Allotment Gardening Advice Help Chat
Poultry and Pets => Pets without Feathers => Topic started by: sneezer on November 24, 2011, 16:23
-
OK, someone I work with had a cat which suddenly became ill, she took it to the vets and they said it needed an operation immediately as it had a blockage, this would cost nearly £1000, and there was no guarantee that operation would work or the problem not returning, they couldn't afford the operation so had to make the awful decision to have cat put to sleep, they paid for the cremation and the aneasthetic and went home. 2 days later they called the vets to see how every thing went, only to be told that they operated on the cat after they left and the cat is fine eating walking around etc, but she can't have the cat back and it is to be rehomed. Apparently they signed the cat over to them?So why did she have to pay for cremation?This cant be legal or morally right?(I won't be naming vets, or the area etc) :(
-
I shouldn't have thought they would have to pay for services that weren't carried out (cremation and anaesthetic) some people like to collect the ashes...what would they do about that!
I suppose the thing to do is to actually see the pet being put to sleep :(
-
They certainly shouldn't have to pay for services not carried out by the vet and should ask for their money back. Once the cat is signed over to the vet I think they can do what they want with it and it sounds like things have worked out well for the cat. I do know vets who are reluctant to put animals to sleep and will say they will do it but sneak them out the back and try to rehome. Generally this is a good thing as I have known people take in perfectly healthy young animals to be PTS when they can't be bothered with them anymore. If the owner wishes to stay for the procedure however then the vet has no choice.
It sounds like there is more to this though. Why get the owners to sign the pet over just to put it to sleep? It sounds like they had another look at the cat when the owners went and decided it was worth a shot but it does seem unfair not to offer the cat back to them and payments by installment. Unless the vet had reason to believe this was not in the cat's best interest?
-
This doesn`t make any sense at all. Why would the vets stand the cost of a £1,000 operation themselves, unless it was for research purposes? (Obviously the true cost to them would be nearer £100 than £1,000.)
If the owner had requested the cat be put to sleep, and had paid for this to be carried out, the vets have not complied with this and a complaint should be made to the BVA, in my opinion.
-
Yes it is strange. It could be a vet who fancied having a go at the op. We have a vet who is very keen to perform an operation on a cat with megacolon. There is no guarantee, it would be very expensive and we are managing her condition with her diet so have refused. I know he would love to get his hands on her though. As the cat was actually signed over to the vets I believe that gives them the legal right to do as they wish but don't think they should be charging for something they haven't done.
-
sorry about the long thread below relating to professional guidance for vets regarding euthanasia of otherwise healthy animals.
http://www.rcvs.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/guide-to-professional-conducts-for-veterinary-surgeons/2d-maintaining-practice-standards/
While I have sympathy with your friends and their distress following finding out their cat, which they will have been grieving for, is now well - I equally have sympathy for a vet who is faced with a decision to kill an animal that has a chance to be well. In these financial times, I hope your friends and their vets dilemma doesn't become more common.
-
Thank you all so much for your replies, I will be showing her this tomorrow, hopefully there can be a happy outcome, its all just a horrible situation. :(
-
sorry about the long thread below relating to professional guidance for vets regarding euthanasia of otherwise healthy animals.
The cat was NOT healthy ! It required £1,000 of treatment than may have failed !
-
sorry about the long thread below relating to professional guidance for vets regarding euthanasia of otherwise healthy animals.
The cat was NOT healthy ! It required £1,000 of treatment than may have failed !
My apologies Aunt Sally, I should have said treatable - and yes I agree all treatment has the potential to fail as we all know when we sign the operation disclaimers. This is certainly a very odd scenario, and one I hope I never find myself in
-
If the vet had decided to go against the cat owners instructions and perform a £1,000 operation on the cat and then re-home it, it would seem only descent to me to re-home it with it's original owners.
Instead the vet chooses to add insult to the injury of losing their pet by charging them for the euthanasia and cremation, and then giving it away to someone else. Astounding !
-
Without hearing from the vet this is all conjecture. We can't condemn without all the facts and I'm not trying to undermine the obvious distress the OP has in this situation.
-
You are quite right Ice. It is conjecture.
-
It's nice that the vet saved the cat's life, but it was his decision to try.
Can't see why he's charging for cremation ect.
Let's just hope kitty cat has a good life.
-
Update, the vet said as there was a chance to save the cat they decided to have a try ,the reason they will not let her take the cat home is because if it happens again they won't be able to afford the operation and as they think the cat got this problem because of stress (they like on a new build estate which is still in construction) the home environment is not suitable for this cat. They can't get the money back because it was to cover costs for the 'hand over'. This all seems fine except the vet said she might keep the cat, or there is another vet who would have it, which is slightly suspect, but as we have all said it is lovely that he is still alive and if a vet does take him and the condition flares up he will be in the right pair of hands to be treated. So after the shock of it all lets hope he does have a happy life.
-
I'm sorry but I still think they are on very dodgy ground.
They have invoiced her for a treatment they have not carried out - creating what is effectively a false invoice.
Whilst I understand their reasoning for their decisions, they have been underhand and dishonest in their invoicing and I would still consider taking it further.
-
I completely agree with you Yorkie !
-
I'd be interested to know exactly what the details on the bill are. It certainly does sound like fraud and I'd at least report them to the licensing authority.