^^^ good point some pets can be expensive.

fail much?

Well that's a sick, backhanded question for you. I'm just going to go out on a limb and say: OF COURSE she didn't want him to suffer! No one here but the OP knows the full story, you don't know the details. The dog could have been in fine health but maybe the mother decided it would save money to put him down(in which case, there would have been much more humane alternatives, aside from killing him, and the money could have been put to better use) Even if you did somehow know what happened, and the dog really was sick: that jab would still be in bad taste. Its hard enough dealing with the loss of a family pet without strangers over the internet implying you WANTED the creature to suffer. (P.s. I know this was written years ago, but I only read it just now, so I don't care)

Killing the dog isn't helping it.

It is if it was sick/injured/in some other way suffering.

55- What if it's suffering?

Then that is ok, but it doesn't say that it was suffering or sick or anything, so I interpreted it as she just did it to get rid of the dog. Also it doesn't seem like the person above knew what euthanasia meant.

True if the dog was healthy then that is a horrible thing to do.

Sad thing is, people do that all the time.

On average, animal shelters that take in all animals brought to them have about an 80% euthanasia rate anyway (no-kill shelters don't euthanize, but they can't take in anywhere near as many animals so they will turn some away), so odds are the final result would have been the same anyway. There are simply too many abandoned pets and not enough space/resources/etc. to care for them.