Prosecuted: the woman who killed her beloved pet cat trying to cure its limp

8:46am Tuesday 9th October 2012 in News

Prosecuted: woman killed her beloved pet cat trying to cure its limp Prosecuted: woman killed her beloved pet cat trying to cure its limp

A WOMAN accidentally killed her cat after giving it paracetamol to treat a limp.

Claire Pritchard gave Midnight a quarter of 500 milligram tablet twice over two days after noticing it was limping.

The drug is poisonous to cats and Midnight died despite treatment.

She was prosecuted by the RSPCA and admitted causing unnecessary suffering and failure to protect the cat from suffering.

The 43-year-old from Mandale Road in West Howe was given a two-year conditional discharge.

Poole Magistrates Court also ordered her to pay £280 in costs.

RSPCA Inspector Graham Hammond, inset, told the Echo afterwards: “Mrs Pritchard said the cat came home and she noticed she was limping.

“She thought it may have been knocked over by a car.”

She gave the cat a quarter of a 500mg tablet followed by a second quarter the following morning.

The cat later collapsed and a family member called the RSPCA asking for help.

She was put on a saline drip to combat dehydration and boost her energy levels but died from organ failure.

Pritchard told the RSPCA she thought cats could take paracetamol because she believed she had seen her mother do it as a child.

“That could have been a cat medicine,” said Insp Hammond, adding: “This case is a warning to other people. She had the use of the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals which is a free service but chose not to use it.

Related links

“This cat needlessly died because she administered a substance that is poisonous to cats.

“A cat cannot digest paracetamol the same way a human can because it doesn’t have the same enzyme that is required.

“If you suspect your animal has got an injury refer it to a veterinary surgeon every time.”

The incident occurred between June 19 and 21 this year. Read our interview with Claire Pritchard 

Comments(75)

whataboutthat says...
8:59am Tue 9 Oct 12

I can't believe this. This misguided woman makes a mistake and the animal police prosecute her. Two years conditional discharge - what a travesty. Why did the magistrates not simply throw this one out?
Shame on the RSPCA for wasting my money on the courts' time and for needlessly persecuting this woman. Inspector Hammond - makes him sound right good and proper!

Report this post »

muscliffman says...
9:09am Tue 9 Oct 12

There was absolutely no ill intent so why prosecute?
Making a mistake is not a criminal offence and I am sure the loss of the poor cat through your own stupidity is a big enough price to pay.
Unless something is not being told here it may be time to reconsider my regular RSPCA donation, this is not what I intended it to be used for.

Report this post »

Bohochic72 says...
9:16am Tue 9 Oct 12

Why prosecute when, as it was reported, there was no cruelty intended? There are so many mistreated animals out there whose owners get off - chase them rather than someone who tried to help an injured pet and made a mistake. Obviously she was an easy target to keep the conviction figures up.
@muscliffman - I make my donation to PDSA as more of it goes to actual pet care.

Report this post »

a.g.o.g. says...
9:16am Tue 9 Oct 12

whataboutthat wrote:
I can't believe this. This misguided woman makes a mistake and the animal police prosecute her. Two years conditional discharge - what a travesty. Why did the magistrates not simply throw this one out? Shame on the RSPCA for wasting my money on the courts' time and for needlessly persecuting this woman. Inspector Hammond - makes him sound right good and proper!
Jobsworths! Did they also perform a post mortem to be sure that it was the paracetamol that caused the cats death and not trauma caused by whatever had happened to cause it to limp? Many cats by instinct manage to run from a car collision to then die later in solitude.
Whatever, well intended actions to reduce any animals agonies or ills do not deserve this kind of Pantomime performance.

Report this post »

Jim_Springbourne says...
9:20am Tue 9 Oct 12

I am a cat lover and cannot agree with this prosecution.
The poor lady accidentally killed her cat through ignorance and will have suffered enough grief - I know if I did such a thing, I would not be able to forgive myself. Why compound things with a needless, pointless prosecution that was not in the public interest. She should have been given an absolute discharge, and the RSPCA a rocket for bringing the case in the first place.

