The Brooke animal hospital causes suffering to animals

[Jesstickle]

This. Thread. Is. Mental.

The conspiracy theories are like an episode of X files. Not one of the good, early episodes. One of the rubbishy later ones where Scully is up the duff and everyone is evil!

 

[Mithras]

Mithras, I'm afraid I have to start to question your motives here. You have stated somewhere (and I'm not trawling through the back and forth posts to find it but I'm pretty sure I've read it) that you have reasons for not donating to the Brooke.

So I have to question how disinterested your arguments. Most of those who are expressing concerns about allegations made agains the Brooke have stated that they are not supporters of the Brooke but are merely concerned with the soundness of the basis of the allegations made.

I REALLY object to your comments regarding suppression of information. I have no interest in trying to suppress evidence of mismanagement or neglect on the part of this or any other member of the Brooke's staff. But I fail to see why I should be expected to take the OP's comments as gospel.

I'm not interested whether you have professional experience of this kind of thing or not. I'm entitled to question the validity of the OP's comments without being told I'm involved in a cover-up!

Well, then I'm afraid you're letting your imagination run away with you. I am arguing so strongly because (1) I do contribute to charities (although that is the end of my involvment) in Egypt and without wishing to denigrate the work of the Brooke further, what I have said is reasonably common knowledge (2) intellectually, I have a distaste for stupidity and for victimisation of whistleblowers (3) much of what has been said in support of the latter is wrong in law.

I am not therefore (and I am sorry to disappoint you) siphoning off funds to some secret pseudo-charity project of my own.

The suppression of information (good phrase) refers here to (1) the constant proclamations that the OP has no right to say this sort of thing in public and (2) constant references to more detailed explanations being given by pm to which the majority have no access.

 

[Natch]

Perhaps I misunderstand this comment - are you actually suggesting that a charity commited to providing veterinary care to equines should be diversifying into attempting to alter the prevalent religious beliefs in a region?

I'm not sure there aren't ethical issues with that, before you consider the logistical improbability of success

If I have undertstood this correctly, you are saying that religious beliefs are the reason why a suffering animal is prevented from being euthinased in Egypt.

"We," find unnecessary suffering of animals unacceptable, whether it is in the name of religion or not. On what basis wouldn't it be ethical to campaign for euthinasia of animals who have no hope of recovery? We see horse charities campaigning for all sorts of things, including transport of meat horses on hook not hoof. I strongly hope there is a decent charity who is working with those who believe that boiling dogs alive is acceptable because the stress makes the meat taste better. I digress.

Religion has a lot to answer for, including attitudes towards homosexuality, women, how to kill and cook meat (and which meat), and abortion. Thank goodness those who campaigned for change in some of those areas didn't think it was too rife with ethical issues to do so.

I don't think that it is the place of the Brooke, or any other charity of its kind, to actively attempt to interfere in the religious beliefs of another culture. There is certainly an argument for education on veterinary grounds, allowing the owner to make an informed decision, but ultimately I don't think that it is politically wise, or ethically sound for them to "push" the owners into euthanasia. I also don't agree that allowing owners to make that decision is the same as the Brooke themselves adopting those beliefs

FWIW, I think there would be far greater outcry if the Brooke were to clandestinely attempt to euthanise horses, attribute death to natural causes and hoodwink their owners in the manner you suggest

I don't think the Brooke should turn into the next Christian aid. But I do think that any charity which is operating to improve the welfare of animals in a country where beliefs like this are held, should not blindly accept them. I'm not sure how you define the difference is between "campaigning" and "educating on veterinary grounds" is?

Apologies for wading in with my size 9s where Mithras is clearly able to defend her own words. just wanted to offer my viewpoint.

 

[Suziq77]

This. Thread. Is. Mental.

Talking of mental will anyone be showing their shoulders this weekend? Just wondering if it is worth me reading this from the beginning as I have an hour to kill before hometime....

 

[Jesstickle]

Talking of mental will anyone be showing their shoulders this weekend? Just wondering if it is worth me reading this from the beginning as I have an hour to kill before hometime....

