The Brooke animal hospital causes suffering to animals

shortstuff99 said:
Many Muslims do not believe in euthanasia as they feel it is Allahs's will as to whether the animal survives or not. It may have been the owners choice not to put down immediately. We need to know the whole story before we can judge. I guess this is what the Brooke is trying to do.
Click to expand...

^^^This. My daughter was considering volunteering to work with SPANA. In the information they sent her they stressed the fact that a lot of owners would not allow euthanasia and the vet would have to be prepared to see a horse taken away which they felt should be pts to prevent further suffering.:(
 
MurphysMinder said:
^^^This. My daughter was considering volunteering to work with SPANA. In the information they sent her they stressed the fact that a lot of owners would not allow euthanasia and the vet would have to be prepared to see a horse taken away which they felt should be pts to prevent further suffering.:(
Click to expand...

Exactly! I think that under the circumstances this horse probably had a better death than many experience; at least it received some treatment and went in the quiet of the hospital. Of course it is far from ideal, but this is Egypt, not the UK. As for the vet not showing compassion, I think that you do become hardened to sights like this and have to switch off to a degree or else you'd drive yourself mad.

I don't think that the Brooke have done anything wrong in this instance.
 
I want the photos posted as this will go some way to clear up the contradictory response posted on here by the Brooke.

I'm not sure why you now won't post them op after starting this concerning post.
 
I'm afraid a charity that doesn't euth a horse in the state the OP described will certainly not get any of my money. So much for helping suffering! Allah's will or not no animal deserves that when they could have been pts in a dignified manner. Disgusting.
 
Hedgewitch13 said:
I'm afraid a charity that doesn't euth a horse in the state the OP described will certainly not get any of my money. So much for helping suffering! Allah's will or not no animal deserves that when they could have been pts in a dignified manner. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

You are transferring your values built up in your society to a foreign country you just can't do that unless you think that no charity's should try to do anything over there , the not PTS thing is terrible it freaked me out completly but it's there culture their rules you either do nothing or do your best doing what you can.
 
Hedgewitch13 said:
I'm afraid a charity that doesn't euth a horse in the state the OP described will certainly not get any of my money. So much for helping suffering! Allah's will or not no animal deserves that when they could have been pts in a dignified manner. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

I agree it is unfair not to pts, but you've got to consider that if they start putting down the horses that we normally would, then the people will probably stop using and trusting them, which leaves the animal worse off. If the animals last moments can be made pain free and as comfortable as possible (which is what we do with people!) then they are doing as much as they can I would think.
 
It is very sad that now on 'googling' The Brooke Hospital that this thread is on the first page of searches. In a climate where charity organisations are struggling to keep donations rolling in, it is distressing to hear that certain posts have been made stating monthly contributions may be cancelled because of this incident.
Having travelled to Egypt and seen many cases of horses in very poor condition I agree that Luxor is one of the better places unlike Edfu across the river where the image of one poor horse sticks in my mind to this day.
I feel the OP should have contacted The Brooke and received an explanation, should she not have received an acceptable response, then air her views publicly. Whether or not The Brooke are vindicated the damage has already been done and this could become catastrophic for a charity that ultimately serves to better the welfare of animals in the poorest of places.
Luckily, I feel, no photo's have been published as it only takes one national tabloid to jump on this story.
Hopefully The Brooke will carry out a full investigation regarding the conduct of the vet in question as Im not for one moment saying that there is no cause for concern over their actions.
 
cambrica said:
It is very sad that now on 'googling' The Brooke Hospital that this thread is on the first page of searches. In a climate where charity organisations are struggling to keep donations rolling in, it is distressing to hear that certain posts have been made stating monthly contributions may be cancelled because of this incident.
Having travelled to Egypt and seen many cases of horses in very poor condition I agree that Luxor is one of the better places unlike Edfu across the river where the image of one poor horse sticks in my mind to this day.
I feel the OP should have contacted The Brooke and received an explanation, should she not have received an acceptable response, then air her views publicly. Whether or not The Brooke are vindicated the damage has already been done and this could become catastrophic for a charity that ultimately serves to better the welfare of animals in the poorest of places.
Luckily, I feel, no photo's have been published as it only takes one national tabloid to jump on this story.
Hopefully The Brooke will carry out a full investigation regarding the conduct of the vet in question as Im not for one moment saying that there is no cause for concern over their actions.
Click to expand...