Report this post »

High Treason says...
9:20am Tue 9 Oct 12

The costs and sentence were a bit harsh but as was stated, she could have used the PDSA if money was tight. She was lazy and chose an easy cheap option. Misguided maybe but she did cause the cat unnecessary suffering.

Report this post »

afcb-mark says...
9:20am Tue 9 Oct 12

I actually feel quite sorry for her. She didn't intentionally poison the cat rather thought she was helping it. A bit silly but not malicious. What next, lock someone up who gives a dog chocolate as that is poisonous to dogs and could kill them, but how many people know that.

Report this post »

Your reporter in spain says...
9:25am Tue 9 Oct 12

Ridiculous ,we can all make mistakes even when trying to do the best for our animals - that prosecution was completely unnecessary
With the cost of vets being so high it's hardly surprising people will try their own remedy

Report this post »

rayc says...
9:29am Tue 9 Oct 12

Typical of the UK. Graham Hammond should take a long hard look at himself and ponder on why he is so malicious.

Report this post »

nosuchluck54 says...
9:30am Tue 9 Oct 12

afcb-mark wrote:
I actually feel quite sorry for her. She didn't intentionally poison the cat rather thought she was helping it. A bit silly but not malicious. What next, lock someone up who gives a dog chocolate as that is poisonous to dogs and could kill them, but how many people know that.
I am afraid that anyone who thinks that giving animals drugs without advice,should not have the responsibilty of having pets and if the report is correct and the animal suffered then the owner deserves to be punished

Report this post »

Morrigan says...
9:31am Tue 9 Oct 12

As a cat owner, I am fully aware of the dangers of paracetamol - but I would bet most people are not.

There may be more to this story than is printed here, but as it stands I would definitely say the RSPCA should not have taken this to court. It does not appear to have been done with intent to harm the cat and I expect the poor woman has been through enough knowing she caused the death of her own cat.

People who deliberately hurt animals and mistreat them get off more lightly than this lady. What a waste of time and money - the RSPCA being "holier-than-thou" big time ........ but when I called them a couple of years ago after I found an abandoned pet rabbit they refused to help in any way and I had to take it to the PDSA, who kindly took it in.

The RSPCA should have taken the case as a unfortunate incident and used it to educate people - not prosecute them.

Report this post »

Buddles says...
9:31am Tue 9 Oct 12

I agree with all of you.
On the outside it looks like "death by misadventure" to use a human inquest term.
Unless there is something we haven't been told this is just a tragic outcome. As an ex vet nurse it was quite common for cat owners to ask if paracetamol was OK for cats....the answer was always an emphatic "no" due to its toxicity in cats.
Yes a quick phone call or a trip to the PDSA would have prevented this but involving the RSPCA as a case of deliberate suffering, I fail to see this unless we haven't been told the full story.

Report this post »

rayc says...
9:34am Tue 9 Oct 12

I wonder if she had not "admitted causing unnecessary suffering and failure to protect the cat from suffering" and instead pleaded Not Guilty what the outcome would have been. Even if the Magistrate had found her guilty I wonder if on appeal whether a higher court, presided over by a judge, would have done so?

Report this post »

nosuchluck54 says...
9:39am Tue 9 Oct 12

And of course paracetamol is well known to cure limp.Gentlemen take note

Report this post »

sussexcherry says...
9:44am Tue 9 Oct 12

Misguided yes, deliberate no. The lady concerned must be devastated at losing her cat, when all she was trying to do was to help it, and it goes without saying that the poor cat must have suffered terribly. This lady is only 43, she is not a 'doddering old dear' as the phrase goes, so she should have been more responsible and as Buddles says above, at least made a quick phone call to a vet. Personally, I can't stand cats, but if this highlights the dangers of Paracetomol to them then it is a good outcome,and maybe will stop it occuring again. I agree with other posters the the sentence is disproportionate.

