| Complaint: | Complaint 20-56 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Margaret Sorenson |
| Premises: | Main Animal Hospital |
The complainant tells us that she believes Sorensen euthanized her dog in a cruel and unprofessional manner. She hopes the vet board will make Sorensen change her procedures. She tells us that she called ahead and then brought her dog in for the euthanasia. A veterinary technician gave the dog a shot and said it would take seven or eight minutes for it to kick in. Rather than sedating the dog, the dog started to pace and pant around the room and seemed to be feeling unwell. She says after a few , her father asked the veterinary technician what was going on. Apparently, the tech got annoyed at this and said the already said it would take seven or eight minutes and to talk to the veterinarian. Sorensen came in and the dog was lying down but still tracking everyone with his eyes. Sorensen said that he may need a couple of extra units but that the dog wouldn't notice; she gave the shot and the dog cried out, followed by the complainant crying out as well. She says the final shot was given in a leg that was known to be painful for the dog and wonders if Sorensen even read her dog's chart. She states that she has had other dogs euthanized but never anything like this. She also says that she'll always remember her last minutes with her dog as being like this, contrasting it with the procedure used by her veterinarian in California.
Sorensen's response states that while the complaint was only about the final visit, we need to have a synopsis of all the dog's care. She then discusses the day of the euthanasia with the story more or less tracking what the complainant said. She says that she reminded the complainant that the sedative is a dissociative drug that leaves the animal in a "twilight" before finally getting the second drug. She also says that they can still stay alert despite having the drug which is why the dog was tracking everyone around the room with his eyes. She also tells us that she's been using this euthanasia protocol for quite some time and nobody's ever complained about it; in her words, "[o]ur Clients seem to prefer them in a Twilight prior to the euthasol injection." She says there were no notes in the dog's record about the painful area where she initially tried to give the injection.
The Investigative Committee said that they sympathized with the complainant but that nobody did anything wrong; they blame the complainant for having a preconceived notion of how the euthanasia was going to go.
| Source: | June 6, 2020 AM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Margaret Sorenson | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Cameron Dow | Aye |
| Carolyn Ratajack | Aye |
| Christina Tran | Absent |
| Jarrod Butler | Absent |
| Robert Kritsberg | Aye |
| Steve Seiler | Absent |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | July 7, 2020 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Jane Soloman |
| Seconded By: | Sarah Heinrich |
| Roll Call: | |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Absent |
| Jane Soloman | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Absent |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| 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.