"Too Unfair" Beloved Dog Dies at Animal Hospital While Trying to Get a Dental Checkup

Visiting a Dental-Specialized Animal Hospital for Treatment
Crossing the 'Mujigae Dari' Immediately After Propofol Injection
Renowned for Specialized Care Including Treatment... Decision to Publicize the Incident

The Pomeranian companion dog 'Theo,' like a child, during his lifetime. Photo by Theo's owner

[Asia Economy Reporter Han Seung-gon] Amid a series of medical disputes involving companion animals, an incident where a pet dog suddenly died during an examination at a famous 'dental' animal hospital in Seoul has stirred up online controversy.

The owner claims that the hospital has gained fame by simply changing its signboard and specializing in dog dental treatments, and expressed hope that no other victims like themselves would emerge, calling for public awareness of the incident.

According to industry sources on the 11th, Mr. A experienced an accident where his pet dog suddenly died during a checkup at an animal hospital. The dog, named 'Theo,' was a 9-year-old Pomeranian.

The accident occurred last month at B Animal Hospital in Seoul, known for its specialization in 'dentistry.' The hospital is well known as a 'star dog clinic' and a 'specialized hospital.' According to Mr. A's claim, Theo suddenly died right after anesthesia during a dental health examination.

Mr. A said that as Theo became an elderly dog, various health issues arose, making it impossible to delay the dental checkup any longer. He then made an appointment at B Hospital, which accepts only two dogs per day and specializes in 'companion animal dental care.'

Although the consultation and surgery fees were not inexpensive, Mr. A believed that the hospital would provide meticulous care for his dog. Subsequently, on the 18th of last month, Mr. A took Theo to B Animal Hospital. Since Theo usually weighed only 1.4 kg and was small in size, he was so fearful of anesthesia that he had never even undergone the common patella surgery that many dogs receive.

Mr. A said he listened to a 3-minute explanation about how the dental examination would proceed while reviewing the dental care guide. The hospital reportedly explained to Mr. A that after blood and chest X-ray tests, Theo would receive fluids within 30 minutes and be anesthetized through sedation.

However, he said he was not informed that propofol would be injected into Theo's body before respiratory anesthesia to induce sleep. There was also no mention of the worst-case scenario of death. The guide only briefly mentioned that 'undesired side effects or sequelae may occur.'

During the consultation, Mr. A repeatedly asked the director about the risks of anesthesia, but the director reassured him, saying, "The blood test results show that Theo is healthy and has no problems," and "It is safe respiratory anesthesia, so please do not worry." However, Theo passed away just about 30 seconds after receiving the propofol injection. Mr. A could only sob uncontrollably upon seeing Theo die right before his eyes.

Theo's Dental Treatment Information / Photo by Theo's Guardian Provided

◆ Animal Hospital Industry: "It is questionable to proceed with the examination by administering propofol"

After Mr. A posted about the incident on an online community and public opinion surged, the hospital finally posted a lengthy apology on the online community. Afterwards, Mr. A sought advice on Theo's treatment from three animal hospitals and two veterinary professors in Seoul.

The common opinion was that administering propofol to Theo, a 9-year-old, 1.4 kg, ultra-small brachycephalic dog, was a treatment method with a risk of apnea and death.

Dr. C, director of another animal hospital in Seoul, pointed out, "Looking at Theo's blood test, the 'BUN level,' which indicates kidney health, was abnormally high," adding, "It appears that kidney failure was progressing, so it is questionable to proceed with the examination by administering propofol under such conditions."

Ultimately, the director responsible for Theo admitted through a media outlet, "Propofol was injected before anesthesia, and respiratory instability occurred within 30 seconds." He continued, "I cannot say whether propofol was the direct cause of death or if the drug triggered an existing disease, but I acknowledge the negligence that Theo died during the anesthesia process," bowing repeatedly.

Regarding the failure to disclose drug use, the director also said, "Not informing that propofol would be used during the sedation process before respiratory anesthesia was my fault." He explained the delay in a proper apology by saying, "I thought it would be impolite to bring up compensation first, so I approached the matter cautiously."

◆ Animal Organizations: "Systems and regulations are needed to clearly determine responsibility"

Lee Won-bok, head of the Korea Animal Protection Union, pointed out, "Medical procedures performed on humans leave various records such as medical records, but in the case of companion animals, it is not to that extent," adding, "When a companion animal suffers disability or even death during medical surgery, the responsibility is not clearly defined."

He continued, "There are very few legal or institutional ways to regulate wrongful medical practices. A system that can clearly determine medical malpractice is necessary," emphasizing, "Companion animals are family members who continue to increase. Thinking that such family members died during treatment is heartbreaking."

He reiterated, "Ultimately, to prevent medical accidents or malpractice, all aspects of medical procedures must be made transparent institutionally so that responsibility can be clearly determined."

Meanwhile, all animal hospitals must verbally explain to animal owners the diagnosis, necessity and methods of treatment, and expected sequelae or side effects before major treatments including surgery. Animal owners must sign a confirmation that they have received the explanation from the veterinarian, and the explanation must be given verbally with the owner's consent. The consent form must be kept for one year. Violations result in fines starting at 300,000 KRW for the first offense, 600,000 KRW for the second, and 900,000 KRW for the third. This is why owners of companion animals are calling for stricter penalties.