I didn't get that impression from anyone one here. Most of the people who posted (including myself) said we felt the dog should be evaluated for medical issues and that we wouldn't jump to instantly killing the dog as others would have. From what I gather, the dog showed no signs of aggression with people in the last home or with kitty until this incident, which very well could mean there's a medical issue encroaching (thyroid disease was brought up and is a strong possibility based on some other descriptions of the dog).

NO ONE said the dog should be kept alive at all cost. Sometimes the kindest thing you can do to a dog who is anxiety ridden and fearful and aggressive is to end its life. But that didn't seem to be the case with this dog and so other avenues should be explored before killing him.

I hope the RSPCA is willing to do so. Here in the States most kill shelters would instantly put him to sleep without taking anything else into consideration. They don't tell you otherwise though, so hopefully the RSCPA is not lying when they say they're going to evaluate him (which, I hope, includes a vet check).

we know over here the rspca lie through their teeth, so I for one wont hold out much hope for him, but saying that Kitty is no way to blame for the situation she finds herself in. and I am pleased her little boy is on the mend

If that were the case, I would then sort of pretend I didn't get their e-mail back. I have issues with places that claim to still own the dog they have given to you. And while a lot of places here in the States have contracts where you are supposed to give the dog back, it's apparently not entirely enforceable as technically the person who bought the dog owns it and CAN do whatever they wish with it, contract or no contract. I've heard of breeders taking someone to court to get their dog back and losing, despite the contract.

they will pts!!! no ifs or buts they will euth him.

I'm not debating the ''whether'' or ''won't'' they, the truth is there are ethical/moral and legal issue's here.

If the RSPCA want their dog back, it's probably best that he is relinquished back to their care.

Going up against an organization as big as the RSPCA, they would loose.

I keep going back to the bit on their website where it does actually state, no children of 5yrs and under.

The point is, the contract has already been broken on two accounts, so I wouldn't hold out much hope of winning.

The question is, is it morally and ethically right that this dog keeps being passed around? Nope.

Except it's going to get passed around through the RSPCA IF they even opt to not kill the dog outright. So either way it gets passed around a bit. With one person, it may have a much better chance.

I've raised questions going back through the thread, offer of help is there yes, but not on a permanent basis - then what?

I have not read the threads following this one but I totally agree Nicci. Another option imo Why does Cassandra not go to RSPCA Kennels he will be put in and try and rehome him from there via the legal route. This will safegaurd the previous owners of Dobe and also Kitty. Will also maybe satisfy the members on here who are totally against the dog being PTS

Not if Kitty passes on Cassandra's information and the fact she is willing to rehome him