Report this post »

Eddie's dog says...
9:59am Tue 9 Oct 12

The cat may have thought it would help, because the 'parrots eat them all'........

Report this post »

summerchild says...
10:06am Tue 9 Oct 12

The PDSA will only help if you're on benefits so if she wasn't they would have been no use at all.
I stopped supporting the RSPCA years ago after reading about a pensioner who was prosecuted for his dog being too fat !!! Seems at times, that the RSPCA is only after prosecuting the easy options, shame on you Graham Hammond and shame on the RSPCA.

Report this post »

elite50 says...
10:07am Tue 9 Oct 12

Well, look on the bright side.
Think of all the local wildlife given a new lease on life!

Report this post »

mysticalshoelace says...
10:36am Tue 9 Oct 12

The paracetamol may have been ignorance but not taking it to the vet when you think it's been hit by a car is downright neglect!

Report this post »

The Renegade Master says...
10:37am Tue 9 Oct 12

Seriously, what kind of an idiot wouldn't take their cat to a vet or the PDSA if they suspected it had been hit by a car? And then to feed it human medicine because it had a limp beggars belief? Where on Earth is this woman's common sense? She should have received a huge fine and been banned from keeping animals for life.

Report this post »

uvox44 says...
11:08am Tue 9 Oct 12

think the reason she was prosecuted was that she didn't take her cat to the vets when she should of - either for free treatment at the PDSA or paid treatment elsewhere - any pet is an expensive responsibility , as i know as i have a cat. Imagine if they hadn't prosecuted - every owner who wanted to get rid of an unwanted pet would then be "accidentally" poisioning them trying to help-at least that would be their get out. WELL DONE RSPCA! all she had to do was ring for advice or look on the internet afterall .

Report this post »

ashleycross says...
11:24am Tue 9 Oct 12

I am pleased to see this silly woman being prosecuted as judging by this column there loads more people out there who are a danger to their pets and so making an example of her is going to help the pets they have control of..
What causes the confusion over whether to give human medicine to animals is the fact that cats and other animals are used in drug testing for drugs to be given to humans. I believe that the organisations that are against this point out that the fact that a drug works for an animal doesn't prove that it will work for humans and may be dangerous for them.

Report this post »

Dog friendly 1 says...
11:45am Tue 9 Oct 12

I agree that the sentence handed out was rather heavy handed compared to other wilful cruelty cases we read about in the Echo.
I also agree that the lady should have known better than to feed her cat (or any animal) human medicine BUT there are lots of people who still think its ok to give their cat/dog whatever animal human medicine to take the pressure off high vet bills.
Do also be aware that unless they have changed their policy, the RSPCA no longer take in unwanted or stray dogs, ONLY cruelty cases. If you leave your dog with them or hand in a stray (thats if they accept it), I believe they now have a policy to PTS the animal. I stopped supporting them years ago. Stick to your local rescue centres or PDSA centre or Blue Cross centre. Sadly I think the RSPCA have got "too big for their boots" and the compassion for animal welfare is now not at the top of their agenda as it used to be; they appear to be too corporate now.

Report this post »

elite50 says...
11:49am Tue 9 Oct 12

The hatred and vitriol being aimed at this woman by the lunatic fringe is quite frankly unbelievable!
Look at the facts.
She tried to do the right thing by the cat.
She made a mistake.
Some moron from the R.S.P.C.A. tries to make a name for himself .
The woman gets convicted.
She should have let the thing just die.
Some of you people need a reality check.
This story is about a sick CAT.
The woman was pretty naive, just about eveyone knows that if you want to kill the pesky cat from next door you just put 2 aspirin in a bowl of milk.
She knows now.

Report this post »

BROCKSDAD says...
11:54am Tue 9 Oct 12

Another easy target for the rspca, you would think with the £13 million they get every year they could do more to support people and their pets rather than prosecute.

