| Complaint: | Complaint 20-116 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Daina Iman |
| Premises: | Northwest Pet Clinic |
The complainant tells us that her dog had been to other veterinarians in the area for other health problems but an emergency came on suddenly. Her dog had a reduced appetite and was very lethargic and suddenly went downhill. She says the dog was reminding her of dogs she'd had close to the end of their lives. The complainant couldn't get her dog into her regular clinics so she went to Northwest Pet Clinic. Iman examined the dog and initially suspected Cushing's. She ran some tests and then informed the complainant that they didn't have to worry about Cushing's as the dog actually had immune-related hemolytic anemia (IMHA). Iman also allegedly said that there may be cancer but she didn't feel a mass. Iman allegedly said the dog needed a transfusion that day or the dog would die and that the dog may have to go to two different facilities to get enough plasma. The complainant was given an estimate for $3200 but felt she was being pushed out of her own dog's care. She says that her family would never put a dog through intrusive treatments without a reasonable chance of survival, so she asked what the prognosis was. A vet tech said the prognosis was "fair" but when she asked what that meant, the vet tech said she didn't know. The complainant started crying and said that maybe she should just bring her home to die comfortably (she emphasizes that she was interested in a palliative care plan and with whom they would like to schedule the euthanasia). She spoke with her husband to determine what to do next and considered the transfusions but felt uncomfortable in the situation. She asked to have her dog given back to her and Iman told her that she would not give the dog back. The complainant says she was worried she'd never see her dog again and wondered if she could breach into the facility and get her dog out. She started crying and pleading with Iman who told her that ordinarily she would agree to send the dog home and then send someone over to kill the dog, but that with coronavirus restrictions she couldn't do that. She felt terrified and scared and was afraid the police would come after her for the dog and now regrets she didn't call the police on Iman instead. She asked if her husband could be there for the euthanasia and was told no because of the coronavirus restrictions. Iman finally relented and said that the dog could spend some time in the complainant's air-conditioned car before dying. She spent her last moments with the dog, a tech came out to sedate the dog, and then she was allowed in the building to witness the euthanasia. She states that she considered trying to run away with the sedated dog but felt it wouldn't be good to do that to her dog in a sedated condition. The complainant concludes by stating she's an animal loving vegan who has always euthanized her pets rather than let them suffer. She also says that Iman betrayed her and her dog.
Iman's writeup tells us about the medical workup she was doing on the dog. She also says that she told the complainant that if the transfusion was not an option that euthanasia would be the next best option. She says that it "saddens her" that the complainant "misinterpreted her advocation for Lucy's welfare as a violation to her pet owner rights." She says that at no time did she ever refuse to release the dog to the complainant. She also says that perhaps the complainant just felt that way because of the phone conversations necessary during the coronavirus pandemic. She does say that discharges against medical advice at Northwest Pet Clinic have a disclaimer that they may send out an officer from Pima Animal Care Center for a welfare check. She says she uses this form regularly.
The Investigative Committee seems to be concerned with the complainant, asking why she didn't want to pursue the transfusion or other treatment as the dog was not doing that bad at the time. (If they bothered to read her statement, they'd see that she wasn't given a clear prognosis, was terrified to tears, and didn't want to make her dog suffer without a reasonable prognosis.) The Committee seems to give Iman a pass here though they do state that there was a lack of compassion and communication; they also said the form could be seen as threatening. However, the "Committee did not feel these concerns rose to the level of a violation."
| Source: | November 11, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Daina Iman | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Aye |
| Jarrod Butler | Aye |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | December 12, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Seconded By: | Jessica Creager |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Absent |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Absent |
| Sarah Heinrich | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
The primary source for the above summary was obtained as a public record from the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. You are welcome to review the original records and board meeting minutes by clicking the relevant links. While we endeavor to provide an accurate summary of the complaint, response, investigative reports and board actions, we encourage you to review the primary sources and come to your own conclusions. In some cases we have also been able to reach out to individuals with knowledge of specific complaints, and where possible that information will be included here.