
Are you all saying that cruelty to animals depends on your intent? And if your intent is good it's irrelevant what pain and suffering the animal undergoes?
i would say that intent should be considered. Would anyone consider it cruel if the dog was close to death and suffering and the owner decides to take it out in the woods and shoot it?
Interesting discussion. My mind goes to a bigger question.
Are you all saying that cruelty to animals depends on your intent? And if your intent is good it's irrelevant what pain and suffering the animal undergoes?
1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings
Interesting discussion. My mind goes to a bigger question.
Are you all saying that cruelty to animals depends on your intent? And if your intent is good it's irrelevant what pain and suffering the animal undergoes?
Well that's what I'm asking people including yourself. I'm not saying anything really, other then it shouldn't of had to come to this point.
Interesting discussion. My mind goes to a bigger question.
Are you all saying that cruelty to animals depends on your intent? And if your intent is good it's irrelevant what pain and suffering the animal undergoes?
I would say that intent should be considered. Would anyone consider it cruel if the dog was close to death and suffering and the owner decides to take it out in the woods and shoot it?
Interesting discussion. My mind goes to a bigger question.
Are you all saying that cruelty to animals depends on your intent? And if your intent is good it's irrelevant what pain and suffering the animal undergoes?
Well, in order to answer that question, we should probably start with what the definition of cruel is:
1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings
Now that the definition is clearly stated, I just have to ask two questions. How can you have a disposition to inflict pain or be devoid of humane feelings without intent? If your intent is good, how can you be devoid of humane feelings?
Interesting discussion. My mind goes to a bigger question.
Are you all saying that cruelty to animals depends on your intent? And if your intent is good it's irrelevant what pain and suffering the animal undergoes?
Well, in order to answer that question, we should probably start with what the definition of cruel is:
1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings
Now that the definition is clearly stated, I just have to ask two questions. How can you have a disposition to inflict pain or be devoid of humane feelings without intent? If your intent is good, how can you be devoid of humane feelings?
Unnecessary Cruelty is defined as: Overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, cruelly beats, mutilates or cruelly kills, or causes or procures to be so overdriven, overloaded, driven when overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of necessary sustenance, cruelly beaten, mutilated or cruelly killed, any animal, and whoever, having the charge or custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, inflicts cruelty upon that animal, or willfully fails to provide that animal with proper food, drink, shelter or protection from the weather.
It doesn't say anything about 'failing to provide medical care', so he may have an out on that point. And as to 'mutilating' I still think that his intent would be a mitigating factor. What he did was stupid, but was it criminal, or even immoral?willfully fails to provide that animal with proper food, drink, shelter or protection from the weather.”
It doesn't say anything about 'failing to provide medical care', so he may have an out on that point. And as to 'mutilating' I still think that his intent would be a mitigating factor. What he did was stupid, but was it criminal, or even immoral?willfully fails to provide that animal with proper food, drink, shelter or protection from the weather.