Report this post »

Imaximus says...
12:06pm Tue 9 Oct 12

so a story about a dead cat gets more comments then a story about a deranged man that attacks his girlfriend and forces drugs into a baby.....about sums up this backwater town.

Report this post »

username is already in use says...
12:14pm Tue 9 Oct 12

What a disgraceful decision by the RSPCA, I wont be giving them any of my hard earned again.

Report this post »

EDDIE GROVES. says...
12:35pm Tue 9 Oct 12

A cat eating festival has started in La Quebrada Peru


I'm flying out there as soon as possible
i will get it banned
trust me.

Report this post »

leagalbrief says...
12:44pm Tue 9 Oct 12

The RSPCA are a farce of a charity anybody supporting this cause beware, many times i have heard the same old story of animals in need of rescue being turned away at their hard hearted door, they are very very choosey, many a smaller amimal rescue picks up the peices, they are self serving and have their own interests at heart not the animals they suppose to support. this prosection is a disgrace and a farce, there are plenty of wilful cruelty to animals they turn a blind eye to, RSPCA hang your sorry heads in shame you are no better than scum.

Report this post »

uvox44 says...
12:48pm Tue 9 Oct 12

think by your tone and references to "the thing" elite 50 that you aren't an animal lover, fair enough not everyone is , but you're best qualified then to comment on people who do understand the value of the life of other species.

Report this post »

live-and-let-live says...
12:48pm Tue 9 Oct 12

a disgusting travesty. this woman was trying her best. she did nothing malicious. i hope she reads these comments and realises we are on her side.

Report this post »

Bathsheba says...
12:56pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Nothing like an animal story to split the pack. I'm also disgusted that the RSPCA chose to pursue this easy target whilst they don't bother with the hard stuff. They're rolling in money but you try to get them to help you when you have a problem. The PDSA is also quoted but as someone has said the PDSA only helps those on benefits, it's not some animal angel service. It's those who struggle on without state support that need financial help from massive vets fees. I feel sorry for the woman.

Report this post »

scoooobles says...
1:10pm Tue 9 Oct 12

the RSPCA did completely the right thing because ... err she poisoned a cat to death!?

she may not have killed it on purpose but she didnt take an injured cat to the vets on purpose which is neglect and causing unnecessary pain and suffering!

Just because she is ignorant enough to think that a human medicine would be ok for an animal doesnt make it ok.

Stupidity is not an excuse!

Report this post »

Matthew_Y says...
1:11pm Tue 9 Oct 12

I am incensed by the RSPCA’s conduct in this matter; Educate the lady – Yes, but prosecute NO! Go after those that maliciously mistreat animals instead. Still, I’ve learned a very valuable lesson here, and I urge other readers to follow suit. Don’t give your charitable donations to the RSPCA to squander, give them to PDSA instead.

Report this post »

Pablo23 says...
1:14pm Tue 9 Oct 12

I suspect the driving force behind taking her to court was to get the case as much publicity as possible, therefore making others aware of the dangers of giving human drugs to animals, and the correct facilities available.

I didn't know paracetamol was poisonous to cats, so I for one learnt something.
Not that I would have risked given one to a cat anyway to be fair but still.

Report this post »

KLH says...
1:19pm Tue 9 Oct 12

I stopped donating years ago. And I told an RSPCA chugger in the Square exactly what I thought of them when I saw him charging towards me, board in hand licking his chops....

Wasn't expecting that matey boy were you. Won't give them a penny, I would contact any organisation about a sick animal but them.

Report this post »

KLH says...
1:21pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Adding - I knew aspirin is fatal to cats but not paracetamol.

Report this post »

Eddie's dog says...
1:28pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Recently asked "Are you a dog or a cat person?"
My innocent reply: "After 8 years in China, I can eat either......."

Report this post »

High Treason says...
1:32pm Tue 9 Oct 12

nosuchluck54 wrote:
And of course paracetamol is well known to cure limp.Gentlemen take note
Yes and it is cheaper than a pencil with elastic bands.