It's actually pretty boring tbh. I would find something else to read. I've been dipping in and out since the beginning to am realatively up to speed. Reading the whole thing would just be dull.

 

[AMH]

Well, then I'm afraid you're letting your imagination run away with you. I am arguing so strongly because (1) I do contribute to charities (although that is the end of my involvment) in Egypt and without wishing to denigrate the work of the Brooke further, what I have said is reasonably common knowledge (2) intellectually, I have a distaste for stupidity and for victimisation of whistleblowers (3) much of what has been said in support of the latter is wrong in law.

I am not therefore (and I am sorry to disappoint you) siphoning off funds to some secret pseudo-charity project of my own.

The suppression of information (good phrase) refers here to (1) the constant proclamations that the OP has no right to say this sort of thing in public and (2) constant references to more detailed explanations being given by pm to which the majority have no access.

Thank you I was rather proud of that phrase.

I have no issue with the OP telling her story and I never have, although I do feel her language was unnecessarily emotive and I've mentioned that before.

I DO have an issue with the OP alleging the Brooke is 'corrupt to the core', for which I do not believe she had produced any evidence, and for calling for people to help her 'expose' the charity. I believe that phraseology is potentially damaging and I do not understand the basis for it, despite repeated requests for clarification. What 'corruption' are we being asked to 'expose'?

 

[Jesstickle]

"We," find unnecessary suffering of animals unacceptable, whether it is in the name of religion or not. On what basis wouldn't it be ethical to campaign for euthinasia of animals who have no hope of recovery? We see horse charities campaigning for all sorts of things, including transport of meat horses on hook not hoof. I strongly hope there is a decent charity who is working with those who believe that boiling dogs alive is acceptable because the stress makes the meat taste better. I digress.

It might not be unethical but if you alienate people then they just won't come back to you. Which of course would be much worse for the animals. I think people working as 'outsiders' in a country have to step very carefully when trying to bring 'our' beliefs to a country which is not 'ours'. Ultimately, if the Brooke are heavy handed they will just lose the support of the owners.

And as for euthanising a horse and telling the owner it died of natural causes?! Surely that isn't ethical in anyone's eyes?

 

[rhino]

I DO have an issue with the OP alleging the Brooke is 'corrupt to the core', for which I do not believe she had produced any evidence, and for calling for people to help her 'expose' the charity. I believe that phraseology is potentially damaging and I do not understand the basis for it, despite repeated requests for clarification. What 'corruption' are we being asked to 'expose'?

And bearing in mind this was before OP had contacted the Brooke, therefore couldn't be due to the injured horse this thread is about.

 

[Suziq77]

It's actually pretty boring tbh. I would find something else to read. I've been dipping in and out since the beginning to am realatively up to speed. Reading the whole thing would just be dull.

Ah, OK, thanks *****wanders off to checkout mumsnet in a rubbernecking kind of way******

 

[Jesstickle]

Ah, OK, thanks *****wanders off to checkout mumsnet in a rubbernecking kind of way******

If you find anything good let me know.I'm bored and I want to go home!!

 

[Penny Less]

Well I have read all the posts on here, and my only thought is if all the members who have posted were actually sitting round the same table, would the discussion still have gone the same way? Just an idle ponder

 

[Patterdale]

There would have been more angry gesticulating. And I would have walked out in search of food long ago.
Speaking of mumsnet, those guys round a table I would love to see...

 

[Suziq77]

If you find anything good let me know.I'm bored and I want to go home!!

Not doing that well tbh, trying not to puke at all the DH references, being amazed at the banality of some of the questions e.g. what shall i cook tonight? which to be fair is pretty similar to a lot of the things on here just i am interested in horses and couldn't care less about cooking, so "which knee boots shall I buy" actually interests me (westropp all the way) whereas "what to make from onions, tomtatoes and potatoes" doesn't.