I agree it could be very damaging, and sadly the Brooke should have been notified before a public forum.

From the OP's initial post she says "I FEEL SO STRONGLY THAT THIS POOR ANIMAL WAS NOT EVEN AFFORDED THE VERY BASIC TREATMENT OF BEING PUT TO SLEEP."
So it seems that not euthanising is her biggest problem, but as has been pointed out, if the vet is unable to perform euthanasia then what else could he have done:confused:
 
amymay said:
I want the photos posted as this will go some way to clear up the contradictory response posted on here by the Brooke.

I'm not sure why you now won't post them op after starting this concerning post.
Click to expand...

Will you please stop asking for photo's to be posted publicly. A photo of a horse suffering in this way is likely to end up in some trash tabloid paper with no thought as to the damage this can do to animal charities in general. Im sure The Brooke will, after seeing the response, carry out a full investigation. If not then go public.
 
touchstone said:
I agree it could be very damaging, and sadly the Brooke should have been notified before a public forum.

From the OP's initial post she says "I FEEL SO STRONGLY THAT THIS POOR ANIMAL WAS NOT EVEN AFFORDED THE VERY BASIC TREATMENT OF BEING PUT TO SLEEP."
So it seems that not euthanising is her biggest problem, but as has been pointed out, if the vet is unable to perform euthanasia then what else could he have done:confused:
Click to expand...

/\/\THIS /\/\
I totally agree in our ideal western world, and our 'pet' horse's' would have comfort in that. Religion aside, these animals are a lifeline to these people and are not easily replaced, no horse = starving family. When working in these places, as unbearable as it is, this has to be respected.
 
The Brooke have clearly stated that they won't be able to provide any more information until after the weekend.
Meanwhile, a thread continues that allows people to post opinions that could potentially damage the charity long-term. What about innocent until proved guilty? It's like mass hysteria here, is it something to do with the weather and people not getting out enough?
As said above, if someone posts photos now they could be very damaging and used elsewhere, and all while the charity is unable to respond. Photos of injured horses give no context or timeframe anyway, so will prove nothing.
For those who want the horse autopsied - get real. The charity will not have the funds to autopsy every animal that dies while in their care, and anyway, the carcass in question will be long gone.
One person saw one incident that they were unhappy about. Instead of caring about the long-term future of the charity, they went on to a horse forum with a massive population in order to do... what? Wind people up and reduce donations is the only conclusion I can come to.
The H+H jury is a worrying thing sometimes.
 
agreed Tinypony, I've seen perfectly good businesses and reputations damaged on here before, people are so willing to think the worst of something that has being doing good work long before anyone else gave a damn. give The Brooke a chance to properly investigate.
 
I agree too TP, apart from I think that the OP was probably shocked and upset following what she saw, and came on to offload/ask what to do..

I totally agree with the judge/jury part. People demanding to see photos/autopsies as though they are solicitors on the case.

This thread should be let lie until more is known/proven.
 
Tinypony said:
The Brooke have clearly stated that they won't be able to provide any more information until after the weekend.
Meanwhile, a thread continues that allows people to post opinions that could potentially damage the charity long-term. What about innocent until proved guilty? It's like mass hysteria here, is it something to do with the weather and people not getting out enough?
As said above, if someone posts photos now they could be very damaging and used elsewhere, and all while the charity is unable to respond. Photos of injured horses give no context or timeframe anyway, so will prove nothing.
For those who want the horse autopsied - get real. The charity will not have the funds to autopsy every animal that dies while in their care, and anyway, the carcass in question will be long gone.
One person saw one incident that they were unhappy about. Instead of caring about the long-term future of the charity, they went on to a horse forum with a massive population in order to do... what? Wind people up and reduce donations is the only conclusion I can come to.
The H+H jury is a worrying thing sometimes.
Click to expand...

