[Asia Economy Yeongnam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Kim Yong-woo] Is it a scalpel wound or an injection mark?
A truth dispute between a family and a veterinarian at an animal hospital over the euthanasia of a pet dog is escalating into counter-lawsuits.
The owner who requested euthanasia for an elderly dog at an animal hospital in Busan sued the veterinarian, claiming that the wound on the dog's neck was clearly a scalpel cut, not an injection needle mark.
The veterinarian who performed the euthanasia filed a counter-lawsuit for defamation, stating that the claim was a clear falsehood and that the posts the dog owner made online caused significant damage.
On the 21st, the Haeundae Police Station in Busan announced that they are investigating veterinarian A (male) on suspicion of violating the Animal Protection Act (Article 43, prohibition of animal abuse). They also stated that a defamation lawsuit has been filed against the complainant.
According to the police and a dog cafe community, complainant B (female) visited an animal hospital in Haeundae-gu last month on the 12th to request euthanasia for her 16-year-old pet dog.
She decided on euthanasia because her elderly dog was suffering from convulsions and seizures, unable to sleep and in distress.
After the euthanasia, B received the dog's body and went to a nearby pet crematorium. Euthanasia is performed by injecting drugs into the blood vessels of the dog's legs or neck.
However, at the crematorium, B and her family found a wound over 3 cm long on the dog's neck. Judging that it was a cut from a sharp object rather than an injection needle, the family was greatly shocked. They took photos of the wound before proceeding with the cremation.
B considered the wound suspicious and protested to the animal hospital, which responded, "It was difficult to find the blood vessels in the legs, so the injection was given in the neck vessels."
B posted this information twice by the 14th on a domestic dog cafe community under the titles "Please help with dog euthanasia + additional post," along with photos.
As views and comments increased, the online community became a hotbed for the truth dispute between the two sides.
B sued A for violating the Animal Protection Act.
B claimed, "I cannot accept that my pet dog, who is like family, returned with a wound on its neck that looks like a scalpel cut," and added, "I am relying on medication daily due to depression."
The animal hospital stated, "Where would a veterinarian do such a thing to a pet dog returning to its family?" expressing disbelief.
The hospital explained that since they could not find the blood vessels in the dog's legs during euthanasia, they injected into the jugular vein in the neck, and the injection site may have looked like a scalpel wound due to blood pooling.
They said the marks could be traces of blood oozing from the injection site and fur tangled in the folded skin.
They questioned that if the wound was intentionally made with a sharp object as B claimed, blood would have spurted and spread all over the body, and euthanasia would not have been properly carried out.
A said that B posted related articles on the community, causing protests nationwide, and expressed suffering from the damage.
A stated that while he understood the family's grief, the damage increased due to posts that had been up for over a month, so he filed a counter-lawsuit against B for defamation by stating false facts.
A said, "Where in the world would a veterinarian deliberately use a scalpel on a pet dog being euthanized?" and added, "It feels like my nearly 30-year career running an animal hospital is being denied because false posts are spreading on the internet."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
