Unfortunately, that campaign is all about shock value. While I'm not actually shocked (because I'm a graphic designer and work in advertising), I'm surprised that campaign/concept was actually approved by the client.
Advertising/design folk have strange senses of humour/creativity and many times push the boundaries of good taste. My feeling is that the clients have the responsibility to not sell their product in such a way that is totally offensive…and thus not signoff on a campaign like this. Personally, I would have liked to read the creative brief because I would bet the key to how over the top this could be was possibly driven by the client.
Probably the reason I'm not shocked is I've seen much worse. I receive publications (Ad Week, Advertising Age among them) that cover all the new campaigns and also tell when things have been pulled and why.
You will be happy to know that many times the big ad agencies that sell the idea, lose the client (when the client is the one that had the final sign off in the first place) when the client receives all the backlash and has to pull a multi-million dollar campaign. So in that sense, there is justice.
The other thing I'd add is that I'd be 99.99% sure the dog image was done in Photoshop and not done to an actual dog...pretty sure that is the way it was done.