Violating State Laws Concerning Euthanizing Dogs

Published February 26, 2010

While the basic task for a journalist is to remain impartial when reporting the news, there are sometimes circumstances in which it is very difficult to remain emotionally detached. And to be honest, this particular story got my blood boiling. I think that any true animal lover would be similarly affected.

According to an article which appeared on the KMBC.com website, the Missouri state Department of Agriculture has initiated an investigation of the eastern part of the state's practice of euthanizing dogs with no veterinary supervision This practice may be completely illegal. Additionally, these procedures may be widespread in the area. This violates Missouri's euthanasia laws, however Jefferson County officials claims that since funds are not available to ensure there is a veterinarian present on the premises each time a dog is euthanized, that the practice is not illegal. Jefferson County Animal Control euthanizes hundreds of animals a year without a veterinarian present.

However, the bordering county facilities in St. Charles County, St Louis and St. Louis County claim that they always have a veterinarian on the premises when a dog must be euthanized. According to Missouri law, a veterinarian must make "direct" or "immediate" supervision over the controlled substances which are used for euthanasia.

A representative of the state's Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous drugs, Michael Boeger stated that the use of any controlled drugs by shelter staff without veterinary supervision is considered illegal and a felony. However, Chuck Banks, Jefferson County's Executive Director said that he does not think that it is illegal since the state is fully aware of their long-standing practice. James "J.T." Taylor, Animal Control Center manager said, "Until someone comes along and says we're wrong, then we'll change the policy."

John Hagler, Missouri Department of Agriculture Director said that their agency started the investigation following a complaint from a family concerning their dog's death and shelter management. Jefferson County killed half of the 3,827 animals that were taken in by their shelter, according to Taylor. On the other hand, Humane Services in bordering St. Charles County euthanized only 20% of the 4,100 animals taken in.

Taylor added that the county complies with the law's mandatory supervision requirement through its contract with Dr. Sherry Torregrossa, the veterinarian hired to supervise. However I find it very interesting that according to Dr. Torregrossa, she has only attended the county shelter once in the three years of her contract. Dr. Torregrossa said, "They euthanize most of their animals in-house, and the methods they use there are out of my scope, as well as how they make that decision." As far as I am concerned there is something very wrong with this picture!

Since The Missouri Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and the Missouri Veterinary Medical Board are all involved in different aspects of licensing, it remains unclear which agency should be enforcing the regulation.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Donna Krockenberger, a Pevely, Missouri resident who fosters dogs for a rescue group, said that she and a state inspector witnessed a dog stumbling in its cage following an injection given to a dog to euthanize him by a shelter worker. Taylor countered by saying, "The only thing we did wrong that day was forget to close the gate, so civilians came in and saw the euthanasia."

However, the county could be in danger of losing its license unless they take corrective action, according to Hagler. But what I find to be most distressing is that the Director of the Missouri Veterinary Association, Richard Antweiler appeared to be justifying the lack of veterinary supervision by saying, "that communities with few vets or resources may have no alternative but to violate the law." His organization is now looking into alternative approaches similar to Illinois which now has a program that certifies euthanasia technicians.

What are your reactions to this story? Leave a comment and share your thoughts.

Author's profile photo
Jo Singer

Shortly after retiring as a social worker and psychotherapist, I discovered my "writer's voice"…

Leave a Comment

Enter your information below or log in to skip these fields.
No account? Sign up here.
* indicates a required field.
(will appear with your comment)
For privacy reasons, do not use your full name or email address.
(will not be published)
For your protection, ensure that no personally identifiable information (like full name or email address) is submitted.

Your Privacy

Trust is a cornerstone of our corporate mission, and the success of our business depends on it. P&G is committed to maintaining your trust by protecting personal information we collect about you, our consumers.

Comments (5)

Anonymous (Unverified)

""However I find it very interesting that according to Dr. Torregrossa, she has only attended the county shelter once in the three years of her contract""

So.. how much is this "vet" paid to attend ONCE in 3 years?

Anonymous

Typical callous attitudes of Southern states. The euthanasia solution burns like pure fire if even a drop misses the vein or it is given too quickly. Humane? NOT when given incorrectly and if a dog is seen staggering, for SURE it was not given correctly. May those who cause suffering to beings helpless in their grasp - out of laziness, stupidity OR sadistic leanings - soon find their way to the special place in Hell reserved for such dregs of humanity.

Diana

There is a whole host of highly trained individuals who are NOT doctors who help human beings with their health care. In only doctors were allowed to administer any kind of medical procedure - from drawing blood to giving a vaccination, health care would not only be horrendously expensive, but would be virtually impossible to provide. I have no problem with a trained and certified vet tech or euthanasia technician giving euthanasia injections. There should be state requirements for their licenses and detailed protocol of correct procedure with oversight by either a governmental official or a veterinarian, but I don't believe that ONLY a veterinarian is qualified to euthanize an animal. Rural, sparsely populated areas of the country literally do not have either the money or an adequate number of veterinarians to have only veterinarians put down animals. They are between a rock and a hard place, and if animal rights advocates want only veterinarians to euthanize animals, then they better be willing to provide both the veterinarians and the money to pay them.

Kelly (Unverified)

Don't try to pin this on animal rights advocates(!), according to the story, the family complained and rightfully so. Obviously, I can only speak for myself (an AR activist) but I agree with everything you said about trained and licenced vet. techs., with strict oversight, protocols and procedures, being allowed to euthanize animals. Some states allow this with oversight by a vet.

jmuhj (Unverified)

I LOATHE dogs. Having said that, I don't support cruelty toward any living being. The euthanasia of dogs needs to be done with care and as humanely as possible.

Vicki

Euthanazia is a medical procedure and should only be done by a licensed professionsl. As per this story, there are horror stories involved with shelter workers performing euthanazia. I think that if there are not professional veterinarians involved, they should lose their license. This just boils me.