Report a problem
Judy's Book takes violations of our Terms of Use very seriously. We encourage
you to read through our
Terms of Use
before filling report with us.
After careful review, we may remove content or replace a content warning page before
viewing content deemed offensive, harmful, or dangerous.
Additionally, we are aware that there may be content on Judy's Book that is personal
in nature or feels invasive. Please note that Judy's Book is a provider of content
creation tools, not a mediator of content. We allow our users express their opinions,
but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. We strongly believe
in freedom of expression, even if a review contains unappealing or distasteful
content or present negative viewpoints. We realize that this may be frustrating,
and we regret any inconvenience this may cause you. In cases where contact information
for the author is listed on the page, we recommend that you work directly with this
person to have the content in question removed or changed.
Here are some examples of content we will not remove unless provided with a court
order:
Personal attacks or alleged defamation
Political or social commentary
Distasteful imagery or language
If we've read the Terms of Use and believe that this review below violates our Terms
of Use, please complete the following short form.
|
Businiess name:
Desert Dunes Animal Hospital
|
|
Review by:
citysearch c.
|
|
Review content:
Henry Randazzo, DVM, Desert Dunes Animal Hospital, Bermuda Dunes, Ca., continually sold me on deep dental cleaning for my beloved 13 y/o female Golden Retriever using anesthesia. Kona wasan old dog with no cavities, no dental problems, and no periodontal disease. As a result of using anesthesia on an old dog, she suffered a massive stroke immediately after the procedurer, but regardless, she was discharged from the animal hospital that same day. I was told it was just the effects from the anesthesia and it would wear off. It didn't and I paid over $3000 to another veterinarian to help her recover. She recently died as a result of a 2nd stroke precipitated by the first stroke, precipitated by the use of the anesthesia. The question becomes, why would a Vet ""sell"" a beloved pet owner on the use an anesthetic on an old dog with no cavities, no dental problems, and no periodontal disease? What would be the advantage and what is the down side? Wouldn't you think the vet would err on the side of caution and do no harm? It was an unconscionable act which resulted in the death of a very dear and beloved family member, my very best friend and companion of nearly 14 years. I went to tremendous lengths to insure Kona's good health and well-being and spent thousands and thousands of dollars on her medical needs over the years. The vet refused to reimburse for his dastardly deed, nearly $800, and never once said I am sorry for your loss. The abuse to my dog and the physical and emotional trauma to me and my family has been debilitating and his actions reprehensible. I cry every day, all day and now take anti-depressants, and am heartbroken and suffering more than words could ever describe. I trusted Henry Randazzo and believed him to be the expert and to do the right thing. Surely he knew what's best for my baby, or so I believed.
Cons: Did not err on the side of caution. ""Physician shall do no harm""
|
Reasons for reporting (512 characters left):
|
|
Reasons are required.
|
|
or
Cancel
|