Necropsy shows dog died of neglect screams one headline. Whoever devised that headline should be ashamed, ASHAMED. That headline is sensationalized AND fictionalized.
On this issue of necropsy, what has been reported raises more questions than providing answers. Who performed this necropsy? Nothing has been reported on that and it is a crucial component!
But first, let’s address necropsies generally. For simplicity’s sake I’ll use necropsy for animals and autopsy for humans and the general term postmortem to include both although that’s a bit too simplified for these technical terms. Forget what you think you know from nonsense spewed to you on CSI type programs. A postmortem exam takes time, there are X-rays to be done, blood tests to complete, tissue samples to be taken and examined and tested, an actual exam of they body… A PROPER postmortem exam takes time and then there’s a lengthy and detailed report to write. All of that and they may still have to put “unknown” in the cause of death box. There are bodily functions and causes of death which simply cannot be evaluated after the body ceases to function. Past medical records and other information can assist but they may not be extensive enough to provide much insight.
The simple truth is that animals under significant veterinary care die and the treating veterinarian may not know why. This is one of the reasons a necropsy is done: “Because we may not know why or how your pet died… the whys and hows of pet death can markedly influence how we treat animals similarly injured and/or diseased.” But Dr. Khuly is talking about a treating veterinarian doing a necropsy. There are professional veterinary specialists in pathology. The American College of Veterinary Pathologists (ACVP) is recognized by AVMA as the oldest veterinary specialty organization and yet it dates only to 1949. That makes it a baby science in my book but it is a specialty science in its own right even if it is in its youth. Human pathology has been around a much longer time and yet “A large meta-analysis [2005] suggested that approximately one third of death certificates are incorrect and that half of the autopsies performed produced findings that were not suspected before the person died. Also, it is thought that over one fifth of unexpected findings can only be diagnosed histologically, i.e. by biopsy or autopsy, and that approximately one quarter of unexpected findings, or 5% of all findings, are major and can similarly only be diagnosed from tissue.” In addition to frank errors, “Contrary to popular belief, an autopsy procedure cannot address all questions regarding a particular fatality.” For example, “Smothering” and “Arrhythmic cardiac deaths – Detection of a primary cardiac arrhythmia requires an intact pulse and potential for electrocardiographic analysis (ECG).” Id. I found several other examples on the internet. These are the things juries hear about that the public doesn’t and it’s why juries are less likely to simply take what an autopsy report says at face value; nor should we.
When one combines the frank error rate of 1/3 with the numerous things that simply cannot be determined or evaluated after death, that physicians apparently miss diagnoses altogether in HALF of patients while they were alive, even a stated cause of death becomes less firm and believable. And this is in regards to cause of death in humans. Isn't it quite startling that HALF of us could die without our doctors even suspecting a particular disease is present? Really shows what a baby science all of medicine really is.
Now we must look at animal necropsy. Any veterinarian can perform one but surely it would be more persuasive if performed by a member of ACVP (over 1500 of them out there although, annoyingly, they don’t publish a membership list or have a searchable database like some of the other veterinary specialist organizations). Even so and even considering that surely they’ve learned from human pathology, this is a specialty that can be acquired with an undergraduate degree and the standard 3 years in veterinary school by specializing from the outset of one’s career and then sitting the exam. In professional terms, that isn’t very much. Even so, it’s a science and you can review the necropsy protocol here. The final result is the Veterinary Necropsy Report. As you can see, it is quite lengthy and detailed. (Of interesting note is that this form is designed to be used post euthanasia as well. I wonder how many governmental agencies do so.)
(I don’t know what they teach journalists these days but it sure doesn’t seem to include research and fact checking. I feel compelled here to point out that ACVP is amenable to being contacted by the media. They have a whole page just for you journalists right here. Just in case any of you actually have aspirations and happen to run across this and might want to provide some actual information…)
Block 18 on the Report is for cause of death (or reason for euthanasia). While the law hasn’t caught up to the concept of using necropsies in court, it would seem prudent to apply the autopsy standards until it does. That would mean that manner of death would fall into 1 of 5 categories: Natural, Accident, Homicide, Suicide, or Undetermined. This would then be supported by the mechanisms.