I agree totally. Well said.
 
I've seen no sign of mass hysteria on this thread. Only the faintly hysterical first post by op.

As for Muslims being against euthanasia. I've never read such rubbish in my life.

Time to lock this thread I think.

Op's claims are totally unfounded. The Brookes response is inconclusive to say the least, and it does no use to speculate further.

op I look fo5ward to your photographic proof.
 
amymay said:
I've seen no sign of mass hysteria on this thread. Only the faintly hysterical first post by op.

As for Muslims being against euthanasia. I've never read such rubbish in my life.

Time to lock this thread I think.

Op's claims are totally unfounded. The Brookes response is inconclusive to say the least, and it does no use to speculate further.

op I look fo5ward to your photographic proof.
Click to expand...

It's not rubbish amymay I have lived in an Islamic country and some Muslims don't believe in euthanasia.
 
Goldenstar said:
It's not rubbish amymay I have lived in an Islamic country and some Muslims don't believe in euthanasia.
Click to expand...

It seems to be the case that some are against euthanasia, a quick google brought up this:- Al-Salâm `Alaykum wa Rahmah Allah wa Barakâtuh.

This is a matter of "mercy killing" for animals is a matter of disagreement. We would say that it is permissible to kill animals that are dying to alleviate their pain. If it is a food animal like a sheep, then it should be properly slaughtered. A parakeet qualifies as a food animal. It is lawful to eat.

Some scholars view that it is unlawful to kill animals to alleviate their suffering.

For instance, 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.

He means that it is not permissible to kill the animal that is not edible in order to relieve it from pain.

We regard the argument that killing the animal is destruction of wealth is a weak one, since an animal in such a situation does not retain any extra value alive, and especially if it is dying anyway, then there is no saving of value to be realized.

In the case of this budgerigar, however, it is unclear to us as to whether it qualifies as killing it to alleviate suffering. The fact that selling it is even being considered – and the idea of selling it is being dismissed only because the bird is unmarketable – makes it seem that the bird's interests are not the only concern. Is the bird truly suffering? Or is it simply not so pretty to look at? If the bird is truly suffering and in pain that will not go away, then we would say that putting it out of its misery by slaughtering it would be permitted.

And Allah knows best.

Fatwâ Department Research Committee of IslamToday chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî
 
amymay said:
I've seen no sign of mass hysteria on this thread. Only the faintly hysterical first post by op.

As for Muslims being against euthanasia. I've never read such rubbish in my life.

Time to lock this thread I think.

Op's claims are totally unfounded. The Brookes response is inconclusive to say the least, and it does no use to speculate further.

op I look fo5ward to your photographic proof.
Click to expand...

That is not rubbish AM, google for yourself.

Re photos, I really don't think you have a right to demand to see them, particularly as several other members have asked that they don't get put on the thread. It seems a bit contrary to me to on the one hand suggest the thread is locked (brilliant idea) and on the other say that you are looking forward to photographic proof.

If Op had just wanted advice from people here, she could have done as many have done before. "I have reason to believe that all is not as it seems in an animal charity. I think I have photographic proof of neglect. What should I do?".
 
ribbons said:
Amymay seems hell bent on seeing those photos. I have to wonder why.
Click to expand...

Different methods of collecting evidence are not new, but they rarely include the use of photographs. Ethics of image-based research is a complex issue that necessitates careful consideration and practice. A visual approach offers one more way to leverage optimal results. Narratives are, of course, powerful testimonials that project the voices of the informants but visual data have the potential to support and enhance narratives, as well as provide a tool for theory building.
 
