| Complaint: | Complaint 20-119 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Pamela Drake |
| Premises: | New Frontier Animal Hospital |
| Related: | 20-118 |
This follows from 20-118 and pertains to Drake's role in the matter. Drake was the veterinarian at New Frontier who was apparently willing to see the dog. The complainant says she called around after learning the dog had a throat tumor to see who could do the surgery; a local veterinary clinic apparently recommended Drake. The complainant says that when she showed up with her dog Drake told her she had reviewed the records from Vishkautsan and would no longer do the surgery. She was instead told the dog had cancer and should be euthanized, with Drake allegedly saying "you don't want to make him suffer." Drake also allegedly said the complainant had refused radiation therapy (per Vishkatusan) which the complainant says is false; she says that she was freaked out about the cost at the moment it was mentioned but suggests that it wasn't impossible. She also tells us that her dog was overall in good health and had been breathing normally prior to the visit, though he started to struggle in the office. She says that Drake basically guilted her into the euthanasia, making sure to collect the $327 in advance; she laments that Drake didn't think her dog's entire life was worth more than 15 minutes of her time. She also comments that despite almost passing out in the office he was breathing fine after being sedated for the euthanasia; she claims she asked why he was breathing so well now, but Drake just went ahead and injected the fatal drugs.
Drake states that she first learned about the dog's case earlier that month when the complainant called seeking a second opinion from VCA about his nose drippings. She also states the complainant later canceled as the dog got worse and was taken directly to VSCOT instead (see 20-118). She notes that she reviewed the records from VSCOT that stated that while the biopsy showed no cancer, the clinical presentation was supportive for carcinoma; she also says the VSCOT record states the complainant refused another biopsy or radiation therapy. She also states that the dog almost passed out several times in her office and that the complainant had said the dog would pass out at home if she didn't hold his head up. She "gently stated" that Vishkautsan's notes suggested euthanasia if the dog kept passing out, so allegedly the complainant volunteered to have the dog euthanized. According to this account, the complainant said that Vishkautsan had never broached the subject of euthanasia to her, which is markedly different from what's actually said in the complaint.
The Committee didn't appear to talk about this one: "The Committee had no further discussion besides what was discussed in case 20-118." I'd also point to that one for some thoughts on this entire matter.
This appears to be another case where the Investigative Committee's report is at least in part misrepresenting the events in the case: "The following day, due to the dog's declining condition Complainant presented the dog to New Frontier Animal Medical Center for humane euthanasia." She says she presented there to discuss surgery and got pressed into doing a euthanasia, whereas Drake says the complainant came in requesting surgery and then asked for it. But it doesn't sound quite like she was showing up to have her dog killed that day, does it?
| Source: | November 11, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| David Stoll | Respondent Attorney |
| Pamela Drake | 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.