I wonder if this is rather a case of people giving an appropriate level of attention to the dog and too little to the boy. I understand that people love animals, and they prefer the mercy given to the dog (defang, detooth, lifelong confinement) to it being put down. Fine, their activism has paid off.
I’ve read nothing to say that the boy’s bills are going to be taken care of by the dog’s owner. The owner may not be capable of doing so or may be beyond the reach of the law. If every one of those 59,000 people who liked the dog’s facebook page sent $1 to help the cost of treating the boy, the boy’s medical bills would be paid to date.
That said, I remember a case some years ago of an Akita (large breed, known for being aggressive) that attacked a 9-month-old boy. After the boy was taken to the ER, the boy’s father found the dog chained to a fence and beat it so severely with a baseball bat that it had to be put down:
The father, who later expressed regret over killing the dog, was acquited of animal cruelty as the jury was more sympathetic to a father who feared losing a child than to a dog owner who lost a dog:
My opinion: we render dangerous people non-dangerous by removing them from society (or at least, we attempt to do so). We are justified in rendering dangerous animals non-dangerous as well. If we can do that in a humane sense (lock up and rehabilitate a criminal, or gently euthanize an animal), we ought to, but sometimes that’s not possible (ie, how often do we read of police shooting an unleashed dog, whether it is threatening or not?).