Defendant, an assistant dog warden, is charged with negligently administering an intramuscular

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Defendant, an assistant dog warden, is charged with negligently administering an intramuscular"

Julie Joseph
6 years ago
Views:

1 IN THE GALLIPOLIS MUNICIPAL COURT, GALLIPOLIS, OHIO STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff, -vs- CASE NO. 14CRB157 JASON HARRIS, Defendant. JOURNAL ENTRY Defendant, an assistant dog warden, is charged with negligently administering an intramuscular injection of sodium pentobarbital to twelve (12) specific companion animals thus causing unnecessary and/or unjustifiable pain or suffering when there was a reasonable remedy or relief available, in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section (C)(1). The facts, consisting of a video recording of a statement made by the defendant to Gallia County Sheriff's Office Chief Richard Grau and Lieutenant Kevin Werry, show that the defendant was given the task of euthanizing twelve dogs which were confined at the Gallia County Animal Shelter. One dog was euthanized on September 18, 2013, and the other eleven were euthanized on February 14, The defendant said that he did attend a training on the intracardial injection method of euthanizing dogs, received appropriate certification, and that he follows the training that he received. Defendant stated that his certificate was a lifetime certification and only for administration of the one drug, sodium pentobarbital. At the training, defendant was instructed that one could use the same drug, sodium pentobarbital, to both sedate and then euthanize a dog. The defendant testified that he was trained to use 1 cubic centimeter per 10 pounds to euthanize a dog. His training instructed him to inject into

2 the "meaty part" of the hip or shoulder of a dog, an amount of the sodium pentobarbital sufficient to sedate the dog. After the dog is sedated, or "goes to sleep," the rest of the sodium pentobarbital is injected into the heart of the dog to actually euthanize it. Defendant said that all the dogs were asleep before he administered the intracardial injection. The defendant told the officers that the county animal shelter now has its own license to purchase the sodium pentobarbital that is used in the euthanasia process. Formally, the drug was purchased from local veterinarians. The defendant stated that he was not aware of a written policy governing the Gallia County Animal Shelter, and specifically, he was not aware of any written policy concerning how to conduct euthanasia. Further, defendant said he has served as assistant dog warden twice in his career. He served three years with a former warden, was away from the position for four years, then returned to that position. Defendant said that the procedure that he used to euthanize the twelve dogs that are the subject of this case is the same procedure that was used during his first tenure as assistant dog warden and that, upon returning after a four year absence, the procedure had not changed. The only thing that had changed was the manner in which the staff disposed of the bodies of the dogs. Regarding the euthanizations performed on February 14, 2014, defendant said that there was no written or verbal notification given to him that any of the dogs were to be rescued. Earlier in the week, the county administrator and the dog warden told him to euthanize some of the dogs. According to defendant, none of the cards on the dogs' pens indicated the dogs were to be rescued. Most of the dogs had been in the shelter six to eight months.

3 Dr. Brian Hendrickson, a local veterinarian, testified that sodium pentobarbital is an irritant, a "caustic" agent. He testified that sodium pentobarbital is an anesthetic agent that suppresses nervous function and can ultimately stop the heart. Further, he testified that sodium pentobarbital administered in a muscle and the insertion of the needle would cause pain. Dr. Hendrickson also testified that the American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines on Euthanasia, state that intramuscular injection is an unacceptable practice for accomplishing euthanasia because of the limited information as to its effectiveness and "high probability of pain in an awake animal." The AVMA is a handbook of best practices for veterinarians to reference in their day to day practices. Dr. Hendrickson testified that intramuscular injection would cause severe irritation, inflammation, burning and stinging at the site of the injection. He testified that an intramuscular injection is unacceptable, by itself as a method of euthanasia. because it would cause a slow death. Dr. Hendrickson stated that some sodium pentobarbital solutions contain a numbing agent but the particular kind used by the Shelter did not. Dr. Hendrickson testified that euthanasia by intracardial injection of the sodium pentobarbital must only be done on a sedated dog. In response to cross examination, Dr. Hendrickson agreed that, just like humans, dogs have various pain tolerances. Further, he agreed that, if the vein is missed in an intravenous administration, the dog would experience a sensation of pain and that any time a needle pierces the skin, there is a sensation of pain. The defendant called another local veterinarian, Dr. Angela Dahse, who testified that sodium pentobarbital does cause sedation and, with an overdose, death. She did say that sodium