This is my favourite so far http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_be...ow-water-over-a-pigeon-Ive-just-spray-painted

 

[Jesstickle]

This is my favourite so far http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_be...ow-water-over-a-pigeon-Ive-just-spray-painted

Ooo. i like it. Some of them seem to have a pretty good sense of humour on them. *contemplates creating a false child to go and get some banter*

 

[CanadianGirl]

Why on earth are the Brooke not able to encourage euthanasia, after all the time they have spent in the region, in cases such as this? Or indeed, to administer euthanasia and attribute it to natural causes, as a mercy?

Really? Did a lawyer really say this? If I didn't believe in euthanasia and my horse was hit by a bus AND they euthed it without my permission, I would think that could be actionable. (However, I do understand we are talking about Egypt here).

 

[Suziq77]

*contemplates creating a false child to go and get some banter*

You can just talk about your little girl Nitty and your special boy Bradley and not mention that they aren't actually human

 

[Dovorian]

I have a friend in Luxor at the moment - and he would certainly look into the Brooke, can you email the photos if I give an email address via pm?

 

[Fellewell]

If I have undertstood this correctly, you are saying that religious beliefs are the reason why a suffering animal is prevented from being euthinased in Egypt.

"We," find unnecessary suffering of animals unacceptable, whether it is in the name of religion or not. On what basis wouldn't it be ethical to campaign for euthinasia of animals who have no hope of recovery? We see horse charities campaigning for all sorts of things, including transport of meat horses on hook not hoof. I strongly hope there is a decent charity who is working with those who believe that boiling dogs alive is acceptable because the stress makes the meat taste better. I digress.

Religion has a lot to answer for, including attitudes towards homosexuality, women, how to kill and cook meat (and which meat), and abortion. Thank goodness those who campaigned for change in some of those areas didn't think it was too rife with ethical issues to do so.




I don't think the Brooke should turn into the next Christian aid. But I do think that any charity which is operating to improve the welfare of animals in a country where beliefs like this are held, should not blindly accept them. I'm not sure how you define the difference is between "campaigning" and "educating on veterinary grounds" is?

Apologies for wading in with my size 9s where Mithras is clearly able to defend her own words. just wanted to offer my viewpoint.

Excellent point.
As far as I am aware Islamic law is quite clear concerning the treatment of animals and euthanasia is allowed. Anything else sounds like a money saving exercise to me.
Check out islamqa.info/en/ref/8814

 

[Natch]

It might not be unethical but if you alienate people then they just won't come back to you. Which of course would be much worse for the animals. I think people working as 'outsiders' in a country have to step very carefully when trying to bring 'our' beliefs to a country which is not 'ours'. Ultimately, if the Brooke are heavy handed they will just lose the support of the owners.

And as for euthanising a horse and telling the owner it died of natural causes?! Surely that isn't ethical in anyone's eyes?

As far as I can tell, being heavy handed and alienating people hasn't been proposed I completely agree with you that it would need to be handled sensitively... but I do think it is important that some attempt is made to address it, unless it is possible to perhaps keep a horse so strongly sedated or on sufficient painkillers until they die that the horse isn't suffering. Perhaps that is what happened in the original situation here?

I don't know if that sort of sedation or painkilling is even possible or feasible, I'd have to ask a vet who worked in those conditions.

As for euthanising a horse and telling the owner it died of natural causes, as it wasn't me who wrote it I should leave it to the person who posted to explain their logic and ethics behind it.

I suspect that it, along with a lot of the points being discussed on this thread, isn't black and white with one clear cut answer.

Excellent point.
As far as I am aware Islamic law is quite clear concerning the treatment of animals and euthanasia is allowed. Anything else sounds like a money saving exercise to me.
Check out islamqa.info/en/ref/8814

That's interesting, and would change the context of this debate considerably.

 

[rhino]

That's interesting, and would change this debate considerably.

If it were true, it isn't. There is no clear cut law, and although ibn al Uthaymeen is a respected scholar, there are wildly differing opinions.

For example, al-Bahûtî writes in the Hanbalî legal work Kashâf al-Qinâ` (Volume 5 page 495):

'It is not permissible to kill or slaughter the animal to alleviate its suffering, since it is still alive. Slaughtering it is an act of destruction and we are prohibited from destroying wealth. It is the same as the case for a person who suffers pain on account of a serious illness.'