Personally, I find it highly improbable that necropsy reports are currently more accurate than autopsy reports even when performed by ACVP members but, in this Beaumont case, it is a moot point. Let’s look at what we have so far on that necropsy.
KMBT reports “necropsy, which is an animal equivalent to an autopsy - showed the dead pit bull died of either starvation or exposure to the cold”. REALLY? I seriously doubt it. I have no doubt that Officer Tina Lewellen told the reporters that but then that’s why reporters should do research and fact checking :)
“A necropsy completed today on a dog found in a trash can this morning shows the dog either died of starvation or froze to death.” And the Beaumont Enterprise gets off to a wrong headed start too… but then gets it right. “Though inconclusive…” And there is the actual finding. INCONCLUSIVE; a way of soft selling UNDETERMINED. There simply is not “kinda”, “sorta”, “we thinks it might be” category. The finding is “undetermined” and everything after that is bluff and BS.
“[T]he results were enough for officers with Beaumont Police Department to serve a warrant to the dog's owners to seize five other dogs at the house on Cole Road, said Det. Tina Lewallen.” Why am I not the least bit surprised? I believe Det. Lewallen would have leapt at ANY nominal opportunity to seize the remaining dogs! Seizing other people’s dogs, controlling other people and their animals, is probably her primary goal in life. (I’m guessing she’s the chubby one in photos 7 and 8 published on KFDM. I’ll come back to why I think that’s a relevant issue because; otherwise, I couldn't care less how much heft anyone wants to cart around.)
What’s more incredible to me is that this story broke in the early morning hours and the necropsy results were being reported in the media shortly after 2 PM. Now that’s a VERY short space of time. Sure, CBC and some common blood tests can be rapidly processed on a machine many veterinarians have in their offices. These aren’t all that accurate. Beyond that, what they can test for is grossly inadequate to a full necropsy. I would very much like to know what veterinarian would be willing to conduct a quick necropsy and leap to the finding in the space of time clearly less than 8 hours (and probably less than 5 hours). There’s a good reason that human pathologists get 2 weeks (or more) to complete autopsy reports and it’s because testing takes TIME. No freaking way s/he even tested what COULD be tested. It makes me wonder if the representation that the necropsy results exist isn’t a complete work of fiction coming from the Beaumont authorities.
"Either way, it's a neglect case," Lewallen said. The problem is it is NOT either/or, it could be one of those OR a whole bunch of other things! And, well, that’s fine and dandy Lewallen except there’s NO SUCH THING. The word “neglect” does not appear at all in Chapter 821 of the Texas Health and Safety Code which defines “cruelly treated” and SURELY you know that. Cruelly treated “includes tortured, seriously overworked, unreasonably abandoned, unreasonably deprived of necessary food, care, or shelter, cruelly confined, or caused to fight with another animal.” That’s it. Nuthin’ about neglect in there at all. The legislature is clearly going after the worst of the worst and you and your fellow animal rights activists are trying to stretch this law to your own whims of covering mere and unintentional neglect! STOP IT!!!
The dogs were found in the 5800 block of Cole Road on Beaumont’s north side. Which, when taken with the published pictures, would tend to indicate the dog houses faced east. One of the owners told 12 News she couldn't afford bedding… The owners of the dogs say they didn’t do anything wrong. This case looks more and more to me like a family that did what they could and what they thought they should. They may have been wrong but I simply do not see the INTENT necessary to meet the strong statutory language of “cruelly treated” and its definition. It certainly doesn’t sound like they were arguing about changing things either when they willingly moved the dogs into the garage but that just isn’t good enough for the Lewallen’s out there.
The simple facts are that 3 of 4 dogs survived the same conditions and I’m sure many others did so as well out there. That would tend to indicate that the one dog’s death was more complicated.