4 pentobarbital is not normally used as a sedative and not normally injected into the muscle but that, if necessary, it could be done. She testified that sodium pentobarbital is not the most caustic drug used to sedate an animal and that another drug which is more caustic is routinely used to sedate prior to surgery. Dr. Dahse testified that dogs react differently to pain. She also testified that to determine whether a particular dog was feeling pain, one would need to be present to be able to gauge a dog's reaction. Dr. Dahse noted that the drug insert for sodium pentobarbital does not say that muscular injection is prohibited. The manufacture's insert with the sodium pentobarbital states that the "calculated dose should be given in a single bolus injection." Dr. Dahse noted that injection of sodium pentobarbital into a muscle is not more painful than if an untrained person tried to inject it into a vein without success. Dr. Dahse testified that if the only method she had to sedate a dog was to inject sodium pentobarbital, she would use that drug prior to euthanizing it. Dr. Dahse testified that one half milliliter per ten pounds of dog would have been sufficient to sedate the dog. She also noted that any injection causes pain. Both doctors testified that sodium pentobarbital is not normally used for sedation. Ohio Revised Code Section (A) provides: No agent or employee of an animal shelter shall perform euthanasia by means of lethal injection on an animal by use of any substance other than combination drugs that contain pentobarbital and at least one noncontrolled substance active ingredient, in a manufactured dosage form, whose only indication is for euthanizing animals... The agent

or employee of an animal shelter when using a lethal solution to perform euthanasia on an animal shall use such solution in accordance with the following methods and in the following order of

5 or employee of an animal shelter when using a lethal solution to perform euthanasia on an animal shall use such solution in accordance with the following methods and in the following order of preference: (1) Intravenous injection by hypodermic needle; {2} Intraperitoneal injection by hypodermic needle; (3) Intracardial injection by hypodermic needle; (4) Solution or powder added to food. Ohio Revised Code {C}{2} states: "Any agent or emplevee of an animal shelter performing euthanasia by means of lethal injection shall do so only in a humane and proficient manner that is in conformity with the methods described in division (A) of this section and not in violation of Chapter 959 of the Revised Code." Ohio Revise Code {C)(1} states: "No person who confines or who is the custodian or caretaker of a companion animal shall negligently do any of the following:... (1) Commit any act by which unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused, permitted or allowed to continue, when there is a reasonable remedy or relief, against the companion animal..." Unnecessary or Unjustifiable Pain From Injection The complaints against the defendant allege that the injection of sodium pentobarbital caused unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering when there was a reasonable remedy or relief available.

6 The State presented evidence, through the testimony of Dr. Hendrickson's recitation of the best practices as set forth in the AMVA guidelines to euthanasia, that the injection of sodium pentobarbital as a euthanasia method had a "high probability" of causing pain to an animal. However, even though each of the twelve complaints specifically identifies a separate animal, the State did not present any evidence specific to the unnecessary pain and suffering allegedly caused to each of those identified animals. Each of the doctors who testified opined that, just like humans, each animal is different and would have different pain tolerances. Dogs who do experience pain are able to communicate that suffering to an observer. As would apply to humans, it would be impossible to determine whether unnecessary or unjustified pain is being experienced without observing a dog's reaction. If one conducted a study with twelve human beings where each is given an injection, several would have differing reactions. Some will feel no or little pain, some may have no reaction at all. Even if the injection is not caustic, some may feel pain and some may have severe reactions. Some may experience an allergic reaction, or a vasovagal reaction. It is assumed that some will feel pain. But, without observation, it cannot be determined who and how much. Of the twelve dogs to whom the sodium pentobarbital was administered intramuscularly, it is certain that some felt pain. Both doctors opined that a sedative injection into a muscle causes pain simply because of the piercing of the skin with a needle. While Dr. Hendrickson said that sodium pentobarbital injection into a muscle causes stinging and burning, Dr. Dahse testified that any injection into a muscle causes pain and that there are other sedatives that are more caustic and regularly used for injection into a muscle prior to surgery or treatment.