Many muslims do not agree with euthanasia under any circumstances.

ETA this comes from a good friend of mine who organises educational trips to his mosque, but as he says you will not find a definitive answer on the internet.

 

[Freddie19]

Mithras, I'm afraid I have to start to question your motives here. You have stated somewhere (and I'm not trawling through the back and forth posts to find it but I'm pretty sure I've read it) that you have reasons for not donating to the Brooke.

So I have to question how disinterested your arguments. Most of those who are expressing concerns about allegations made agains the Brooke have stated that they are not supporters of the Brooke but are merely concerned with the soundness of the basis of the allegations made.

I REALLY object to your comments regarding suppression of information. I have no interest in trying to suppress evidence of mismanagement or neglect on the part of this or any other member of the Brooke's staff. But I fail to see why I should be expected to take the OP's comments as gospel.

Mithras, I am really beginning to question your motives on this forum, in case you think I am a newcomer, I changed my name not long ago, but have been a member of this forum since 2004, you really worry me, you have continued to post on this thread, although on several occasions you have said you worry about the direction it has taken......A: the Brooke has answered all my emails within 24 hours, B: they have come on this thread, C: could you tell me why you are so against them, D: do not say you are not, because you have continually made comments regarding their and supporters answers to the queries, grow up and get real, if you want to start a war, start it, as I have said before early on, against the stupid stupid regulations and lack of control about abused horses in our so called humane country....look around you, and let me add, it is not just horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits, parrots are all suffering due to our credit crunch....I feel sorry for horses in Egypt as I have already said (read my post), but we have much much more to do here. Yes I have given money to Brooke, and if I win the lottery tonight I will donate to them again, but at the moment, if I can help with fields, stables and cash then it goes to my local animal charity. What do you do? If there was an really angry icon on here I would use it.

I

 

[PolarSkye]

I have to say that I am accustomed to a far more rigorous response than that provided by the Brooke. It is so general as to be utterly meaningless. Theres no attention to detail, nothing useful said other than plactory comments. Its nowhere near approaching an even mildly satisfactory response in my book.

The response from The Brooke will have been penned jointly by their PR machine and the lawyers . . . it will never have been intended to be detailed or specific. You could view that as placatory or even blatant obfuscation . . . I would view it as displaying sound business sense. They will need to take the time to conduct a thorough review before they make any public statements about fault, blame, etc. It's also laughable that The Brooke should be expected to disclose publicly what the owner of the animal in question did or didn't do, say or authorize.

But what really matters most here? PR statements or animal welfare?

P

 

[Fellewell]

If it were true, it isn't. There is no clear cut law, and although ibn al Uthaymeen is a respected scholar, there are wildly differing opinions.

For example, al-Bahûtî writes in the Hanbalî legal work Kashâf al-Qinâ` (Volume 5 page 495):

'It is not permissible to kill or slaughter the animal to alleviate its suffering, since it is still alive. Slaughtering it is an act of destruction and we are prohibited from destroying wealth. It is the same as the case for a person who suffers pain on account of a serious illness.'

Many muslims do not agree with euthanasia under any circumstances.

ETA this comes from a good friend of mine who organises educational trips to his mosque, but as he says you will not find a definitive answer on the internet.

How would you explain the humane destruction of the dog by ACE in the OP?

 

[rhino]

How would you explain the humane destruction of the dog by ACE in the OP?

Because there is no law, it is down to the belief of the owner, and the Brooke and other charities will not euthanise an animal against the owner's wishes. People are assuming that the horse in this case was not put down for religious reasons, but this has not been confirmed.

I was disputing the 'clear law' allowing for euthanasia, it doesn't exist. Out of interest I posed the question to a couple of friends on fb - one, a lawyer in Jordan said that it is very, very unusual to find someone who will agree to pts there, yet another, who is a Police trainer in Pakistan said it is not frowned upon there.