Report this post »

mattkuk says...
1:51pm Tue 9 Oct 12

How dumb is this woman. I have no sympathy.

Report this post »

Richard Head says...
1:55pm Tue 9 Oct 12

High Treason wrote:
nosuchluck54 wrote:
And of course paracetamol is well known to cure limp.Gentlemen take note
Yes and it is cheaper than a pencil with elastic bands.
OMG!!!

"A pencil and elastics bands" and to think, all this time I've been spending a fortune on ............... Oh well! never mind.

Thanks guys

Report this post »

The Renegade Master says...
2:08pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Quite frankly, the people on this forum defending this stupid woman are idiots themselves. Hang your heads in shame. You know who you are.

Report this post »

EssexBoy1956 says...
2:16pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Thanks for the tips everyone. So sprinkling paracetamol and maybe aspirin around the garden might cause the cat problem round here. Does anyone have any other ideas (apart from herding them down to the chinky takeaway!)

Report this post »

EssexBoy1956 says...
2:17pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Sorry, "cure"' not "cause"!

Report this post »

DAISY3073 says...
2:22pm Tue 9 Oct 12

To all the people saying she should have known better, my dogs have recently had kennel cough and the vet's advice was to give them a children's version of Benalyn twice a day to ease the symptoms. When they told me that I was stunned as didn't realise you could give animals human medicine so it's clearly not a well known fact that cats can't have paracetamol products.

The woman shouldn't have been prosecuted, yes she needs educating about this but then obviously so do a lot of people, and yes she should have taken the cat to the vets. I expect the fact that she accidentally killed her poor cat is punishment enough.

Report this post »

Maisie says...
2:22pm Tue 9 Oct 12

How ironic that minutes after I read this article a chap collecting on behalf of the RSPCA knocked on my door telling me my "neighbours" were helping and could he count on my support. I told him I'd just read this article, disagreed with what they had done and for that reason I wouldn't be pledging any money to them.

Report this post »

H2o-hara says...
2:25pm Tue 9 Oct 12

whataboutthat wrote:
I can't believe this. This misguided woman makes a mistake and the animal police prosecute her. Two years conditional discharge - what a travesty. Why did the magistrates not simply throw this one out?
Shame on the RSPCA for wasting my money on the courts' time and for needlessly persecuting this woman. Inspector Hammond - makes him sound right good and proper!
I agree when you consider those idiots who take their dogs for a walk on cliff edges seem to expect sympathy.

Report this post »

rayc says...
3:44pm Tue 9 Oct 12

The Renegade Master wrote:
Quite frankly, the people on this forum defending this stupid woman are idiots themselves. Hang your heads in shame. You know who you are.
I'm defending her and I am in no way ashamed. I am ashamed to live in a country where the full force of the law is used on a woman who has made a genuine mistake in trying to care for her pet.

Report this post »

FrDarryl says...
3:47pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Two years for the accidental death of a pet by compassionately administering a rationally reduced dosage (NHS: 120mg can be administered to some infants aged 6-24 months) of an over-the-counter analgesic.

Yet how much time do people get trying to kill a police officer with a truck or a knife?

I must be delirious because I just don't get it. A quick look online indicates haloperidol is sometimes indicated.

Report this post »

fire40 says...
4:13pm Tue 9 Oct 12

interesting story , i had the same problem with my cat affecting both back legs and the Vet advised me to give him Asprin to thin his blood....i did and it worked he was up and about within the week ....have done this twice now with no side affects ????....But the vet did warn me that too much could cause organ failure, but then if he did not recover from the limp the alternative was to have him put down...that was 3 years ago and he has been fine since...

Report this post »

scoooobles says...
5:04pm Tue 9 Oct 12

I think my child has been hit by a car, I won’t take it to the hospital though, I’ll try and give it some Bob Martins for a few days and see what happens.
I hope everyone on here feels sorry for me when I go to prison.

