Saturday, September 10, 2005

Cruelty To Animals ?

When I read the headline "OWNER SAWED OFF HIS DOG'S LEG IN KITCHEN" I assumed it was another tale of how the underclass amuse themselves after a few drinks. Havibg read the details, am I the only person who thinks this guy's been hard done by ?

The court heard on Friday how the three-year Collie cross injured her leg when she was knocked down by a car. Prosser, who is unemployed, bound up her leg for 10 months.

Neighbours later said how they saw Bumper dragging her injured leg as Prosser took it for walks.

When the dog's leg turned gangrenous, Prosser turned his kitchen into a makeshift operating theatre cleaning the floor with boiling water and bleach and covering it with sheets before he carried out the amputation.

He placed Bumper's leg on a concrete block then used an unplugged electric saw and a hammer to cut off the infected leg.
Prosecutor Katy Hanson told the court: "Prosser said the dog's leg had developed gangrene and its eyes were glazed.

"He decided to cut off the leg himself because he could not afford the vet's fee.

"After cutting off the leg he cauterised the wound with an iron bar he heated on a gas stove," she said.

For the crime of causing unneccesary suffering and (probably his real offence) "practising veterinary surgery while unregistered", Mr Prosser has had his pet confiscated, been banned from keeping a dog for ten years, and has been sectioned (compulsorily detained in a loony-bin) for assaulting RSPCA officers who came to his house in relation to the allegations of cruelty.

OK, so Mr Prosser may or may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer. Maybe he didn't know the PDSA treat sick animals without charge (or maybe he was afraid his pet would be put down). Another person may have been able to get the dog treated without going to the drastic lengths Mr Prosser did.

But Mr Prosser obviously loved the dog, which he had raised from a puppy, and it was stated in court (admittedly by the defence) that the dog was affectionate towards him. The operation, for all its crudity, sounds no worse than what British sailors underwent until the invention of anaesthetics (dosed with spirits, held down while the limb was sawn and the stump cauterised with gunpowder and a match). While I would not recommend kitchen surgery, the guy was by his own lights doing his best for his pet.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

For your information, in this case the defendant had been made aware that the RSPCA and PDSA could help him fund veterinary treatment. The dog was left with and injured leg for ten months despite the vet telling the defendant straight after the car accident that it needed an operation immediately. The dogs leg became infected over that period of time because it was left untreated. The amputation that Mr Prosser undertook took place in his kitchen. He used a circular saw (that was not plugged in ) and a hammer. The dogs was concious during this ordeal. Because it was not a proper operation the open, seeping and infected wound was left to heal and neighbours informed the RSPCA of the dogs condition.

If you can not afford to keep an animal you should not have one. It is not enought to say that you love the animal if you are unable to look after it properly.

It may also interest you to know that it was not RSPCA officers who he assaulted but Police Officers and that assault resulted in a crown court case for which he was sectioned.

Mr Prosser was undoubtedly a very disturbed and mentally ill man. However, this does not mean he should be left to behave as he wants to and that it should excuse his treatment of his dog.

The more serious offence was causing unnecessary suffering and you can not really think that the dog did not suffer during its ordeal.

It would be nice to think that we have progressed from the days when soliders had their limbs amputed in the manner you described and I am sure that if they had had the choice they would rather have had an anaethetised. There was a choice here.

This was certainely a case where the dog should have been confiscated from Mr Prosser and where he had to be given the help he deserved. You make it sound as though he should not have beeen made to a hospital order. These orders are only made where doctors give evidence as to the patients mental health. Surely, it is in everyone's interets that he receive appropriate medical treatment.