It is really not clear cut and although I believe it is wrong to prolong the suffering of an animal, in these circumstances, without any diagnostic tools available, I don't see how any charity could make the decision to put an animal to sleep. If the other charity had x-rayed or otherwise definitively diagnosed two broken legs on the dog, and the owner had agreed, then euthanasia was entirely the right decision.

 

[PolarSkye]

I would have thought that a horse bleeding heavily from large gaping wounds after being hit by a bus should have been put down at the scene, or if not possible, when the vet attended it in the clinic.

Since the Brooke have not yet commented specifically on the true extent of the injuries, the reasons why the horse was not euthanised and the chances of survival, it is impossible to say whether or not their staff acted correctly.

Certainly I have dealt with a horse hit by a car (not a bus) which suffered a large gaping wound.

Are you not listening? There are not only cultural but societal and religious reasons why euthanasia may not have been an option. It is entirely possible that the attending vet did what he could and gave the animal enough sedative to ease it into death (which, for what it's worth is precisely what the doctors did for my grandmother - here in the UK).

You cannot impose Western values and behaviours on other cultures. Animals have a different value in some countries . . . it simply isn't in our gift - no matter how well-intentioned - to be judge and jury for those who life very different lives to ours, including their attitudes to their animals.

I have no idea whether The Brooke acted properly or improperly. I have said that I believe the OP saw what she saw. But I am troubled by the rather public inference (actually it's an outright statement) that The Brooke is corrupt and mismanages its funds . . . without any clear or real evidence to back that up other than the rather distressing sight of a dying horse, covered in flies in a very hot country, and some vehicles with logos on them. Oh, and a rather typical PR-type statement from The Brooke in response to all the vitriol.

Get real.

P

 

[Mithras]

Really? Did a lawyer really say this? If I didn't believe in euthanasia and my horse was hit by a bus AND they euthed it without my permission, I would think that could be actionable. (However, I do understand we are talking about Egypt here).

Yep, you did. And my reasoning is as follows. I rank personal moral values higher than religious values. At a basic level, what is right and wrong. For example, I hope I would not stand by and watch someone murder another human being, in the name of religion. Likewise, I would not see an animal suffer in the name of religious dogma. I believe professionals such as vets have a duty to the animal in such exceptional circumstances, when they are capable of dealing with the consequences afterwards, by means of compensation if necessary.

However, the "normal" procedure by charities in Egypt in this situation is to offer the owner of the animal 100 Lei or so (or at least higher than the value offered for fresh meat by the zoo) and to humanely put the animal out of its suffering.

Such a procedure is actually quite educational to all involved as well.

Further, if my horse was hit by a bus and I was not there and could not give my consent but it was fatally injured, I damn well hope a competent vet would put it out of its pain and suffering! And yes, I would certainly expect a competent vet to be able to make a decision without specialised equipment on the scene as to whether my horse was suffering unbearable pain and unlikely to survive serious internal injuries.

I think some people are confusing fundamentalist Islamic interpretation of law with all other versions of Islamic type legal systems. As far as I am aware, there is no "ban" on humane euthanasia in all Islamic legal systems, and it does occur in Egypt where I believe in such a poor country, the main issue is not always religious dogma but pure finances. Islamic law in general is characterised by a lack of judicial precedent and is not always administered by legally qualified individuals but by religious clerics, and the interpretation of the prevailing version can vary hugely. As a general rule though, if adequate compensation is offered in the right manner, it can often smooth the way.

Who was the one who strongly believes I have an ulterior motive? Was it Freddie19 (if so, I will not reply directly to you until you can be reasonably polite, although you will find that your questions have been answered already by me in previous posts). I am absolutely excited to find out what this ulterior motive is. Judging by the sheer imagination displayed by certain sectors of HHO, it is bound to be far more exciting than my humdrum existence normally is.

 

[AMH]

Whatever the circumstances in this case, I can't believe anyone could condone lying to an animal's owner and destroying it humanely without their knowledge. That's just plain wrong, and massively patronising the owner of the animal. If you want to act in the best interest of the animal's welfare, be upfront and explain what you want to do and why.