Report this post »

FNS-man says...
5:27pm Tue 9 Oct 12

scoooobles wrote:
I think my child has been hit by a car, I won’t take it to the hospital though, I’ll try and give it some Bob Martins for a few days and see what happens. I hope everyone on here feels sorry for me when I go to prison.
Scoobles, I've got some horse transquiliser tablets. Surely they'll do something for the little tyke? No point checking on a website whether it'll kill your child, I'd just give them to him and see what happens.

Report this post »

Arjay says...
5:27pm Tue 9 Oct 12

I have the impression this might cost the RSPCA dearly.
Clearly a case for advice and education, rather than for prosecution?
Antagonising potential donors by forcing through this prosecution is no way to help raise the profile of the RSPCA.....

One is inclined to say to Inspector Hammond, using the immortal words of Captain Mainwaring:
'You STUPID boy'......

Report this post »

Adrian XX says...
5:37pm Tue 9 Oct 12

This case is a warning to other people

This is indeed a warning to other people: NEVER EVER CALL OR INVOLVE THE RSPCA IN ANYTHING.

They are a lunatic-fringe charity who would like the world to be vegan. They were set up to prevent cruelty but they interfere in cases where there is clearly no cruelty involved. They were even once interested in prosecuting a case of someone eating a fish alive (instead of just letting it die slowly in the air first then eating it). This just goes to show how crazy they are.

The woman should have sought good legal advice: there has to be proof that the animal suffered and didn't simply die in a stupor.

Report this post »

dvdr says...
5:47pm Tue 9 Oct 12

I don't like cats, but I have every sympathy for this lady who thought she was doing her best for her pet. Yes, she got it wrong - but lost her pet as a result! To prosecute her for doing what she thought was best is deeply unkind. We don't know how much she could afford for professional treatment, but a fully formed prosecution for her best efforts does seem entirely wrong. Down with the RSPCA for unfeeling Nazism!

As said, I don't like cats, but I do sympathise with someone trying, with perhaps limited resources, to help her pet. Good for her! Bad for the RSPCA!

Report this post »

Adrian XX says...
6:05pm Tue 9 Oct 12

She should have let the thing just die.

I'm inclined to agree.

Report this post »

Lord Spring says...
6:37pm Tue 9 Oct 12

FNS-man wrote:
scoooobles wrote:
I think my child has been hit by a car, I won’t take it to the hospital though, I’ll try and give it some Bob Martins for a few days and see what happens. I hope everyone on here feels sorry for me when I go to prison.
Scoobles, I've got some horse transquiliser tablets. Surely they'll do something for the little tyke? No point checking on a website whether it'll kill your child, I'd just give them to him and see what happens.
I used find Ellimans Horse Linament very good for muscular pains my mother swore by it

Report this post »

Howdie says...
6:47pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Having worked in a chemist for many years you'll be surprised the amount of people coming in trying to buy medication for their pets, (i.e.Piriton, kaolin and morphine) and then get cross when I've refused to sell it to them as human medicine is not licensed to sell or give to animals without a vets prescription (due to insuffient evidence or proof that it's not safe in animals). A vet takes responsilbilty, as a doctor does for humans, when they prescribe medication for animals and that's the ONLY safe way to treat animals........and as for not taking the cat to the vet if being hit by a car..unbelievable

Report this post »

Howdie says...
6:49pm Tue 9 Oct 12

mysticalshoelace wrote:
The paracetamol may have been ignorance but not taking it to the vet when you think it's been hit by a car is downright neglect!
completly agree.

Report this post »

Specialist says...
6:57pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Oh well not a bad thing! one less cat killing small birds and crapping in peoples gardens!!!!!

