In one of the saddest cases I have read in a long time, the Massachusetts Appeals Court was faced with this question.
The facts established by the Court in the case of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Maryann Russo as as follows:
"On Christmas Day 2020, the defendant's family arrived at an animal hospital with a fourteen year old dog with a large mass on his side."
"The staff recommended that the dog have surgery to remove the mass."
"Rather than authorize the surgery, the defendant's family took the dog home."
"About three weeks later, on the evening of January 13, 2021, the defendant and her mother brought the dog back to the animal hospital."
By this point, the dog was anemic, unable to stand or walk, and suffering from bed sores, and he had a necrotic mass on his side as well as an open necrotic wound."
The dog's breathing was labored."
"The veterinarian recommended humane euthanasia, opining that there was no way to control the dog's "super painful" condition."
"After leaving the dog at the animal hospital overnight, the family requested the previously recommended surgery to remove the mass."
"The veterinarian declined, saying that the dog probably would not survive."
"The defendant's family took the dog home, representing that a different veterinarian would euthanize him."
"Suspecting that the family would not have the dog euthanized, the veterinarian reported the defendant to the Animal Rescue League of Boston (ARL)."
"The next day, the defendant contacted the ARL's law enforcement hotline and reported that the dog was in good health, eating, drinking, and beginning to act normal again."
"The defendant explained that she would not euthanize the dog because his health had improved and provided a telephone number for return calls."
"Beginning that day, and over the following weeks, the assigned ARL investigator repeatedly tried to reach the defendant by telephone and at home, leaving notices and messages, with no success."
"On February 4, the ARL investigator returned to the defendant's home and was admitted by her mother."
"The investigator found the dog in the living room, lying on the couch on a piece of linen and wearing a diaper."
"The dog was still and stiff, taking periodic shallow breaths."
"He had raw sores on his legs and appeared thin, with a distended belly."
"When the investigator asked to see the mass, the defendant's mother turned the dog on his other side, causing the dog to gasp for air and exposing a large mass."
"In response to the investigator's comment that the dog was suffering and needed immediate medical attention, the defendant's mother displayed a bag of pills, saying that they were the dog's pain pills but that he no longer needed them."
"The family again declined to euthanize the dog or get him medical attention; the defendant's mother said that the dog would 'die at home.'"
"The defendant was charged with violating the animal cruelty statute, G. L. c. 272, § 77."
After a lengthy discussion on the legislative construction of the statute and the use of passive voice by the legislature, the Appeals Court reasoned, "We have not found, nor have the parties cited, a case in which a person's failure to intervene with the complicated, heartbreaking, painful end of an animal's life has been interpreted as "subjecting" an animal to statutorily prohibited harm. We decline to extend the statute in this way. In so deciding, we rule only on the facts of the case before us and express no opinion whether, in a different situation, depriving an animal of medical care might violate the statute."
Therefore, the Court did not find it criminal for the family to not euthanize their dog.
This case is heartbreaking and I feel terribly for the dog, the family, and all involved. No animal or person should ever have to suffer this way.
Comments