A new ruling from Massachusetts' highest court affirms that dog owners have the right to refuse treatment for their terminally ill pets.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of an animal cruelty case - Commonwealth vs. Maryann Russo. The lower court found that the defendant had not violated the animal cruelty statute in her decision to ignore a veterinarian's advice to euthanize her pet.
The SJC decision noted that justices did not necessarily condone Russo's actions or take a moral stance on the situation.
"Our opinion should not be read to condone the conduct alleged in the complaint or take a position one way or the other regarding 'complicated' and 'heartbreaking' end of life decisions," read the court's 20-page majority opinion. "Instead, we hold, on these facts, that the defendant committed no crime."
Russo was charged with a criminal complaint by the Quincy Division of the District Court in February 2021. She was being investigated by state police and the Animal Rescue League (ARL) for her treatment of her 14-year-old cocker spaniel, Tipper.
In the decision, written by Judge Frank Gaziano, the court defined that to establish a violation of the Massachusetts animal cruelty statute, defendants must "knowingly" and "willfully" subject an animal to "unnecessary torture, suffering or cruelty of any kind."
By bringing Tipper to receive medical care two separate times, and facing the difficult decisions concerning what could be done to alleviate his pain, Russo's earnest care for her pet was found not to have fulfilled these requirements.
According to the case, Russo's "untruthful" telephone messages and evasive behavior toward special police officials did indicate ill intent toward Tipper's unnecessary suffering. However, since her intentions behind avoiding ARL contact were speculative, they were insufficient in establishing probable cause.
Reports show that Russo first brought Tipper to the VCA South Shore Animal Hospital in late December 2020. She was recommended surgery to remove a large mass on the dog's left side, but Russo declined the treatment and returned home with her pet.
Three weeks later, Tipper was once again brought into the animal hospital, still bearing a "large necrotic mass" and in "significant" pain, covered in "raw" sores and unable to walk or stand. Records show that veterinarians advised Russo that nothing could be done for her pet, including the surgery she had initially been recommended.
Russo told the hospital that she would have a different doctor euthanize her pet, and took Tipper home. Given Russo's history at the animal hospital, officials did not believe this claim and flagged the case for special state police and the ARL.
Sgt. Paul Parlon, the officer assigned to the case, made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Russo. Two days after Tipper's second doctor's visit, Russo left a voice message stating that his condition had improved, that he was now eating, drinking, and going to the bathroom, and that she no longer planned to euthanize her pet. Russo ignored the officer's message stating that he needed to see Tipper in person.
Over a month after the initial doctor's visit, Parlon was finally able to enter the defendant's residence, where he found that Tipper looking stiff and "extremely ill". The defendant's mother insisted that Tipper's condition was improving, but Parlon reported the dog's raw-looking sores, distended stomach, and shallow breathing and asserted that Tipper was dying.
The defendant's mother repeatedly asked Parlon not to include these observations in his report. She warned Parlon that he would not "'take her dog'... and that Tipper would 'die at home'".
The ARL pursued a court order to ensure that Tipper would receive proper medical care. The pet was seized by authorities with a warrant and was later euthanized.