7 The only person present at the incident was the defendant. The defendant did not say that any of the dogs exhibited signs of pain and suffering upon administration of sodium pentobarbital into the muscle as a sedative. He did say that, once the dogs were "asleep," he administered a final intracardial dose to cause their death. He did not observe that any of the dogs suffered unnecessary or unjustifiable pain during the final administration of the drug. It is an unfortunate fact of our society that we, at times, must euthanize animals. It would be a wonderful situation if every dog which ends up in a government animal shelter could be saved. In a perfect world, the government would never have to control animal populations. Euthanasia is not treatment, but is necessary. When it is necessary to euthanize, the procedure must be done in a humane manner. Where there is evidence that an animal suffered unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering, the one so inflicting the pain should be held accountable. However, this is a criminal case and it is the State's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that pain was suffered and that it was unnecessary or unjustifiable. The State has failed to address each dog as an individual case. Further, the State did not present any evidence that any of the injected or euthanized dogs suffered any unnecessary or unjustifiable pain and/or suffering. A generalized suggestion of a "high probability" of pain is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that pain was experienced. The only evidence presented shows that the defendant administered a sedative and did not mention in his statement that any of the dogs exhibited signs of suffering. While the injection may have caused pain, it was necessary and humane to sedate the dogs.

Reasonable Remedy or Relief Much testimony concerned the preferred methods of euthanasia, as set forth in the statute and in the best practices of the American Veterinarians Medical Association

8 Reasonable Remedy or Relief Much testimony concerned the preferred methods of euthanasia, as set forth in the statute and in the best practices of the American Veterinarians Medical Association Guidelines to Euthanasia as well as the American Humane Society guidelines. These Guidelines, formulated for veterinarians, all set forth a preference of acceptable methods. The Guidelines presume the skill of a trained veterinarian. The existence of these Guidelines do not prove that any other method of euthanasia was available to the defendant. Defendant was trained and certified in the third preferred method, intracardial injection. There is no evidence that he, or any of the prior wardens, was trained in intravenous injection or in intraperitoneal injection. Defendant used the third preferred - not the least preferred (food) - method of euthanasia. Dr. Hendrickson testified that he had conducted training sessions with one former warden, Ms. Daniels, for her to learn how to administer sodium pentobarbital intravenously, but there was no evidence presented that she or any other warden ever achieved proficiency at that method. Drs. Hendrickson and Dahse testified that failure to perform intravenous injection successfully would cause pain. The State has not shown that the defendant had any access to any other drug for the sedation of the dogs. Further, the State has not shown that the defendant had anyone else available who could have procured any other drug for him - or who could have administered any drug, even the sodium pentobarbital, intravenously for him before he was to accomplish the euthanasia. Defendant is not a veterinarian. There is no evidence in the record that Defendant

9 has any special certifications or qualifications that would allow him to obtain any drug other than sodium pentobarbital. The State has not proved that the defendant was trained in any other method of euthanasia. There can be, then, no finding that he simply refused to use any other method. Further, the State has not proved there was a reasonable remedy or relief available to the defendant. Euthanasia process The euthanasia process that the defendant used was not completely in accordance with the AMVA Guidelines for veterinarians. Although the Guidelines call for sedation of the animal, they do not say that sodium pentobarbital cannot be used for sedation. Both doctors testified that it is not normally used for sedation. However, Dr. Dahse testified that if sodium pentobarbital is the only drug she had available to sedate an animal before euthanasia is performed, then she would use it for sedation. Dr. Dahse testified that one half milliliter per ten pounds of dog would have been sufficient to sedate the dog. The manufacture's insert with the sodium pentobarbital states that the "calculated dose should be given in a single bolus injection." That wording does not appear to be a commandment. If so, it would use the directives of "shall" or "must." To a person who was trained to use part of the syringe of the drug to sedate an animal and the remainder to provide the final end of life, the insert with the suggestive use of the word "should," does not put him on notice that his method is incorrect.

$_I II I...V...,...,...I 1 VI... IJ-...,"'.IU""'I"- tju11' U"U...Iu"\-II"5 u." U '\--,\A'", v, ",'I\; tj1u\,.\:;:\..iu'c;.$

10 _I II I...V...,...,...I 1 VI... IJ-...,"'.IU""'I"- tju11' U"U...Iu"\-II"5 u." U '\--,\A'", v, ",'I\; tj1u\,.\:;:\..iu'c;. Because the State has failed to show that any of the specific dogs identified in the twelve complaints suffered any unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering, the defendant must be found not guiltv. Further, because the State has failed to show an available, reasonable remedy or relief, the defendant must be found not guilty. It is so ORDERED. -, Margaret E~sl Judge The clerk is directed to send a copy of the foregoing Solicitor and William Cole, Attorney for Defendant. Entry to: Adam Salisbury, Gallipolis City shared drive: entrv-doq case

IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF GALLIPOLIS, onto

IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF GALLIPOLIS, onto STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff Case No. 14 CRB 157 AIL -vs- JASON HARRIS Defendant MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANT, JASON HARRIS Pursuant to this Court's Order, Defendant, Jason