 

[Patterdale]

Mithras, from the tone of your posts I really don't think that you understand the concept of cultural differences at all.

Re read the OP. The horse was not bleeding in the street having been steamrollered by a bus, gasping it's last. It made it into the surgery so must have been able to walk. Without the sophisticated diagnostic tools that WE have, the vet can only treat what he can see (cut legs etc), sedate to make it comfortable and then wait and see.
As previously suggested, I really think you need to get real.
Re read the OP. It really is quite 'illuminating' at this stage.

The horse died sedated and off the street.
Surely this is a good thing?

If it were my horse, I relied on it for my income to feed my family, and it had managed to walk into the surgery, who knows? Any of us may well have wanted to 'wait and see' too IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

If the horse hadn't been sedated and given pain relief I would be concerned. But they did what they could in the circumstances.

This is NOT Britain and NOT the RVC.

Get real.

 

[hairycob]

We are all assuming that the owner did not want the horse pts because that was the interpretation of Islamic law that he subscribes to it. But be honest - how many times have you read on here about an owners efforts to keep an old/sick horse going & wondered if it was really in the horses best interests, all the time reading posts telling the owner how wonderful they are? In fact, how many times do you think "poor horse - let it go"?
Some people just don't want to give up whatever their culture & maybe that was the case here. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe he didn't care enough. Maybe the charity couldn't contact him before the horse died. Maybe he was panicking about how he would replace it. I have no idea.
What I do know is that if it was my horse I would be pretty angry if a vet was discussing it's treatment & prognosis with anybody without my permission, especially some tourist who had wandered in.
If I was a charity working in some pretty politically unstable countries I would have to give a lot of thought to the safety of my staff before I made any public statements. Can you imagine what might happen to Brooke staff working in places like Afghanistan if rumours started to circulate that they didn't respect Islamic Law whether true or not? And even if they had full state of the art facilities staffed by the worlds best Vets if owners thought they would pts the horses without their permission they would be sitting there twiddling their thumbs.

 

[Freddie19]

Yep, you did. And my reasoning is as follows. I rank personal moral values higher than religious values. At a basic level, what is right and wrong. For example, I hope I would not stand by and watch someone murder another human being, in the name of religion. Likewise, I would not see an animal suffer in the name of religious dogma. I believe professionals such as vets have a duty to the animal in such exceptional circumstances, when they are capable of dealing with the consequences afterwards, by means of compensation if necessary.

However, the "normal" procedure by charities in Egypt in this situation is to offer the owner of the animal 100 Lei or so (or at least higher than the value offered for fresh meat by the zoo) and to humanely put the animal out of its suffering.

Such a procedure is actually quite educational to all involved as well.

Further, if my horse was hit by a bus and I was not there and could not give my consent but it was fatally injured, I damn well hope a competent vet would put it out of its pain and suffering! And yes, I would certainly expect a competent vet to be able to make a decision without specialised equipment on the scene as to whether my horse was suffering unbearable pain and unlikely to survive serious internal injuries.

I think some people are confusing fundamentalist Islamic interpretation of law with all other versions of Islamic type legal systems. As far as I am aware, there is no "ban" on humane euthanasia in all Islamic legal systems, and it does occur in Egypt where I believe in such a poor country, the main issue is not always religious dogma but pure finances. Islamic law in general is characterised by a lack of judicial precedent and is not always administered by legally qualified individuals but by religious clerics, and the interpretation of the prevailing version can vary hugely. As a general rule though, if adequate compensation is offered in the right manner, it can often smooth the way.

Who was the one who strongly believes I have an ulterior motive? Was it Freddie19 (if so, I will not reply directly to you until you can be reasonably polite, although you will find that your questions have been answered already by me in previous posts). I am absolutely excited to find out what this ulterior motive is. Judging by the sheer imagination displayed by certain sectors of HHO, it is bound to be far more exciting than my humdrum existence normally is.

Mithras, I think if you read my posts, at no time have I said that you have an ulterior motive, perhaps that is someone else, also I would like to think that I have been polite....