I agree. I think that's because it ultimately comes down to whether a person believes a vet is responsible to his furry patients or the people paying the bills.
If the vet didn't take the money, the family would know he wasn't going to euthanize the dog, so they likely would have gone somewhere else. It's an ethical gray area when you know lying to the owners is the only way to save an animal's life.
But really, if the family loved the dog that much, wouldn't they be happy to see it alive and healthy, not ready to sue because the dog ISN'T dead?
This actually happens a lot in the US only most vets are better about changing the dog's paperwork so it doesn't get back to their original "client."
It's truly sad how many people decide to put down their animal rather than pay for a minor surgery or give it up for adoption to someone who would be willing to pay for the surgery.
Fair point, but as I said to Absolin, I think your "food" has to be in a food form, you couldn't choose a whole animal, just the steak of one, or any other edible part.
But really, if the family loved the dog that much, wouldn't they be happy to see it alive and healthy, not ready to sue because the dog ISN'T dead?
It's truly sad how many people decide to put down their animal rather than pay for a minor surgery or give it up for adoption to someone who would be willing to pay for the surgery.
A coconut would be a good weapon though -plus, you can use it for an IV drip if you get injured:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/49153/could-coconut-save-your-life