Duty To Treat Animals Depends On State Laws

Disappointingly enough, the duty of an owner to provide medical care to a pet is entirely dependent upon state law.

Suggested Veterinary Products

How many times have you seen a patient with a serious but treatable condition that your client just refused to treat? Have you ever felt that the lack of treatment bordered on cruelty or abuse? The law may agree with you.

Every state in the union has a statute that addresses animal cruelty. Obviously, state laws differ, but at least some of them require some level of veterinary care for animals. Others do not come out and explicitly require veterinary care, but those laws have later been interpreted to require such care by the courts.

In general, there is no duty to help others under the common law. Certain relationships create a duty of care such as that between a parent and minor child. But without some sort of state “good Samaritan” statute, one is legally allowed to walk right by a stranger bleeding to death on the sidewalk.

Similarly, one can, under the common law, ignore the distress of one’s own animal.

Any legal duty to treat an animal thus arises from state law, specifically the state cruelty statute. For example, Minnesota law states that “No person shall overdrive, overload, torture, cruelly beat, neglect, or unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate, or kill any animal, or cruelly work any animal when it is unfit for labor, whether it belongs to that person or to another person.” 

Interestingly, for the purpose of this law, Minnesota defines an animal as “every living creature except members of the human race.” So, not just horses, dogs and cats, but rabbits, mice and, one can only assume, insects and spiders.

This statute does not explicitly state that failure to provide veterinary care is a violation, but a court could certainly construe a lack of veterinary care to fall under the term “neglect.” To the best of my knowledge, there are no published cases using this law to require veterinary care in Minnesota. However, there are some cases in other states that have addressed just this issue.

In Texas, for example, a woman was prosecuted and convicted under the state cruelty law for failing to treat a dog with a severe dermatological condition. The relevant Texas law states, “A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly: fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, water, or care for an animal in the person's custody.”

The court interpreted “care” to include veterinary care. In spite of the fact that the woman attempted to treat the dog herself with homemade sulfur dips, was living on $400 a month Social Security benefits and had no means to transport the dog to the veterinarian’s office, the court still held that she had a legal duty to provide veterinary care for the dog.

In New York, however, a court came to a very different conclusion. The applicable New York law states, “A person who…deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or neglects or refuses to furnish it such sustenance or drink…is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.”

Using this law, a case was brought against a man who refused to address his dog’s very large mammary tumor. The owner told an investigator that he was not providing medical care for the dog due to his limited finances and his personal views on treatment for cancer. In this case, the court ruled in the owner’s favor, stating that the anticruelty statute was too vague to allow the public to know specifically what level of veterinary care was required for their animals.

The court grappled with the very real question of what level of care is sufficient to avoid prosecution. Did the owner have to have the tumor removed? Did he have to provide chemotherapy or radiation therapy if those were warranted? Would he open himself to prosecution if he did too much and the dog suffered as a result? Would he be required by law to spend more money than he had in order to treat his dog?

In the end, the court did what courts often do and suggested that this was a question better left to the state legislature.

“If we, as a society, have arrived at the point where we feel that the provision of medical care to alleviate or avoid pain and suffering is a duty undertaken by pet owners toward their pets,” the court said, “and that failure to fulfill this duty should be a crime, it is incumbent upon our Legislature to enact a provision that clearly sets the standard for—and gives notice of—the proscribed conduct.”

This uncertainty of where the lowest level of acceptable care lies is precisely the problem that we as a society face in this sort of case. It is very easy to say that owners have a duty to provide veterinary care for their pets. However, it is not so easy to create a law that encompasses all the potential situations in which an owner and a pet might find themselves.

Is routine care enough? Or must one provide advanced care such as chemotherapy? Who gets to decide? Does it matter that an owner legitimately cannot afford care? Should we require some sort of assurance that an owner can afford at least the minimum level of health care before he is allowed to own a pet?

We have all been in the situation where the client driving the Mercedes and wearing expensive clothes tells us she is unwilling to pay for lifesaving treatment for her pet. In this case it might be easy to judge that the client has a legal duty to provide that treatment.

But what of the 80-year-old widow who desperately wants to but cannot afford care for her only companion, a geriatric cat with cancer? Should she also be required to provide that care?

Courts can and do make these sorts of decisions when medical care for a child is involved. To my mind, it is an open question whether they should do so when the patient is a pet.

Dr. Barghusen practices in Bloomington, Minn.


4 thoughts on “Duty To Treat Animals Depends On State Laws

  1. my cat got hit by a car- dislocated his leg. the vet gave me two options 1.$3800 to surgically repair leg. 2. $2200 to amputate his leg. i didnt go with either of them and they made me wait 2.5 hours to discharge him from animal hospital at price of $400. 4 weeks later no surgery, he has regained mobility and almost back to normal. i have taken him to a chiropracturer who has been shifting his leg slowly back into place which will get him back to normal after 6-8 weeks at a total cost of about $250 5-6 sessions. The vets/ankmal hospitals wanted me to cut his leg off so they could make $2200 and leave the cat without a leg- wtf. i am glad i didnt waste the money and will never listen to another corrupt veternarian again. i do not believe dogs should have to suffer through chemotherapy- please dont make them suffer through cancer and watch old yeller again because it is the right thing to do and respectfully humane. it is all a scam. the vets are trained to use your emotional attachment (right side of your brain) to make monetary decisions because we decide on our emotions and not what is best for our wallets or our animals. It was sad to see people that attached to their pets to see people waste $10,000 on a pet that is going to die or maybe not even need surgery. i would be curious to see an investigation where some of these animals may not even be as sick as your vet is saying they are and are completely scamming people out of their hard earned money.

    1. You always have the right to a second opinion.Its sad you paint a profession with personal views on one encounter. I feel sorry for your animals that one day may need perfectly treatable conditions and you have become a vet hater. There are always options. People don’t always choose the right ones and are deaf to others. Our staff were ALWAYS aware of clients wishes and limitations and try to work within them to the best interests of the animals. I am willing to bet you came in the front door with a hostile attitude, you get what you give. You should try another practice more in line with your expectations, Like Dr. Pol of course.

  2. So i took my 1 and1/2 year old Chihuahua Kylo to the emergency vet hospital to get checked i knew she was hurting and knew i was too emotionally envolved to make a diagnosis on my own even though i have taken care of many dogs through the heaven can wait program. Once there they looked at my sick puppy and i heard the worst words come out of the drs. Mouth…I THINK ITS PARVO. SO HOW ARE U GONNA PAY. ITOLD THEM I WOULD NEED TO GO HOME TO GRAB MY CHECKBOOK COULD THEY TLEAST START TREATMENT… THEY SAID NO AND ILL HAVE TO TAKE MY DOG AND BRING HER BACK…. I KNEW I WAS PUTTING MY DOG IN HER CARRIER FOR THE LAST TIME ALIVE. HER HEALTH DETERIORATED FAST. SHE NEVER MADE IT HOME. I couldn’t believe they could watch me leave with her knowing they could have helped. It was devastating. I live in Nevada can they just refuse treatment here? Please help. dutchesshaberkorn@outlook.com

  3. I took my Bella into the vet (Pioneer Animal Clinic) as the vet previously mentioned that she could have allergies and wanted to do a blood test so we did this on March 29th. The vet said she would call me when the results came back, which she did a week later and left a voice mail as I wasn’t at home. She said if I had any questions to call her when I got the message so we can discuss a treatment plan. She was with a client so I left a message for her to call me back. On April 16th I still have not heard from her so I called and was told she was busy and I left a message for her to please return my call. On April 18th I called again and was told busy so left another message to call me, I want to discuss a treatment plan. On April 20th, I called again and left another message to return my call. On April 25th, I stopped by the vets office and asked to speak to the vet and was told she was out off the office. I told the receptionist that I have called several times and I have yet to get a call back and was getting getting the feeling I was being ignore and getting upset about it. I then later got a call at home and was told it would be better to make an appointment to come in and see her (the vet), so I made an appointment for a couple days later. On April 27th I met with Dr. Heath. She explained that I could give Bella shots or drops. She said I would have to give either one, once a day. I declined the shots and opted for the drops. She explained the dosage and that we would see how they would work and I may or may not have to continue with them the whole five months. I asked costt and she told me around $180.. I told her I couldn’t afford that and she said that if she ordered them that day I would get a discount that woulld bring the cost for the first batch to about $120. and the next time would be full price. I said okay order them and she said they should take 3 to 7 days to get them and she would call when the came in. All set and waited for the call. On May 11th I call the v ets office to find out the status of the drops. I was told they did not see anything regarding drops for Bella. She said she would do more checking and call me back. I did not get a call back so on May 14th I called again and was told the same thing. Then was put on hold for 5 minutes while who ever answered the phone went to check further. When someone came back on the phone it was another vet and was told Dr. Heath was on vacation and she would try to get hold of her and find out what is going with the drops and she would call me back. On May 17th, I called again to see what was found out because never received a call back and was told that the drops were ordered but the company failed to ship them and I would get a call when they came in. That raised a red flag along with no return phone calls. Finally on May 21st I got a call saying the drops were in and I can pick them up anytimes. I went in today May 23rd to get the drops and was told they came to $199.00. I told her that was not what I was quoted and she said she would go check with Dr. Heath. When she came back she said the vet told her she didn’t know anything about a discount. I told her I will pay what I was quoted and that was all. She said her office manager was at lunch so she couldn’t get her and said she needed the whole amount and I told her I wasn’t taking them and I walked out. A couple hours later I called the vets office to speak to the Office manager. The girl (ray) said the office manager was getting ready to leave and could she help me. I stated I really needed to talk to the office manager and she said the office manager was leaving and she woould be taking over her duties for the rest of the day and could she help me, I then asked to talk to an owner and she said could she help me so at that point I told her the same thing I have stated here and she said that they never know how much meds are going to cost until they get her so I asked why was I quoted the orignal cost and then a cost with the discount. She repeated that they don’t give quotes and maybe the vet was estimating costs and I told her the vet should never quote prices if that is the case and that I can’t afford the full price. Shy (ray) said what we need for you to do is come in an pick up the drops and pay for them. I explained again that I don’t and can’t and won’t pay the full amount when I was quoted a different price, so she can throw them away or send back that I won’t be in to get. She got nasty and said they can’t send them back because they were made specfie for Bella and told me I will have to pay for them. I told her I understood they were specifically for Bella but I can’t afford them therefore I won’t pick them up. She told me they will send me a bill and would have to pay that bill. I then told her to go ahead that I wasn’t paying it no matter how many bills they sent me. She kept saying I will pay and finally I told her that I would have to get a attorney and that I would be taking my business elsewhere and she said fine and I hung up.

Leave a Comment


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *