I'm confused, either the dogs nails were removed or they were not ? CB is an intelligent man and I can't imagine him embellishing the story. If the dogs nail were removed, that is total incompetence if not total malpractice or perhaps I'm missing something here.
You're missing nothing.
Chuck, Toby, my 125+lb. Great Dane, went in to be neutered (the "sensitive procedure.") Because he didn't like having his feet messed with...and being a VERY strong guy...I asked for his nails to be "trimmed" while under anesthesia. Common request, like asking to have your dog's teeth cleaned at the same time.
The nails were cut off. You couldn't even tell he had nails. Three got badly infected. We went through many rounds of antibiotics, and even the vet, to her credit, made a house call to Jarabacoa to do infection control before she went to work with Peter and Hilde's pups. One toe stayed infected and got worse. Necrotic tissue had to be removed. Ultimately the infection spread into the bone and a toe had to be amputated before the infection spread to the whole leg.
Yes, he's a big, rambunctous boy and certainly the vet can't control what a dog does post surgery. But I've had dogs all my life and have trimmed toenails forever. Never have I cut nails completely off and never have any of my dogs toes gotten so badly infected post-trim.
None of this would have happened if the nails had been routinely trimmed, that is just the dead tip removed. We aren't talking a big deal or a concept difficult to communicate. I'd never have approved the nails be completely cut off.
The vet and her staff are very nice, compassionate, friendly people and going there is a positive experience. I admire her good community works.
But I'd rather Toby have all his toes.
I would imagine lessons have been learned.