Both starvation and exposure are considered neglect and grounds for animal cruelty charges. That charge could be anything from a Class-A misdemeanor to a 3rd degree felony. No, it says “unreasonably deprived of necessary food, care, or shelter” and that isn’t the same thing as "starvation and exposure". They did provide shelter and they had it “pointed” the proper direction to protect from cold northern winds (not to mention that the house appears to provide a fine wind break as well). Was it enough? Maybe not but were the dogs being “unreasonably deprived”? Taking all the facts of the family’s knowledge level, the rarity of this weather, etc., I don’t think so. And now I come back to chubby animal rights activists which I just keep seeing in these cases.
Obesity is a HUGE problem in humans AND pets; “44 percent of dogs and 57 percent of cats are overweight or obese”. “The U.S. has the fattest pets in the world, and the social and psychological pressure to ignore weight problems is huge.” Id. Chunky butt humans tend to be in denial about their own weight issues and try to justify them; they tend to think pets should be a little on the “husky” side too. WRONG. Excess weight adds to their medical problems in a multitude of ways. I don’t think most people have a clue what weight their pets really should be these days and calling what looks like (maybe, just maybe) underweight dogs (although the photos really weren’t good enough on this point) “starving” isn’t going to help anyone understand the law or what their pets should actually weigh. Some reporter really needs to get those files and find out what the dogs weighed in at! This whole animal rights activist nonsense encouraging fattening up pets and free feeding which takes them up to the grossly obese category in short order simply has to STOP.
A hearing Jan. 13 will determine if the owners will get the dogs back or if they will be awarded to the Humane Society. I expected to see the first part of that and I hope every animal owner who can get to this hearing on the 13th (that's Wednesday folks) will show up and lend their support to this family in getting their dogs back (if they’re still alive) and helping them to understand what the dogs need in the future – maybe rustle up some donations for the dogs. That second part nearly floored me: “or… awarded to the Humane Society”. WTF? Now I’d like to think the reporter is just an idiot but, sadly, it has become presumed that this “give them to the local humane society” is the default. It is NOT and the judges shouldn’t be treated it as though it is!!!!!!! Dogs that can be sold, should be sold. The proceeds go to defer the costs of the proceedings. There is no excuse for knee jerk turning them over to the humane society to sell them for their benefit when the court proceeding costs should be paid first and foremost.
Beaumont police say they will file animal cruelty charges against the owner of one dog that was found dead Friday morning. (Silly me, I thought that “filing charges” was the work of prosecutors. Maybe I’m wrong.) Oh, of course you’ll file charges. It isn’t enough to snatch up all the remaining dogs, whether abused or not, in the midst of a family grieving the loss of one dog and now imposing the grief of losing 5 more. It isn’t enough to torture them through a pro forma hearing you’ll likely win because they probably won’t even have a lawyer. You simply must file charges. What amount of “fines” will you extract as your blood price for the crime of being poor and having pets I wonder? If they give everything will it be enough for the children to have the puppies back as was done to Mr. Boado in Houston? How about you and CPS join forces and go after all the families who had their pet inside but couldn’t afford to keep the heat up to a cozy level?
Seriously, you animal rights activists are the most inhumane creatures ever birthed on this planet!
Too bad there isn’t a “cruelty to plants” law so you could file charges against everyone who didn’t know or couldn’t afford to keep their save their plants. After all, they are alive too.
It seems that no matter the circumstances in these alleged animal abuse cases, the knee jerk reaction is to file charges and to do so quickly. I think there’s a reason they are so quick to file and that is to pressure the judge into at least splitting the baby at the seizure hearing. That supports their criminal charges and increases the potential losses in civil suits that would be filed if animal owners win at the seizure level thus discouraging the local judge (the locally elected judge) from ruling for the animal owner. Remember that they have a couple of years to file those criminal charges so they could easily wait the 10 days or so and file the criminal charges upon conclusion of that hearing. There has to be a reason why the want to file them so quickly.
I am really getting disgusted that our bloated government has time and resources to harass people well beyond the bounds of constitutional limits. It is long past time we put them on a strict diet and bring them back down to a healthy weight. The government itself has quite a chubby butt and apparently a beer gut to go with it these days!