Costa News Spain Breaking News | English News in Spain.
The Supreme Court of Spain has ruled in a controversial case that a woman was not guilty of wrongdoing when she kept her pet for three months in appalling circumstances while it was dying from cancer.
The decision has ignited a debate on whether it is acceptable for a person to disregard the advice of a vet when an animal’s terminal illness is present.
The case revolves around a woman, who after being told by a veterinarian to euthanise Luna, decided not to do so.
Luna, who had a cancerous tumor that was not treated, was left in unsanitary living conditions at home, resulting in significant pain and suffering.
In a unanimous decision, the Tribunal Supremo found in favor of defendant and determined that she had not been responsible for the death of the animal.
The majority of the judge determined that she could not have avoided the inevitable result, while two dissenting judge argued that it was her responsibility to have Luna euthanised according to the advice from the vet.
READ MORE
Events began in October 2018 when the woman brought Luna, a dog who was neither registered nor microchipped, to a Valencian veterinary clinic.
The dog was diagnosed as having a large ulcerated tumour, and a severe infection.
The vet suggested immediate euthanasia. However, the woman asked for time to consult her daughter. She was then prescribed a 5-day course of anti-inflammatories and antibiotics, with the intent of returning later for euthanasia.
But she did not continue to seek treatment and allowed the condition of the dog to worsen.
Three months later the local police was called to her home because of a medical crisis involving a member of her family.
Officers noticed Luna’s poor condition upon arrival. She had a large infected cut and was not well-hygienic.
The dog had to be taken to a shelter for animals, where it was euthanized. The local neighbourhood association covered the €312.88 cost of hospitalisation and cremation.
Initially, she was sentenced for animal cruelty to a 9-month jail term and a 2-year ban from owning pets.
The Valencia Court reversed this decision. Unsatisfied with the ruling, an animal rights organisation took the case to the Supreme Court. The court upheld the acquittal, and ordered that the association pay legal costs.
The high court determined that the evidence was not sufficient to show abuse or abandonment. It also stated that Luna’s health remained consistent and similar to her terminal diagnosis months earlier.
The majority of the judges found that she could not be held accountable for the death of the dog simply because she had not chosen euthanasia.
However, Justices Ángel Hurtado and Manuel Marchena dissented, arguing that the woman’s failure to provide necessary veterinary care and her neglect exacerbated the dog’s suffering.
She was convicted of negligence, which contributed directly to the pain and worsening conditions of the dog.
The dissenting judge did not want to punish the woman because she didn’t euthanise Luna. However, they felt that her neglect was a form abandonment and could have worsened Luna’s injuries.
The decision has raised questions about pet owners’ responsibilities and veterinarians’ role in making decisions for terminally ill pets.
