RI man charged with operating on his own dog

[Modbert]

RI man charged with operating on his own dog - Boston.com

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.

I'm curious as to what E.J Finocchio wanted Mr. MacQuattie to do. Leave it as is and just say "Ah, fuck it"?

Your thoughts on USMB? Should people be allowed to do these sort of things?

 

[Xenophon]

It was Peter Griffen and Brian, wasn't it.

 

[Modbert]

It was Peter Griffen and Brian, wasn't it.

How'd you know?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa5Ywe661Y8]YouTube - Family Guy - The Road to Rhode Island[/ame]

At least people don't think that we're Long Island anymore. It's funny too since Quahog is based off the city where I live.

 

[Bezukhov]

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.

 

[Modbert]

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.

The price of a vet in the state at least is ridiculous.

Never mind the fact they have the people over a barrel.

 

[beowolfe]

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?

 

[Modbert]

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.

 

[Bezukhov]

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?

 

[Modbert]

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?

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

 

[beowolfe]

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.

It would seem to me, that if one cannot afford the necessary care for an animal, one should not own an animal. So, if one owns a pet and cannot afford a vet for it, maybe, in the interest of the pet, the owner should consider making alternative arrangements for the pet.

 

[beowolfe]

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?

I believe that in most states that is against the law.

 

[beowolfe]

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?

I don't think your definition is adequate. We're talking legal definitons here. Here is Alabama's definition (just because in an alphabetical listing of states, they're first)

 

[beowolfe]

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?

I don't think your definition is adequate. We're talking legal definitons here. Here is Rhode Island's definition.

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.”

So, the question is, does surgery on a dog by an untrained person (and probably w/o anesthesia) meet this definition?

 

[Bezukhov]

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?

 

[beowolfe]

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?

It won't. Medical care apparently is being inferred as fitting some portion of this description. I don't think what he did should be criminal even if it is deemed criminal. He did what people have done for centuries.