It is incomprehensible to me that a society with the mandate to prevent cruelty to animals will kill a dog because it needs dental care.
Did the SPCA contact any other rescue groups for help? (Perhaps, but not likely). Did they use their own "Biscuit Fund"? No, they chose to kill Oreo. Who made that decision and why?
How can an organization have two opposing mandates at the same time - one to protect animals from cruelty (and being disposed of because you have bad teeth is most certainly cruel) and one to round up and dispose of in any way they see fit, animals that have the misfortune to fall into the SPCA's vast category of animals that may be killed?
Does the SPCA work for two bosses? Yes, they work for Animal Control, which is not at all neccessarily in the best interest of the animals, while playing to the public that they are a non-profit animal welfare society. They state that their mission is "To protect and enhance the quality of life for domestic, farm and wildlife animals in British Columbia." They cannot honestly do both things.