Report this post »

KLH says...
7:17pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Specialist wrote:
Oh well not a bad thing! one less cat killing small birds and crapping in peoples gardens!!!!!
Well, one of the things this story has done is publicise a way of killing cats using medication that practically everyone has in their homes. And knowing how many people do not like cats... Of course I do not condone or advocate people using such methods to
deal with the local feline pest, far from it, just that the story might put ideas in some people's heads.

At least it might result into scaring cat owners to keep their moggies indoors so birds and wildlife can be safe!

Report this post »

scoooobles says...
7:24pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Adrian XX wrote:
This case is a warning to other people

This is indeed a warning to other people: NEVER EVER CALL OR INVOLVE THE RSPCA IN ANYTHING.

They are a lunatic-fringe charity who would like the world to be vegan. They were set up to prevent cruelty but they interfere in cases where there is clearly no cruelty involved. They were even once interested in prosecuting a case of someone eating a fish alive (instead of just letting it die slowly in the air first then eating it). This just goes to show how crazy they are.

The woman should have sought good legal advice: there has to be proof that the animal suffered and didn't simply die in a stupor.
Yeah the cat probably didnt even suffer much ..... check out the symptoms, sounds like a right laugh -

Paracetamol poisoning in cats -

In the first few hours, an affected cat's breathing may become faster and more laboured. Her tongue may go blue and her heart beat faster. These are all effects of a reduced oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. The cat is likely to be depressed, may vomit, or develop swellings of the head and paws. If the cat survives these early symptoms, over the next few days, she is likely to produce blood-stained urine, develop abdominal pain, and may become jaundiced (where the whites of the eyes become yellow). Seizures are possible, as is a lapse into a coma. Death can occur up to 6 days after the consumption of paracetamol.

Report this post »

scoooobles says...
7:28pm Tue 9 Oct 12

doubled with the fact the cat was still suffering with whatever was wrong with his leg ........ but the poor, poor lady had to pay £250, what a punishment!

Report this post »

scoooobles says...
7:33pm Tue 9 Oct 12

sorry it was £280, which probably didnt even cover the costs of the RSPCA trying to save the cat's life.

Report this post »

oneshortleg says...
7:38pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Think this is a massive PR mistake, like so many other companies and organisations who take things a bit too far to prove themselves. I do a lot of charity work but have always made a conscious effort to support local smaller charities as they have less money and therefore are less likely to spend in frivolously. Oxfam once had to radically change things as it was reported it spent a huge amount of each pound on admin!

Report this post »

HRH of Boscombe says...
9:54pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Can't believe all the fuss here.
.
She deserved to be fine for pure stupidity.
.
Even if she didn't know it was poisonous the dose was way too high for the body mass ratio.

Report this post »

ScoobyVic says...
10:15pm Tue 9 Oct 12

She was stupid in not contacting the vets but if she thought that paracetamol might help and didn't know it would harm her cat then she wasn't maliciously doing it. When I watch the American ASPCA programmes if they have anyone deliberately neglecting animals ie starving, fighting etc then they prosecute but if they think someone has made a genuine mistake through not knowing and didn't deliberately do it then they try and re educate rather than prosecuting.
I as a cat owner do know that paracetamol is deadly the same as lily pollen but I don't assume everyone knows this, she must be devastated.
And to be labelled as a cat killer on the echo website and in the paper will take a long time to go away.

Report this post »

Capricorn 1 says...
10:15pm Tue 9 Oct 12

If people got fined for stupidity, hands up who would never have been fined in their life.

To prosecute this woman is adding insult to injury, and the RSPCA has shot itself in the foot.

Are there any more metaphors that I can mix?

Report this post »

ScoobyVic says...
10:36pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Also having worked in the pet trade for quite a number of years and keeping various different pets I myself have seen first hand that the RSPCA think they are God of the animal world.
You have to bow down to them almost even if they are wrong otherwise they'll take your animals just because they can.
I can't help wondering if she hadn't told them she had given her cat paracetamol if this would even have happened? Have they actually done an autopsy that really said Midnight died from poisoning?
She was stupid for doin it and I certainly don't condone it but think she has paid a heavy price for a mistake.

