Horse pts - not meeting BEVA guidelines

[eggs]

Having read the thread which mentioned that a horse was pts and it didn't meet BEVA guidelines ....

Well, a few years ago I made the decision to pts my retired horse of a lifetime mare after she came in from the field with a very bad kick to her hock. She did not meet BEVA guidelines but I felt - and discussed it with my vet - that it was the right thing to do as at a minimum she needed an emergency operation with a very poor prognosis.

I could however have pumped her full of painkillers and kept her alive overnight. She would have met BEVA guidelines in the morning as she would have had a massive joint infection. It ended up costing me money and saving the insurance company the cost of an operation and probable death payout but I still think I made the right decision for my mare.

BEVA guidelines are not the only consideration when it comes to making the right choice.

 

[PandorasJar]

BEVA guidelines make no odds to me. I know my horses and if any of them are in a state where pts crosses my mind for their welfare then it would be done. I'd always rather they went too soon than too late.

 

[flitz02]

Totally agree with you,stuff BEVA guidelines we know our horses more than any vet & if the time has come for whatever reason then at least we are doing the responsible thing.xx

 

[be positive]

I always felt that the BEVA guidelines are more of a tool for insurance companies than anything else, they prevent an unscrupulous owner from putting down a healthy but possibly useless, valueless horse and claiming the insurance money. The problem being that it means a responsible and caring owner that does the right thing does not get payment in order to protect a few horses from an uncaring, greedy owners.
Vets should have more power of discretion and be able to support owners who have a hard choice to make but still allow a fair claim without the horse having to suffer more than necessary.

 

[joeanne]

I always felt that the BEVA guidelines are more of a tool for insurance companies than anything else, they prevent an unscrupulous owner from putting down a healthy but possibly useless, valueless horse and claiming the insurance money.

That. No more, no less.

 

[Always Henesy]

My horse did not meet the BEVA guidelines when he was pts.
He had Grade 2-3 wobblers, not grade 5

In other words he wasn't on the floor and totally unable to get up

I had him pts because I didn't want him at the point of complete collapse when he was pts. It would have caused him great distress as he wasn't aware that he had anything worng with him. He would not have understood why his back legs were no longer working.

However, my vet argued my case with one of the head vets at NFU as my horse had come through £10K of surgery and treatment for severe leg injuries (we didn't know he had wobblers at that point). It was only a matter of when, not if, he was going to cause himself further significant damage.

The head vet agreed that it was actually in the best interests of my horse to have him pts without meeting the guidlelines. NFU paid out in full for euthanasia and loss of my horse. Not that I gave a stuff about the money. He was priceless to me and I would do anything to stroke his gentle face again.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

Just one of the reasons for not insuring.

 

[ribbons]

Echo pearlsasinger's comment

 

[ozpoz]

Echo Pearlsasinger too.

This issue was brought home to me when the vet I had arranged to visit to euthanaze my pony with a broken leg would only stop waggling it around when I told her I didn't have insurance. He didn't need to be 'examined' to determine his outcome - I knew before I called her and had made it very clear exactly how I wanted it to happen.
Words cannot express just how unneccessary that examination was. It had taken me all of 2 seconds to (gently) feel what was wrong. Thankfully I had given him bute. He was 17 and with me since a foal. I was very fond of him and unsettled at her overriding my wishes.

 

[Always Henesy]

Just one of the reasons for not insuring.

I totally understand your point - but if it wasn't for NFU my lad would have been pts Xmas day 2010. He had emergency surgery on Boxing day and 19 weeks of veterinary treatment thanks to my insurance (they paid £5K) and then 2 months later for a different injury another £4.5K We paid £2K out of our own pockets, but could never have afforded the surgery without the insurance. He made a complete and full recovery and it gave me nearly another year with Henesy until he was pts due to the wobblers.

So for the sake of paying £42 a month I was able to give him what he needed. I would never have been able to save that amount of money.

 

[indie999]

old boy was not insured etc and I got a right earful from the vet that he didnt just put horses down blah blah. old arthritic horse who was on 3 legs told that he wasnt bad enough to be PTS(2 butes not working as one sachet had). Horse was on its toes...visibly uncomfortable etc I didnt want to find my horse down unable to get up etc, I decided PTS in end. At the time I posted on here and did get a few responses about insurance(he was unisured and money was no object to me with my awful vet that wanted to take him to horsepital..I hadnt heard of BEVA guidelines and didnt know what the fuss was. So basically insurance is ruling a vets decision or thats the way it seems to me? Its these insurance companies that cause half the problems for insuring for every little thing with more and more little things. Reality has to prevail.

I just got my bill today for pts by injection and it clearly states "humane euthanasia".
But BEVA guidelines crazy. I had no idea..am clearly in the past and out of date.

 

[Bikerchickone]

It wouldn't matter in the slightest what any guidelines like that said about my horses. If I believed the best thing for them was to let them go then that's what I'd do. Mine are both insured but only for minimal sums so in all honesty it would make no difference to me if insurance paid out or not.

Part of having and loving these wonderful creatures is being responsible enough to call it a day when they've had enough. Nobody from any insurance company would ever make me listen to them about guidelines.

 

[zoon]

Hence why mine are always valued at £500 for insurance purposes. I can't imagine many situations where I'd wait for them to meet BEVA guidelines before I make the decision to PTS and I don't cover them for loss of use as it is just too expensive. So I'd never be able o claim their value back anyway. I like to have vets fees cover, but don't see why I should insure for their true value and pay a lot more per month, when I'd never see that money if the worst happened.

 

[Goldenstar]

Just one of the reasons for not insuring.

Main reason I don't just me and my horse when it comes down to it.

 

[eggs]

I've had 4 horses pts and it was only my mare who didn't meet BEVA guidelines but I still think it was best for her. Whilst I certainly didn't expect NFU to pay out I was a little surprised that they also didn't pay the vet fees for the callout to assess her injury and then subsequent pts.

In the end it cost me about £500 but it was worth it to know that Bri didn't have to spend the night suffering just so that we could then meet BEVA requirements in order to get a pay out.

 

[Roasted Chestnuts]

I wouldn't wait until a horse was on its knees to PTS, if the vet refused the knackerman will take your money. My oldie is insure injury only so even if he got sick and died insurance wouldn't pay out anyways and I would t put him through ANY surgery @ nearly 22 yrs old!

Beva guidelines are just the insurers way of getting out of paying for the death of your horse.

 

[Littlelegs]

BEVA guidelines are irrelevant to me. Just quality of life.

 

[fizzer]

This is one of the reasons we do not insure anymore. Sick of being dictated as to when and how my animals are treated. My friend recently decided to have her pony pts,very bad case of laminitis. Vet said if she left it a few days pony would meet the BEVA guidelines. How is this right. Surely there are people out there that would let animals suffer to meet these guidelines. Totally wrong.