Ouch. That's awful.
I'd wait until the dog is already old and suffering, and should be euthanized anyway, and only then would I execute the will. Presumably, no part of the will indicated a timeframe, so it would be like a loophole to make the best of a bad situation. Like a reverse monkey paw kind of thing.
Still, what an inconsiderate owner. To put it lightly.
According to some other articles I read about this, the women left explicit instructions that her dog Emma be "put down" upon on her death, and buried along with her. I couldn't agree more with what you said though....still.
I think the owner must be a very selfish person. I would ignore her wishes, after all, she would never know. Shame on her.
Shame on her for sure, and of course the person who refused to allow Emma even the chance to find a loving home. :(
Makes me sick, too. Whether I ended up adopting the dog permanently, or not, I know I would have made sure she ended up in a caring home...as you no doubt would have also.
No one who would have made an issue of the executor of the woman's estate not carrying out that particular demand, I bet.
That is all true, and it's damn sad and disturbing the way it ended up.
But I wonder if the Executor of the will really had a choice? Legally, they are required to fulfill the terms of the will. If he didn't, he could be charged with a crime. He's stuck between a rock and a hard place.
As to the usage of the term, the Cambridge English Dictionary defines euthanasia as "to kill an animal because it is very old or sick or because there is no one to take care of it" - so if there is "no one to take care of it", the term would apply.
Unless someone followed the executor of the woman's estate into wherever he or she had this reportedly healthy dog put to death, and watched, who do you think would prove that a "crime" had been committed? Aside from the obvious one of killing a healthy dog when someone almost surely would have adopted her.
There are different dictionary wordings defining euthanasia , of course, but none I've ever seen include "because there is no one to care take of it". They ALL are very similar to this:
"the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy"
Since the story doesn't mention if there were any heirs, we don't know.
All it would take is one person challenging the will, and the court could require the Executor to provide evidence that he faithfully followed the terms of the will.
True, no heirs were mentioned. Unless there were heir(s) that hated the dog or something, them demanding concrete proof of that particular part of the will being carried out seems unlikely to me.