Woman found not guilty of ‘keeping dying dog in horrific conditions’ Spain’s Valencia

IN a controversial ruling, Spain’s Supreme Court has cleared a woman of any wrongdoing after she kept her pet dog in appalling conditions for three months while it was dying of cancer.

The decision has sparked debate over whether it is acceptable to disregard a vet’s advice when an animal is terminally ill.

The case centres on a woman who, after being advised by a vet to euthanise her dog, Luna, chose not to follow the recommendation.

Luna, suffering from an untreated cancerous tumour, was kept at home in unsanitary conditions, ultimately enduring significant pain and deterioration.

The Tribunal Supremo, in a 3-2 decision, ruled in favour of the defendant, concluding that she was not responsible for the animal’s death.

The majority of judges determined that the woman could not have prevented the inevitable outcome, while two dissenting judges argued that she should have had Luna euthanised as advised by the vet.

READ MORE:

The events date back to October 2018, when the woman took Luna, who was neither microchipped nor registered, to a veterinary clinic in Valencia.

There, the dog was diagnosed with a large, ulcerated tumour and a severe infection.

The vet recommended immediate euthanasia, but the woman requested time to consult with her daughter and was prescribed a five-day course of antibiotics and anti-inflammatories, with the intention of returning for euthanasia.

However, she failed to follow through and did not seek further treatment, allowing the dog’s condition to worsen.

Three months later, local police were called to the woman’s home for a medical emergency involving a family member.

Upon arrival, officers noticed Luna’s severe condition, including a large, infected wound and poor hygiene.

The dog was taken to an animal shelter, where she had to be euthanised. The local neighbourhood association covered the €312.88 cost of hospitalisation and cremation.

Initially, the woman was sentenced to nine months in prison and a two-year ban on owning animals for animal abuse.

However, the Valencia Court overturned this ruling. Dissatisfied, an animal protection organisation appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the acquittal and ordered the association to pay the legal costs.

The high court ruled that the evidence did not show active abuse or abandonment, asserting that Luna’s condition remained consistent with her terminal diagnosis from months earlier.

The majority of judges concluded that the woman could not be held responsible for the dog’s death simply because she did not opt for euthanasia.

However, Justices Ángel Hurtado and Manuel Marchena dissented, arguing that the woman’s failure to provide necessary veterinary care and her neglect exacerbated the dog’s suffering.

They stressed that she should have been convicted for negligent conduct, which directly contributed to the dog’s pain and worsening condition.

While the dissenting judges did not seek to punish the woman for not euthanising Luna, they believed her neglect should have been recognised as a form of abandonment that worsened the dog’s injuries.

The ruling has raised important questions about the responsibilities of pet owners and the role of veterinarians in decisions regarding terminally ill animals.