Yea, there are SO many miscommunications that can occur, so much displaced grief/guilt/anger that can drive people's opinions of vets, and I've heard a lot of really bad "disgruntled ex-employee makes false accusation" stories, so I am usually pretty quick to reserve judgment on wait for both sides to come out and/or assume innocence, but... there's just really no way to misinterpret this, I think. And the one guy either quoted in the article or who wrote in the comments (can't remember) who was talking about how awesome the guy was and how up to date his medicine was and then said "granted that was about 30 years ago..." Really? What does that have to do with anything happening now? *boggle*
Even on some vet subscription sites he's got some apologists who are just sure some shining truth is going to come out, but jesus people come on. I mean, I doubt the "organ harvesting" stuff is true because there really isn't any reason to do it, but the man undoubtedly kept this dog in poor conditions AND even if his intentions were some kind of "I just couldn't euthanize the poor dog" that is totally unacceptable, not heroic and there's no reason for it to stay AT the clinic in a filthy cage.
What is really bizarre to me though is that there just really isn't THAT much need for blood transfusions even in pretty busy emergency clinics that the dog would have visible evidence, so what the h*ll? When I was in vet school I had a dog in their blood donor program and on average they needed us to come in for a draw maybe once every two months and sometimes we would go 6-9 months between draws. Granted, they had multiple dogs in their program but this was at a large metropolitan vet college/referral center, back in the day when they were almost the only referral center in town.