Last edited:
Because Ribbons, the op has made serious and disturbing allegations, which are apparently backed up by photographs. By and large the brooke have denied them. So the photographs will show otherwise presumably.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out the reason, now does it?
 
I didn't say photos should not be seen. Of course they are valuable evidence. And it seems they have been sent to the place that needs to see them. How would it help or prove the situation for YOU to see them amymay, or me, or any member of a speculating group of forum members. Unless of course you are an expert in the field of photographic evidence.
The photos have apparently been forwarded to the people who need to see them. That is not you and it's not any of us here. Just because you want to see them doesn't mean you need to. Hence my question.
 
Im no expert but maybe if the photos were shown on here it may damage any investigation by the brooke? Only a thought, and I may be wrong.
I too asked for the photos to be posted early on but thinking about it, it may not be a good thing at least untill investigations have been carried out by the correct people.
 
The photos will show a horse who was involved in a RTA who later died there will be blood there will be flies there will be broken down stiches it will prove very little why anyone feels the the need to demand to see it is beyond me.
 
I haven't read through the thread from start to finish so apologies if this has already been covered.... but with regard to the dog with the broken legs. It isn't necessarily the case that the fractures weren't picked up by the Brooke. Sometimes fractures can be stabilised using external support.... a Robert Jones bandage (a thickly supportive bandage) or a splint rather than internal fixation with pins/plates etc. The trouble with using RJBs (in this country too) is that they require very careful monitering as the possibility of pressure sores and secondary infection is quite high. They require regular changing to assess the stability and healing of the fractures and to make sure no complications are arising due to this method of stabilisation. I have problems getting clients to comply with this in this country let alone in Egypt where with respect the lack of understanding and compliance is likely even lower. So I can imagine how the fractures became infected..... but this was probably not the way the dog was when it left the Brooke!
Also I visited the Brooke in Cairo some years ago and found it to be a well run and equipped equine hospital and was very impressed with the level of care and treatment of the patients when I was there.
 
I find it hard to believe that anyone who bothered to study very hard at all those years at veterinary school would carry on in a way the op is suggesting and suspect that emotions and the shock at seeing a poor probably maltreated horse die in front of her is clouding her vision on what she saw.
When ever there is upset and death human nature is we look for blame it makes us feel better.
Now imagine if the brook hadn't been there that horse would have died by the side of the road, in a great more pain.
As many out there do . Any charity out there that try's to educate and improve the situation IMO deserves support.
 
The photos would prove nothing to people on here. They would be pretty horrific whatever the truth is, because the horse has been in a RTA. They would not prove the case for or against the Brooke. FWIW I think that both accounts are correct. I believe the OP saw what she saw, and I believe the Brooke are telling the truth in their explanation of events. It is the INTERPRETATION of the OP that the Brooke were causing unnecessary suffering, because she saw a horse that was clearly suffering. Any horse hit by a car would be suffering whilst its injuries are severe, whether they end up recovering from the accident or dying from it. It would not be free from a degree of suffering.
 
Here are some of my parents pictures from their recent trip to Egypt (note date in photos!)

Yes, some of the Caleche horses are in a bad way, but it is a very different culture

IMG_0565.jpg


IMG_0564.jpg


This is a Brooke outpost in Egypt

IMG_0551.jpg


IMG_0550.jpg


IMG_0549.jpg


As the pictures show, the Brooke have provided the horses with shelter, food and water. Would horses in this condition be allowed to work in the UK - no. Should the horses in poor condition be allowed to work abroad - no. However if the caleche drivers were forced to stop working their horses, how would they survive? The best way to combat this is education. There is far more to any animal charity work than just treating the ill or injured, the major element is educating the owners and drivers to care for the horses. I don't doubt the OP, however I think there is far more to it than just seeing one injured horse on one day, and putting a western value on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top