Society

Vet Removes Dog's Eye Without Owner's Consent

| by

In a bizarre case of medical officials ‘taking matters into their own hands,’ a pet owner was notified that her dog’s eye had to be removed after it had already been removed. 

“Chloe,” a 12-year-old Pug, was taken to St. Petersburg Benfield Pet Hospital by her owner, Kimberly Hayden, after she noticed that the canine had a “cloudy eye.”

Initially, Hayden was given eye drops and two oral medications for her dog, and was told by veterinarians to bring Chloe back in for a check up in a few days. 

Hayden dropped Chloe back off at the animal hospital before work on Monday, with the belief that Chloe’s condition would simply be evaluated by vets.

Popular Video

A police officer saw a young black couple drive by and pulled them over. What he did next left them stunned:

Popular Video

A police officer saw a young black couple drive by and pulled them over. What he did next left them stunned:

"Around noon, I get a phone call and the girl on the phone says, 'I just want you to know, Chloe is doing well. She's recovering well from surgery.' I started shaking. I think I stopped breathing for a minute,” Hayden said. “I was like, 'Excuse me? What are you talking about? She's supposed to be there for a follow up.'"

According to the paperwork that Hayden received, no such surgery was to take place, and Hayden had even gone so far as to request notification on any action or treatment that would cost more than $5.

"As soon as he brought her in the room, I completely broke down. She immediately recognized my voice and came right to me. Jumped up, wanted to be in my lap and curled up into a ball," Hayden said.

Hayden says that she is trying to get Chloe to adapt to her new life with only one eye. "She's stumbling. Bumping into things. It's just been very traumatic. It feels surreal," Hayden said.

Hayden claims that the manager of the hospital admitted to her that a mistake was made. Hayden is considering legal action against the hospital for failing to notify her of the surgery.

When asked for a comment on their actions Banfield Pet Hospital responded with a written statement:

"At Banfield Pet Hospital, we are committed to partnering with clients in all decisions regarding their pet's care. In the instance of Chloe, although the care provided was medically necessary based on the severity of her condition and lack of response to therapy, we did fail to get surgical authorization from the client on the day of the procedure. However, we had previously discussed the need for surgery with the client-we also communicated that surgery was critical to alleviate Chloe's pain and potential for infection. We apologize for the lack of clear communication and will continue to attempt to reach Ms. Hayden in an effort to further resolve her concerns. In the meantime, we wish Chloe a speedy recovery," wrote Ari Zabell, a client advocate for Banfield Pet Hospital. 

Sources: My Fox Chicago, USA Today

Photo Credit: Facebook/My Fox Chicago