Report this post »

catlover2012 says...
1:17pm Wed 10 Oct 12

this is a really sad story but never the less its a cruel one. Why Is this woman allowed to have any more pets. She lives close enough to a clinic that wouldn't have cost her a penny but why did she not do anything. This woman should be banned from having pets full stop. Its obvious that this woman only thinks about herself.

Report this post »

FrDarryl says...
1:50pm Wed 10 Oct 12

ScoobyVic wrote:
She was stupid in not contacting the vets but if she thought that paracetamol might help and didn't know it would harm her cat then she wasn't maliciously doing it. When I watch the American ASPCA programmes if they have anyone deliberately neglecting animals ie starving, fighting etc then they prosecute but if they think someone has made a genuine mistake through not knowing and didn't deliberately do it then they try and re educate rather than prosecuting.
I as a cat owner do know that paracetamol is deadly the same as lily pollen but I don't assume everyone knows this, she must be devastated.
And to be labelled as a cat killer on the echo website and in the paper will take a long time to go away.
If your appraisal indicates a real difference in terms of general policy and practise in the APSCA, then their approach to animal welfare is, on the whole, both more rational and more compassionate for the sake both parties - humans and animals - than their British counterparts.

Report this post »

elfinia says...
2:31pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Ignorant woman made a mistake.

She lost her beloved cat and then is prosecuted.

A disgraceful waste of public money and a shocking, pompous lack of common sense from the RSPCA. Why don't they pay for a poster scheme to inform the public NOT to use human medicine on animals.

Report this post »

elfinia says...
2:42pm Wed 10 Oct 12

I took my cat to the ( private) vet not realising that he had terminal cancer and thinking that I would be bringing him home that evening after treatment.
I phoned up and they gave me the sad news ( we had had him for 15 years ) and strongly suggested he were euthanised. I asked them to wait until my son ( a teenager at that time ) was back from college so he could "say goodbye" as he adored the cat......they were really unhelpful , saying the cat would suffer ( although the cat had not shown signs of "suffering" and it would just be a few hours).

I was surprised that I was made to feel "bad" about suggesting such a thing. In the event my cat was kept until we got there.

Why was such an autocratic fuss made ?

Report this post »

mummy123abc says...
7:00pm Wed 10 Oct 12

it says..

She gave the cat a quarter of a 500mg tablet followed by a second quarter the following morning.

The cat later collapsed and a family member called the RSPCA asking for help.

She was put on a saline drip to combat dehydration and boost her energy levels but died from organ failure.

so obviously and firstly, they meant no harm, hence them calling for help. The cat was put onto a drip to help but it failed, by the time she found out she was harming her animal rather than helping it, it was already too late.

Obviously if she thought her ct had been hit by a car she should have sought out a vet, but to be honest I grew up with loads of cats and sometimes they get bumps from cars which are so minor they end up with a few scratches and other than that are fine. If her cat looked well and was eating/acting normal apart from the limp perhaps she wanted to sub the pain until morning to go to a vet???

I think people are being too judgemental and unfair in this case and she should never have been charged at all! Especially when there are people out there purposely poisoning cats out of bitterness!!

Report this post »

leagalbrief says...
10:34am Thu 11 Oct 12

elfinia wrote:
I took my cat to the ( private) vet not realising that he had terminal cancer and thinking that I would be bringing him home that evening after treatment.
I phoned up and they gave me the sad news ( we had had him for 15 years ) and strongly suggested he were euthanised. I asked them to wait until my son ( a teenager at that time ) was back from college so he could "say goodbye" as he adored the cat......they were really unhelpful , saying the cat would suffer ( although the cat had not shown signs of "suffering" and it would just be a few hours).

I was surprised that I was made to feel "bad" about suggesting such a thing. In the event my cat was kept until we got there.

Why was such an autocratic fuss made ?
Why dont you name and shame this vet for your poor treatment,

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree