Are the cost of vets bills becoming a welfare issue?

[setterlover]

I can't ever see her selling any not in her mind set and all have difficulties of some kind one you can't catch and of the 6 only 4 are under 20 (around 12 and 8 ISH I think) a couple are into their late 20's and the mother of the one she is concerned about is 31.
I think the only way they will reduce is when they either die or are PTS.
I believe she does have the farrier regularly ( she uses the same one as me) and she does worm and she does feed the oldies so not all bad and when she spoke to me she did seem very concerned.
Maybe she will decide to bite the bullet and PTS.
I'm not sure about being able to afford the vet maybe just concerned the cost will run away from her with diagnostics and tests I think she tends to buckle easily and would find it hard to say no to whatever tests they suggest.
I'll check with the farrier next time he comes to me what has happened.

 

[honetpot]

All of this, but also how, exactly do people propose vets work off their experience if they don't have that experience yet?

I am 25 years out. I can almost always diagnose a pelvic flexure impaction over a stable door. To be honest I can often diagnose one over the phone. But I still do a rectal exam every single time. And usually a blood lactate. And sometimes also a belly tap. Because the one time out of however that I am wrong and it's actually a slightly unusual peritonitis, or nephrosplenic entrapment, then the treatment is totally different. And your horse could die because I relied on my skills and experience.

The answer is choice, if you explain and document, it may be this but could be that, to be sure I have to do that, but its x cost, what do you want me to do?
When I am discussing my treatment with a doctor, I expect informed consent, and if I have capaciety I can refuse treatment, that is my choice. They can try an persuade me, offer another treatment perhaps, but its my choice.
Today I have had a vet out, we have discussed outcomes, and its not good, having extra tests will not make a difference but you could have them 'to be sure'. Its the' for me to be sure' part that costs the customer, even if sometimes the animal is in such a state that the animal is better off euthanised. To be honest I fed up of holding vets hands to help them feel certain, that cost hundreds of pounds, its the owner who has often had the animal for many years that is actually that goes home with an empty car.
I have told the vets today that if the horse does not improve enough so it can be field sound, I will get the knackerman out. I have known this pony for over twenty years.

In hospitals I see defensive medicine all the time, often used for of end of life patients , even when the patient just wants to go home, and none of this is for the patients benifit, but the NHS pays. You may have a duty of care but there should also be a duty of candour, and how can someone assess to only can they afford to pay for a treatment but also if its has a realistic outcome without informed consent.

I am sorry if this seems rude but having seen what not being realistic about outcomes in human patients, and the distress it causes, even without the pressure of costs, its something that should be thought about more for animal treatment.

 

[Redders]

All of the tests described by Gamebird in that situation DIRECTLY impact prognosis and diagnosis. There are the four potential different diagnoses to that presentation and all of them have different prognoses and treatment. That’s the point, that tests can’t be avoided to be accurate in giving an owner the prognosis, or accurate treatment. Assuming one and it’s the other causes immense suffering and death. Yes we explain and discuss tests but in some situations, such as the one Gamebird describes, and the one I mentioned, are unavoidable. An owner can of course refuse to do any tests, but then our hands are tied with further intervention

 

[maya2008]

oh dear, I have 8. Down from 12 now

10 here, aiming to be at 8 by next winter! That’s across 4 people so makes me feel better if I say 2 (and a bit) each ! Everything bar those too young is ridden.

In terms of vet treatment, I have learned over the years to ask very carefully what the likely outcome of x or y treatment is. The pony’s welfare comes first. Too often when I was younger, did I treat because I could, but in the end all that did was prolong the suffering. Never again.

In terms of cost, I have only once had a payout on death, and always had them ineligible for cover when I needed it the most. Last two vet bills likewise wouldn’t have been covered.

 

[Jenko109]

On the news this morning they are saying there are 37% more abandoned animals than there were in 2021.

 

[honetpot]

All of the tests described by Gamebird in that situation DIRECTLY impact prognosis and diagnosis. There are the four potential different diagnoses to that presentation and all of them have different prognoses and treatment. That’s the point, that tests can’t be avoided to be accurate in giving an owner the prognosis, or accurate treatment. Assuming one and it’s the other causes immense suffering and death. Yes we explain and discuss tests but in some situations, such as the one Gamebird describes, and the one I mentioned, are unavoidable. An owner can of course refuse to do any tests, but then our hands are tied with further intervention

You you explain what the tests are for and why they are needed, what happans if you do not do them and the cost, potential out comes thats fine. Not everyone can afford gold standard care, it when tests are done mainly to support the vets descison and nothing else, and the older ones of us can remember when non of these tests were available. Even when they can afford the treatment estimate often the cost is higher than anticipated. Someone told me they were told £3.5K and it ended at £5k, and as far as she is aware there was no extra treatment.

When farm vet visits at the back of their mind there will be a an asumption that the farmer will make a choice about treatment not only for the care of the animal but cost, when does it not become financailly viable to keep this animal. When a domestic pet is treated you are often emotional and now the response if you can not afford treatment is , well we will treat it if you sign it over, but you will not get it back or know where it goes, so that applies emotional pressure.
If you think about the kitten that my daughter found last week, the choice given was its £350 to 'treat it', or sign it over, when really all it need was to be warmed up and fed, and now its almost at what should be its normal body weight..

 

[setterlover]

I really do feel that the pressure to treat just because we can is high.
I recently had a 25 year old cob PTS and even though I had insisted that given his age and other conditions of old age including probable Cushings and the fact that the condition was not going to be 'cured' just possibly life extended a little I was still asked was I sure he could be taken to the vet hospital and various treatments could be tried including surgery costing several thousand pounds.
It's hard to resist when pressed it wasn't that I didn't think he was worth it was because I loved him I didn't want to make his remaining time so stressful taken away from his friends he had had a great life and deserved a good death.

 

[Tarragon]

I was thinking about this topic this morning.
It is only a welfare issue if someone's circumstances have changed so that they can no longer afford to care for their pet, in sickness and in health. I was listening to the BBC news and they were interviewing a lovely old lady who said that sadly she can no longer afford her pet cat because of the cost of living, which is a tragedy.
Everyone should have done due diligence to ensure that they could afford whatever pet they are thinking of getting, with a contingency plan, before getting the pet, but that is based on what you have now as income and I agree that we none of us have a crystal ball that will show us what we might be faced with.
So, all that has happened, is the total on your "expected costs" column of the spreadsheet is now much higher than it was!

 

[setterlover]

Due to better health care and feed available for pets and horses animals be they domestic pets or horses and ponies are living a lot longer all my dogs have lived to 13 to 14 and they are big dogs) all my cats ( if not lost very young to road traffic accidents) have lived to early 20's and my horses and ponies to mid to late 20's 2 into their 30,'s.
It's hard to know what the economic situation will be in 20 years time or indeed what your income or indeed health will be.
Many pensioners had a relatively good income more than enough to live well take the odd holiday and afford a companion dog or cat but with inflation and food and fuel costs rocketing they are no longer as well off as they thought they had budgeted to be and increases in pensions have not kept up with the costs they incur.
My husband and I are retired on a good private pensions each as well as full state pensions each having both worked for nearly 40 years but have found our costs spiraling we can afford to go on holiday and make sure our animals with good health and veterinary care but finances dictate there will be no more horses when these go.
I'm sure people could afford their animals when they got them but who genuinely knows what their situation will be in 20 years time.

 

[paddy555]

I really do feel that the pressure to treat just because we can is high.
I recently had a 25 year old cob PTS and even though I had insisted that given his age and other conditions of old age including probable Cushings and the fact that the condition was not going to be 'cured' just possibly life extended a little I was still asked was I sure he could be taken to the vet hospital and various treatments could be tried including surgery costing several thousand pounds.
It's hard to resist when pressed it wasn't that I didn't think he was worth it was because I loved him I didn't want to make his remaining time so stressful taken away from his friends he had had a great life and deserved a good death.

and it is even higher pressure when the animal is insured.

I totally agree based on being in this situation with a small animal. The treatment given was not in the animal's best interests but, as it involved many thousands, I expect it was in the practice's interests. My instructions were ignored once they got it inside and I went home. Never, ever again. I learnt a very harsh lesson.

I'm afraid I totally understand why some pet owners are upset about small animal vets and costs.

I have had around 25 horses, about 15 dogs, 20 odd cats, endless goats/calves etc over the last 50 years so I have had a lot of interaction with vets and I have had a lot of mistakes/inadequate treatment from both vets and receptionists. Some excellent where they have saved an animal for which I am very grateful but some very poor. (poor as in the animal nearly died and would have without my intervention)

I don't remember the same push in the past where they pushed for treatment because the machine/test was there. It seems to have got a lot worse over about the last 7 or so years.
Of course all vets have to learn to gain experience but they can be a problem for clients.

 

[paddy555]

When a domestic pet is treated you are often emotional and now the response if you can not afford treatment is , well we will treat it if you sign it over, but you will not get it back or know where it goes, so that applies emotional pressure.
If you think about the kitten that my daughter found last week, the choice given was its £350 to 'treat it', or sign it over, when really all it need was to be warmed up and fed, and now its almost at what should be its normal body weight..

this is new to me. I have never refused treatment on financial grounds so it has never happened to me. I also never leave an animal to be PTS. I take the body back home so I am sure what has happened.

what happens to the animal when signed over? if it costs £350 to treat a kitten do they sell it to recover costs? I know some kind hearted vets and staff do add to their own "animal" collection but what happens to the rest?

 

[Redders]

You you explain what the tests are for and why they are needed, what happans if you do not do them and the cost, potential out comes thats fine. Not everyone can afford gold standard care, it when tests are done mainly to support the vets descison and nothing else, and the older ones of us can remember when non of these tests were available. Even when they can afford the treatment estimate often the cost is higher than anticipated. Someone told me they were told £3.5K and it ended at £5k, and as far as she is aware there was no extra treatment.

When farm vet visits at the back of their mind there will be a an asumption that the farmer will make a choice about treatment not only for the care of the animal but cost, when does it not become financailly viable to keep this animal. When a domestic pet is treated you are often emotional and now the response if you can not afford treatment is , well we will treat it if you sign it over, but you will not get it back or know where it goes, so that applies emotional pressure.
If you think about the kitten that my daughter found last week, the choice given was its £350 to 'treat it', or sign it over, when really all it need was to be warmed up and fed, and now its almost at what should be its normal body weight..

I do discuss all of the above and don’t just offer gold standard, which I had discussed before on the forum, the point is that the two situations highlighted by Gamebird and I are situations where that isn’t gold standard of care, that is basic care, and needed in order not to cause harm to the animal.

Your daughter finding a kitten is not the vets responsibility to subsidise. They clearly examined the animal and something in the exam meant that they felt some form of treatment was needed - likely fluids and parasite treatment. The fact that the kitten improved with warmth with your daughter is lucky, it doesn’t mean the vets were wrong. They offered a sign over so no money to be paid by your daughter, so they weren’t exactly trying to rinse money from anyone.

It’s not our fault it’s emotional owning animals. Offering a sign over is a way of attempting to save an animal where no money is available to treat, it becomes the financial responsibility of the charity who have taken it on.

There will have been extra treatment or tests that will have been discussed with your friend at the time - we cannot comment on this because we were not party to those conversations. Estimates are not quoted. Medical care is dynamic and depends on how the animal responds and the results of tests.

Deciding on the tests and the actions needed based on a clinical exam and history, and adjusting that plan in response to all the factors, is why vets train for 5 years. If everyone could do it, there wouldn’t be laws stipulating acts of veterinary surgery. Owners or general public may think they know what’s needed and what’s not, but they do not, because they do not have the training. They may have an idea of whats needed but that’s not vetting.

 

[Redders]

When an animal is signed over, it is signed over to a charity who will cover the costs of treatment provided by the vet and then are responsible for re homing. Nothing to do with vets selling it to recoup money!

Same as what happens with wildlife and strays

 

[Lucky Snowball]

My dog was taken to the vets in a bad state. She had 3 major ops all covered by rspca. She recovered and they asked for 200 donation.

 

[honetpot]

I do discuss all of the above and don’t just offer gold standard, which I had discussed before on the forum, the point is that the two situations highlighted by Gamebird and I are situations where that isn’t gold standard of care, that is basic care, and needed in order not to cause harm to the animal.

Your daughter finding a kitten is not the vets responsibility to subsidise. They clearly examined the animal and something in the exam meant that they felt some form of treatment was needed - likely fluids and parasite treatment. The fact that the kitten improved with warmth with your daughter is lucky, it doesn’t mean the vets were wrong. They offered a sign over so no money to be paid by your daughter, so they weren’t exactly trying to rinse money from anyone.

It’s not our fault it’s emotional owning animals. Offering a sign over is a way of attempting to save an animal where no money is available to treat, it becomes the financial responsibility of the charity who have taken it on.

There will have been extra treatment or tests that will have been discussed with your friend at the time - we cannot comment on this because we were not party to those conversations. Estimates are not quoted. Medical care is dynamic and depends on how the animal responds and the results of tests.

Deciding on the tests and the actions needed based on a clinical exam and history, and adjusting that plan in response to all the factors, is why vets train for 5 years. If everyone could do it, there wouldn’t be laws stipulating acts of veterinary surgery. Owners or general public may think they know what’s needed and what’s not, but they do not, because they do not have the training. They may have an idea of whats needed but that’s not vetting.

I never sugested it was the vets responsibilty to subisdise treatment, only that the cost of the 'treatment' was a large amount and the emotional pressure applied. As it is my daughter assessed as it being not being that unwell, was happy to pay for the examination and took it away. At no point would she or I want to push the cost on to a charity, we always pay for even the ferals we take on if even sometimes you can get vouchers for treatment.
Most people do not get animals do not think they will not be able to afford to keep them, but over the last few years people got more and then life costs then increased. If this conversation is about animal welfare, if not being pragmatic and offering basic treatment ,when as a proffessional you would rather offer all the tests and treatments available which end up with the owner signing it over, and perhaps a charity picks up the bill. Is that what we want?

As a HCP I want the patient to have the best treatment, but sometimes you have to adapt how its given or else you end up with a cupboard full of wasted medicine and equipment, which is no benefit to the patient or the taxpayer. Sometimes tests and treatment are also not what the patient wants.
As I have said in a previous post humans are encouraged to take an active part in their own health care, the range of over the counter medications has increased and you have always been able to ask a pharmacist for advice, even before 111. For animal treatment the basic care seems to becoming even harder to access, and thats the converstaion, pet health care is expensive for reasons previously outlined, what do we to encourage people who see the cost as a problem and then not get their animal seen by a vet, and then its up to charity to pay for treatment?

Its not about vets or doctors doing their job well, of course they want to provide the best treatment available, but its whether the tests and treatment are appropiate to that person, and informed consent with candour about outcomes, and if your are paying the costs involved.

 

[Landcruiser]

Oh Lord, vets really can't win. AS explained endlessly before on this forum, they are obliged to offer gold standard care, not just "basic treatment" whatever that is.

In cases where people really struggle to pay for a sick pet, and the pet is maybe young, and has a good prognosis, then sign over MAY be offered. Certainly in my experience, when we've occasionally taken pets on at our practice we have kept, treated (often at great expense and for months or even years), and then usually rehomed to staff, friends or contacts of staff, or previous clients...anyone who we know can give that pet good ongoing care. It is a purely altruistic thing to do. In the case of the stray kitten, sign over was apparently offered and declined - which is absolutely fine. Finder's prerogative to take it home and have a go at rearing it themselves. We've mostly all got pets ourselves, we are rarely looking for more, and nor are we looking for the extra work and expense of taking on someone else's pet or a stray just for the crack, or the fun of trying to find someone to take them on.

No vet would be allowed to sell a sign-over. The reason that the original owner isn't allowed to know what happens to the pet is to protect any future owner from harassment or even potential theft, as well as to protect the vet practice from the same, and from less scrupulous owners randomly offering to sign over pets they can't be bothered with treating or keeping, just to get rid.

 

[Redders]

I never sugested it was the vets responsibilty to subisdise treatment, only that the cost of the 'treatment' was a large amount and the emotional pressure applied. As it is my daughter assessed as it being not being that unwell, was happy to pay for the examination and took it away. At no point would she or I want to push the cost on to a charity, we always pay for even the ferals we take on if even sometimes you can get vouchers for treatment.

Most people do not get animals do not think they will not be able to afford to keep them, but over the last few years people got more and then life costs then increased. If this conversation is about animal welfare, if not being pragmatic and offering basic treatment ,when as a proffessional you would rather offer all the tests and treatments available which end up with the owner signing it over, and perhaps a charity picks up the bill. Is that what we want?

As a HCP I want the patient to have the best treatment, but sometimes you have to adapt how its given or else you end up with a cupboard full of wasted medicine and equipment, which is no benefit to the patient or the taxpayer. Sometimes tests and treatment are also not what the patient wants.
As I have said in a previous post humans are encouraged to take an active part in their own health care, the range of over the counter medications has increased and you have always been able to ask a pharmacist for advice, even before 111. For animal treatment the basic care seems to becoming even harder to access, and thats the converstaion, pet health care is expensive for reasons previously outlined, what do we to encourage people who see the cost as a problem and then not get their animal seen by a vet, and then its up to charity to pay for treatment?

Its not about vets or doctors doing their job well, of course they want to provide the best treatment available, but its whether the tests and treatment are appropiate to that person, and informed consent with candour about outcomes, and if your are paying the costs involved.

The point is that not every test offered or medication recommended is gold standard care! Some are basic requirements. A peritoneal tap in a colic with signs suggestive of peritonitis (or three other possible diagnoses) is essential. This is the point I am making. No one is forcing anyone in to gold standard care. But there are times when some tests, some interventions are needed, rather than just a chat. It’s not ‘holding the vets hand to make a decision’ as you put it. It is basic medicine.

Absolutely some instances where a chat and try a medication is fine, but it has to be accepted that that is not appropriate for many clinical presentations, and at some point you have to trust the vet knows more than the average person in making the decisions regarding which tests or treatment is appropriate. If you don’t, find another vet or don’t have animals.
If money wasn’t in the equation, there wouldn’t be such an uproar about it, but there is, and it has to be accepted that even basic pet medicine will cost money!

Re emotions - as stated by you not the vets responsibility, so it can be left out of further vet complaints. It exists but it’s not our fault and we don’t ‘play on it’, an individuals emotions (sadness, guilt, apprehension etc) play on it, not us.


There is always a cheaper alternative to treatment, it just may not be that palatable. Death is not a welfare issue. No I don’t want to PTS animals who have a chance at a good recovery, but I also will not watch suffering based on the owners lack of finances and selfish desire to keep the pet going ‘just in case’


People should be encouraged to contact the vets if their animal is unwell, injured, because that is their obligation under the animal welfare act, not to do so is a criminal offence. The vet will then lay out options for the animal in a range of finances. Some people cannot even afford the absolute basic cost of that, and that welfare issue is on the owner, not the vets

 

[Fransurrey]

When an animal is signed over, it is signed over to a charity who will cover the costs of treatment provided by the vet and then are responsible for re homing. Nothing to do with vets selling it to recoup money!

Same as what happens with wildlife and strays

As a volunteer for CP I can confirm this is the case. We often have to take cats that owners cannot afford to treat (often a result of uninsured RTAs).

 

[SEL]

I do discuss all of the above and don’t just offer gold standard, which I had discussed before on the forum, the point is that the two situations highlighted by Gamebird and I are situations where that isn’t gold standard of care, that is basic care, and needed in order not to cause harm to the animal.

Your daughter finding a kitten is not the vets responsibility to subsidise. They clearly examined the animal and something in the exam meant that they felt some form of treatment was needed - likely fluids and parasite treatment. The fact that the kitten improved with warmth with your daughter is lucky, it doesn’t mean the vets were wrong. They offered a sign over so no money to be paid by your daughter, so they weren’t exactly trying to rinse money from anyone.

It’s not our fault it’s emotional owning animals. Offering a sign over is a way of attempting to save an animal where no money is available to treat, it becomes the financial responsibility of the charity who have taken it on.

There will have been extra treatment or tests that will have been discussed with your friend at the time - we cannot comment on this because we were not party to those conversations. Estimates are not quoted. Medical care is dynamic and depends on how the animal responds and the results of tests.

Deciding on the tests and the actions needed based on a clinical exam and history, and adjusting that plan in response to all the factors, is why vets train for 5 years. If everyone could do it, there wouldn’t be laws stipulating acts of veterinary surgery. Owners or general public may think they know what’s needed and what’s not, but they do not, because they do not have the training. They may have an idea of whats needed but that’s not vetting.

I dropped off a scrawny, bald kitten at the vets back in 2011 with an apology and a plea to let me know how she did if they couldn't find the owner (they thought they had one with her description missing). The RSPCA at this point had refused to get involved and just told me to take her to the nearest vet as soon as they opened.

They gave her fluids and checked in with their missing book to realise she didn't match any of the descriptions.

She's sitting next to me. Grouchy these days and in need of thyroid meds but when they phoned me up to see if I wanted her I genuinely didn't mind paying the bill. I was annoyed at the RSPCA and decided it was my contribution to animal welfare for the year. They said they would have contacted the local charity otherwise, but I knew that charity and they were full to the rafters.

My vet friends all have packs of wonky 'rejects' living with them. The ones that were surrendered and they knew wouldn't get rehomed (wobbly, missing limbs, missing eyes etc etc).

Back to the OP - it sounds like she's got herself in a position where she doesn't want to accept the inevitable. I've seen that before where they know the animal is in need of vet intervention but are either worried about being told off for leaving it or were just hoping the problem would fix itself. Rarely does sadly.

I'm sure the investigation into big practices needs to happen, but I also wish there could be more publicity about how expensive pets are to keep.

 

[paddy555]

If money wasn’t in the equation, there wouldn’t be such an uproar about it,

it is not always money more people feeling pressured. For some that does involve money and for other simply the best interests of the animal. Post 97 on this thread is a good example. I had similar with small animal vets, they happily went ahead as the insurance were paying. If there hadn't been insurance they would have had to ask me and I would have refused on the grounds it wasn't in the animal's interests. (I don't PTS very easily and never because of money.)



I had similar with a horse a couple of years ago. A long plan of treatment suggested which could have gone on for several years. Thousands of pounds and involved GAs.
No way would it have been in the horse's interests at all.

No way am I objecting to basic tests. I thought for example for colic a rectal was just about always performed or at least it has been for mine.

 

[SilverLinings]

when i lived full time on france my farmer friend had the vet to a cow with calf stuck, he paid 12 euros, i was there at the time, the same morning i had the equine vet to visit and give an opinion of a horses leg injury it cost 200 euros and that was 20 years ago

now the equine vet is one of the best, with an international reputation so i did not mind paying

just the difference is rather er...

A very large farm practice I worked for ~20+ yrs ago employed a LOT of overseas vet surgeons (mainly from Spain and Portugal, but also a couple from France), and they all said they came to work in the UK because the pay was much higher than in their home country. They would mostly work here from graduation until they reached about 30, and then they would return to their home country with the money they'd saved and set up practice on their own. Pay differences for vets between countries will have a significant impact on fees (although I don't know what vets in France are currently paid).

It is, but one that many people are being pushed out of because of rising costs, what will become of vets when only the wealthy can afford pets and horses?

There is already an alarming shortage of vets in the UK (particularly due to the loss of OVSs post Brexit) and many leaving the industry so sadly fewer owners and pets would ease the current unsustainable pressure on the UK vet cohort.

All of the tests described by Gamebird in that situation DIRECTLY impact prognosis and diagnosis. There are the four potential different diagnoses to that presentation and all of them have different prognoses and treatment. That’s the point, that tests can’t be avoided to be accurate in giving an owner the prognosis, or accurate treatment. Assuming one and it’s the other causes immense suffering and death. Yes we explain and discuss tests but in some situations, such as the one Gamebird describes, and the one I mentioned, are unavoidable. An owner can of course refuse to do any tests, but then our hands are tied with further intervention

And if you see a doctor they also won't treat your condition if there is more than one possible diagnosis and the patient doesn't consent to the appropriate diagnostic tests. Why would you take drugs/have surgery just because a professional *thinks* you may have disease A when it could just as easily be B or C? A human patient can refuse tests (I have in the past) but the NHS will not allow them to proceed to treatment for the same reason vets don't: they could harm or kill the patient, and are at risk of being sued and/or struck off.

 

[SilverLinings]

With regards to things in the old days: I have a friend who is 98, and since I was 10 I have spent a lot of time with her and her (now deceased) husband. They have always owned horses and dogs up until 10yrs ago, and were brought up with animals. They have told me many stories of their animals over the years, and something that stands out is the fear that owners used to spend a lot of their time in. When they were children and young adults there were no antibiotics (discovered several years after they were born) so owners were very aware that the smallest cut could develop into an infection and eventually death.

The lack of antibiotics and reliable anaesthesia made surgery EXTREMELY risky, even for something small. There weren't as many vaccinations available, and the number of drugs was very limited (and they hadn't yet discovered that some were more harmful than beneficial). There were fewer conditions that were properly understood and where successful treatment was a possibility, so it was easier to diagnose as the options were a) one of the few things that could be treated, or b) shoot it (and the owner and vet would never find out if the diagnosis was wrong).

And this wasn't centuries ago (pre ~1850 veterinary science resembled witchcraft more than science), this was 1920s-1950s, with the knowledge available increasing since then. Right up until the late 1800s veterinary surgeons still believed that there was a poisonous shrew (that no one had ever seen) that crept into stables at night to bite and kill horses, because they couldn't explain sudden deaths of apparently healthy horses when a human hadn't witnessed the symptoms; this was in textbooks as a 'fact'.

Vet knowledge has improved vastly over the last 40yrs so younger vets really can't be accused of knowing less. And none of us would would expect someone to build a house without using modern tools so why wouldn't vets use up-to-date diagnostic tests?

 

[Redders]

it is not always money more people feeling pressured. For some that does involve money and for other simply the best interests of the animal. Post 97 on this thread is a good example. I had similar with small animal vets, they happily went ahead as the insurance were paying. If there hadn't been insurance they would have had to ask me and I would have refused on the grounds it wasn't in the animal's interests. (I don't PTS very easily and never because of money.)



I had similar with a horse a couple of years ago. A long plan of treatment suggested which could have gone on for several years. Thousands of pounds and involved GAs.
No way would it have been in the horse's interests at all.

No way am I objecting to basic tests. I thought for example for colic a rectal was just about always performed or at least it has been for mine.

No it’s not always the money, but the vast majority of decisions with many people whether to perform a test or a treatment are based around costs, regardless of how important/beneficial the test is. And cost is one of the biggest causes for complaints in the industry.

Of course when tests become invasive, then it’s a decision based around risks/benefits and the vast majority of vets have those discussions when recommending the procedure.

I am sorry your experience has been negative.

As vets we are taught to work to the benefit of the patient and I am sorry you don’t feel that has been the case with yours

 

[blitznbobs]

A very large farm practice I worked for ~20+ yrs ago employed a LOT of overseas vet surgeons (mainly from Spain and Portugal, but also a couple from France), and they all said they came to work in the UK because the pay was much higher than in their home country. They would mostly work here from graduation until they reached about 30, and then they would return to their home country with the money they'd saved and set up practice on their own. Pay differences for vets between countries will have a significant impact on fees (although I don't know what vets in France are currently paid).

There is already an alarming shortage of vets in the UK (particularly due to the loss of OVSs post Brexit) and many leaving the industry so sadly fewer owners and pets would ease the current unsustainable pressure on the UK vet cohort.


And if you see a doctor they also won't treat your condition if there is more than one possible diagnosis and the patient doesn't consent to the appropriate diagnostic tests. Why would you take drugs/have surgery just because a professional *thinks* you may have disease A when it could just as easily be B or C? A human patient can refuse tests (I have in the past) but the NHS will not allow them to proceed to treatment for the same reason vets don't: they could harm or kill the patient, and are at risk of being sued and/or struck off.

As a doctor this is not strictly true . Loads of things are treated imperically without any tests . Physio is the first port of call for lots of pains without any investigation.. so it totally depends on the differential the way you either proceed straight to the most likely treatment or with a battery of tests. When I learned my trade diagnosis was supposed to be done with out tests and you did the minimal number of tests to prove your theory … tick every box medicine has not improved the subject and tests are not without their own risks

 

[KEK]

It’s interesting, this forum has always been very pro/protective of vets in the past and people were pretty much jumped on straight away if they criticised. Seems to be changing, IMO anyway. I don’t think vet standards/care etc has changed drastically so I am presuming it’s more COL fallout.
Really it comes down to communication with your vet. The number of diagnostics/type/costs etc should be clearly understood by both parties and if this is unable to happen then maybe a new vet is needed.
At my clinic (vet 20yrs out) we have definitely seen a decrease in patients/day and also an increase in the PTS’s without any work up at all. I am certainly not sitting there judging what Os can do/not do, and happily I don’t feel my clients are judging me for sometimes not being able to diagnose without some tests. We both do what we can do.

 

[Landcruiser]

As a doctor this is not strictly true . Loads of things are treated imperically without any tests . Physio is the first port of call for lots of pains without any investigation.. so it totally depends on the differential the way you either proceed straight to the most likely treatment or with a battery of tests. When I learned my trade diagnosis was supposed to be done with out tests and you did the minimal number of tests to prove your theory … tick every box medicine has not improved the subject and tests are not without their own risks

But you have the massive advantage of patients being able to say exactly where it hurts and for how long and how much, and to interrogate their symptoms/history.

 

[blitznbobs]

But you have the massive advantage of patients

being able to say exactly where it hurts and for how long and how much, and to interrogate their symptoms/history.

Not in kids but that wasn’t really the point I was making

 

[LadyGascoyne]

I think it’s nearly impossible for vets to walk a universally owner-friendly line re treatment options.

I had a vet suggest that I would be wasting my money on expensive diagnostics and a potentially long, expensive rehab. I asked if there was anything else we could look at to be certain of diagnosis and they said they didn’t think it would change the outcome. They implied that I should have the horse pts. I was seriously not happy about it.

Their assumption was that because I had the horse at a professional dressage yard at the time, I must be interested in competing and the horse likely wouldn’t stand up to that kind of work regardless. The horse also wasn’t insured yet as it arrived lame, so I think they thought they were saving me the money and not pressuring me by not suggesting options.

I got a second opinion, had plenty of options, took the long and slow route and have a lovely mare about to come back into work as a result of it.

I don’t think the vet was being difficult or malicious but probably was acutely aware that owners can feel pressured if given lots of options, and made a call that I wouldn’t want to pursue the expensive diagnostics.

It was the wrong call, and I would always rather feel a bit of pressure in having to make decisions than having options withheld from me based on someone else’s assessment of my personal finances, my aims with my horses and my ethics.

Sometimes I think that we try to protect ourselves from being responsible for difficult decisions, such as pts on financial grounds even if the horse could be saved, and that is totally natural and understandable that we struggle with the pressure of that decision. But if we, en masse, are pushing that burden towards vets, we will have vets who are carrying an insurmountable burden and we will continue to lose them to changing professions or, worse, mental health issues.

I think part of horse ownership is shouldering the burden of the tough decisions that aren’t medically necessary but are nonetheless the right decision in the context of circumstances outside veterinary advice. I appreciate it’s an awful part of horse ownership though, so I know it’s not easy.

ETA, for context, my horse was on that yard because I didn’t want to box rest at home as it disrupts the others. But I do have space for field decoration, and it doesn’t cost me much extra to keep another lawnmower. The vet couldn’t possibly have known this, and I don’t think it would have been reasonable to expect them to have an in depth conversation with me about finances and horse management plans. I’d rather they didn’t make any judgement, and allowed me to be the judge of my own circumstances and options.

 

[Celtic Jewel]

Probably get shot for saying this but I think the uk is too heavily reliant on insurance to afford your pets in Ireland when getting a horse, dog etc you save for the vet bills . Our vet bills are lower as a result and very few people actually have insurance they don’t even cover vet bills for horses you have to pay out of your own pocket.

 

[maisie06]

I’m finding this with dogs. People are putting off taking dogs for vet appointments because of the cost.
As a groomer, I often advise people see the vet about issues I find. A lot of people would rather just ‘watch it and see’ because of the rising costs.

I have dogs but once they go they won't be replaced mainly because of escalating costs. I am so so glad I gave up horses when did, the cost of keeping them are out of control. Over £100 for a set of shoes in my area, I know farriers have to make a living but....ironically it was a farrier having a right moan about the price of a sack of dog food in the feed store last week, will probably pass that onto his clients...never did like that miserable sod when I was in the equine world.