Personally, I think the the author was too hard on the shelter for planning to euth the dog. The shelter's job is to help as many animals get into good homes as they can, not provide thousands of dollars worth of surgery for every dog who needs it. How many perfectly healthy and adoptable animals could have been helped with that $6000?
i also didn't catch which bone disorder the dog has, but I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess bi-lateral elbow dysplasia. Jack has elbow dysplasia in one of his elbows and had to have surgery plus physical therapy afterward. Now, 3 years later, he is doing much better than his vets thought he would, but it has taken effort on our part though supplements and judicious use of meds and exercise, and it will always be a condition that has to be managed.
I just don't get where the article gets off criticizing the shelter for wanting to euth the dog. Yes, the dog was treatable, but to the the tune of $6000 worth or surgery, stem cell therapy, and physical therapy. Add to that the fact that whoever adopts this dog is going to have to realize her physical limitations and manage her accordingly for the rest of her life, which makes her a special needs adoption. Shelters do not have unlimited resources, especially in today's economy.
So we are not supposed to judge the owners of the dog at all for not wanting to spend that kind of money on their pet, but it's a-ok to judge the shelter, which is responsible for the care, well being, and futures of MANY, MANY animals (likely with limited funds) for planning to put down a dog requiring thousands of dollars worth of surgery who will have to then be adopted out as a special needs animal? In addition, the shelter couldn't have been all that hell bent on euth, seeing as the rescue was able to step in and raise the funds.
Sorry, I'm just not buying what the author is selling.