A week ago, a stray puppy had taken refuge on the steps of a local store, drawing attention from passersby. The canine appeared to be in distress, displaying signs of malnutrition, rejecting offered food and water, and exhibiting minimal movement. Despite the concerned onlookers from Chelyabinsk, Russia, who attempted to seek veterinary assistance, their efforts faced initial resistance.
Evgenia, upon discovering the puppy’s plight, took it upon herself to seek help. She approached the nearest veterinary clinic, just a few houses away, requesting the doctor’s assessment of the dog’s condition. Offering to pay for the consultation, she urged the doctor to accompany her to the store. However, the doctor declined, prompting Evgenia to contact her husband. Together, they transported the puppy to the clinic, a decision met with unexpected hostility from the medical professional.
Critically, the justifications provided by the doctor appeared questionable. The puppy did not exhibit signs of rabies, and wearing protective gloves could have mitigated any perceived risks to the doctor.
This raises the ethical question of whether a homeless and ownerless dog should be denied the right to life solely based on its circumstances.