Court to re-examine case of rescue dog adopted as organ donor

A Polish court will this month reconsider the case of a rescue dog that was adopted from a shelter in order to act as a kidney donor for a purebred dog, before then being put up for adoption again.

The vet who carried out the procedure, and who described it as the first commercial transplant involving a dog in Poland, denies the wrongdoing. The donor dog’s new family and prosecutors disagree.

Animal welfare groups say the case could set an important precedent regarding the right of homeless animals not to be used as a “source of spare parts” for pets.

The case dates back to 2015, when Beata Rasmussen, who had adopted a mixed-breed dog named Saturn (pictured above), discovered by chance during an ultrasound scan that he was missing one kidney and had a surgical scar.

She then learned that two years earlier Saturn had been adopted by the owners of a German Shepherd suffering from kidney failure. Saturn was used as a kidney donor by his new owners and was then put up for adoption again two months after the operation.

The recipient dog, named Joker, died 17 days after the operation, reported newspaper Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

Rasmussen discovered details of the operation in an article published in a medical journal that she found online. In 2018, she decided to tell her story to the media after discovering that the same clinic had used a stray dog to do a transplant to save another purebred dog, a Corgi.

In 2019, together with animal rights foundations Mondo Cane and Viva!, Rasmussen took the case to court, accusing the veterinarian who carried out the procedure of animal abuse. Prosecutors also brought charges against the vet.

“Saturn did not consciously make a decision to save another dog’s life,” said Viva’s president, Cezary Wyszyński, this week. “That decision was made for him by people who, in my opinion, were completely unconcerned about his future fate.”

“He was chosen at the shelter because he was of a similar size to the recipient and in excellent health, not because he was nice or that his character fit his new family. These people first used him as a kidney donor and then got rid of him.”

However, an initial ruling acquitted the vet of the charges, with the court finding that he had acted in a state of superior necessity of saving the life of an animal.

Rasmussen and the prosecutors appealed that decision, and an appeals court upheld their complaints, overturning the initial verdict and ordering the lower court to review the case.

The appeals court found that “it is undisputed…that the procedures [which took place]…were not and are not permitted by law, and that the accused knowingly and intentionally inflicted pain and suffering not only on the donor dogs, but also on the recipients”, reported Viva foundation.

The court also found that there are no circumstances in the case to assume the existence of a state of superior necessity on the part of the accused in which the life of the organ recipients constituted a higher legally protected good than the health of the donors.

The court noted that the defendant was aware of the low percentage of transplant recipient dogs who manage to survive even an additional year.

Only 30% of canine kidney recipients survive beyond 100 days after surgery, Agnieszka Neska-Suszyńska, a leading expert in animal kidney health, told Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Less than 20% live longer than 6 months and hardly any survive to one year after transplantation. Studies show that animal kidney donors also live shorter lives.

Neska-Suszyńska added that these figures were established in studies where the majority of dog doners were related to the organ recipients. “And even so, the results are extremely disappointing,” she said.

“At the appeal stage, we argued that homeless animals, who had already been harmed once by man because they were on the street, were treated like a ‘spare parts warehouse’ in this case,” said Katarzyna Topczewska, a lawyer from Viva. “If the acquittal had been upheld, this would have set a dangerous precedent.”

However, the vet decided to challenge the appeal court’s decisions at the Supreme Court. But it dismissed the complaint, sending the case back to the district court where it had first been heard. Hearing on the case at that latter court will begin later this month.

“The verdict will determine whether, in future, homeless animals will be a source of spare parts for other animals whose owners have enough money and little enough empathy to opt for such a procedure,” said Topczewska.

Saturn himself, however, did not live to see the case resolved: he passed away before the first court ruling was issued.

Notes from Poland is run by a small editorial team and published by an independent, non-profit foundation that is funded through donations from our readers. We cannot do what we do without your support.

Main image credit: Viva!

Alicja Ptak

Alicja Ptak is senior editor at Notes from Poland and a multimedia journalist. She previously worked for Reuters.