It was an excruciatingly sad story. The upshot: They expected free treatment. They had no money to spend. I was the closest vet. For this distinction I was expected to utilize my God-given skills to "save the little animal at all costs." I asserted that I could either provide very basic care (fluids and antibiotics) or euthanasia--relief of suffering and no more.
They could not (language barrier notwithstanding) grapple successfully with the concept that professionals do not work for free. Of course I felt like a total loser for looking like I could care less about a dying puppy--how cruel could you be to refuse a puppy?
When faced with these issues I have the following points to rely on:
(1) Expecting a professional to provide free services is unrealistic. I can't afford to treat every sick animal I find on the street so why should someone else's sick, homeless animal get special treatment?
(2) Requiring a professional to provide free services is unfair and disrespectful. Someone has to pay for the care. Why does it have to be my responsibility? I spend a lot of money every year on stray animals. It insults me when clients (usually people who don't know me) suggest that I don't care for animals because I won't pay for their personal choices.
And finally, (3), I was still offering care for this puppy, just not the kind of no-holds-barred care they would have preferred. The puppy received fluids, antibiotics, and anti-nausea medication. He then went home and died within the hour. Like the rest of the staff, I was heartsick after hearing the news.
My $50 donation ultimately didn't do a thing. We just can't save them all, even with all the money in the world.
