Is this a naughty thing to do (vet)???

As far as I can remember never told them to do it. He was probably under the knife when I spoke to them.

Just all such a blur really, just want horsie back :(
 
If you ran your vets as soon as you found out he was "going in" then you knew he was going in, and could have stopped it. If you asked when the op was in that same call, and they said Friday, you also knew the op was going ahead and implicitly gave your consent. Or you could have said "I haven't given the go-ahead for that yet".
 
IMHO i think the yard owner has tried to do the right thing and make sure the horse gets to the vets, (what was the injury?) so that he does not miss his slot in the op, but his has breached a common sence rule anbout not transporting a horse without the owners consent. The vets would not be to blame if they were not activly transporting the horse for his surgery. If you then gave permission for the eopperation before it was carried out then they are not in the worng. The only person who needs a talking to ould be the yard owner for not checking with you first!
 
If I hadn't have rung the vets I dont think they would have called me to tell me he was in!

Tbh the point of the post was asking if the vets should have rung me first not yo!
 
I cannot understand why the YO would have thought you had forgotten to arrange transport for your horse to go to the vets? What sort of livery is he on? I'd ask why the vet called the YO and not you, it had nothing to do with the YO. Then I'd have a word with the YO, they should have called you immediately. Most contracts say that the YO has permission to make those sort of decisions, such as transporting the horse off the yard to the vet in an emergency situation, but it usually also says that they have to have tried and call you! If your horse was collicking and needed surgery, the YO wouldn't just transport the horse off to the vet for surgery, then call you.... You would be called first!

I'd have strong words with both.
 
wench said:
If I hadn't have rung the vets I dont think they would have called me to tell me he was in!

Tbh the point of the post was asking if the vets should have rung me first not yo!
Click to expand...

If the vets had booked him in, they obviously thought they had full consent from you to do the op. I don't think, if this was the case, they should have called you. It was pre-arranged, therefore there would be no reason to double-check.

There has obviously been a serious breakdown in communication. I think this probably stemmed from the conversation you had with the vet nurse.
 
Did you have time to tell your insurance company before the op? If not you risk them not paying out and risk that you're not covered if anything happens during this procedure as you hadn't made them aware pre-surgery for a non-emergency.

I'd be furious.
No one goes transporting my horses or conducting any procedures without my say so unless it is an emergency and they can't get hold of me.

Hope you get your horse back soon and he's OK
 
Im still at a loss as to what exactly has been going on here. Is the OP under 18 - if not then there is possibly something we arent being told or someones got a big bill and theres an issue with coughing up.
 
I'm sorry but none of this rings true.

I've never in my whole horsey owning life heard of a vet who operates without exact consent from the owner and a YO who takes it upon themself to arrange transport to an operation and neither think to contact the owner prior to all this.

Sorry I smell a rat :(

I do hope your horse is ok though :D
 
Spaniel - Unfortunatly I am well past 18, and everything I know I have said.

Fortunatly I rang the insurance company the day before he was whisked off.
 
wench said:
Thats everything I know!
Click to expand...

Ah, ok.

Well I'd certainly be looking to get a minute by minute account of what happened to your horse between the vet's phoning the YO and ending up in surgery. And then I'd be taking legal action against all parties involved.
 
Amymay - I am intrigued as to why you suggest the OP takes legal action against all parties? From my understanding it seems that there has been a communication breakdown at some point between the OP, YO and vets but that is as I see it all it is and whilst clarification is needed as to why/how this happened I don't see that "taking legal action" is in anyway productive.
 
Amymay - I am intrigued as to why you suggest the OP takes legal action against all parties?
Click to expand...

Horse taken without permission is tantamount to theft. Treated without permission is gross misconduct.

There doesn't seem to be any breakdown in communication. OP wanted to think about the treatment before booking the horse in. She did not book the horse in and gave no permission for surgery.

I'd be screeming all holy hell.
 
Last edited:
amymay said:
Horse taken without permission is tantamount to theft. Treated without permission is gross misconduct.

There doesn't seem to be any breakdown in communication. OP wanted to think about the treatment before booking the horse in. She did not book the horse in and gave no permission for surgery.

I'd be screeming all holy hell.
Click to expand...

I quite agree, I would be more than a little angry! However, it has emerged that the OP spoke to the vets prior to surgery. The horse was already at the vets but had not been operated on when they had the conversation. Surely she was then in a position to give or deny consent. Granted she may have felt pressured by the fact the horse was there and prepped, however she still could have come and collected the horse.

In that case, would she still have a case against the vets? I'm quite interested to hear the outcome of this situation.
 
Dragon22 said:
Amymay - I am intrigued as to why you suggest the OP takes legal action against all parties? From my understanding it seems that there has been a communication breakdown at some point between the OP, YO and vets but that is as I see it all it is and whilst clarification is needed as to why/how this happened I don't see that "taking legal action" is in anyway productive.
Click to expand...
Tend to agree with breakdown in communication somewhere along the line.Can't see any vet operating in this sue culture of today without consent.They wouldn't have a leg to stand on legally I would think.
 
MontyandZoom said:
I quite agree, I would be more than a little angry! However, it has emerged that the OP spoke to the vets prior to surgery. The horse was already at the vets but had not been operated on when they had the conversation. Surely she was then in a position to give or deny consent. Granted she may have felt pressured by the fact the horse was there and prepped, however she still could have come and collected the horse.

In that case, would she still have a case against the vets? I'm quite interested to hear the outcome of this situation.
Click to expand...

Ah M&Z you seem to have gleened more from the OP posts than I. Thanks.
 
Very odd post. I think to stop people thinking this is a wind up you need to do a long post, start at the beginning and detail EVERYTHING in the order and when it happened

ie. vet did xrays
i spoke to nurse say what was said

then on ??day vet rang yo and said ???


YO said and did ???

*where is horse all this time

when how who moved him??

etc etc
 
MontyandZoom said:
As far as I am concerned (I work in a small animal surgery) you need to have a signed consent form for any surgical procedure. Not by law (as far as I'm aware) but more to cover the vet's arse if something goes wrong!
Click to expand...

Ditto this! I would be VERY angry if I hadn't been contacted and would be changing vets immediately! Hope neddies op goes ok though :)
 
soulfull said:
Very odd post. I think to stop people thinking this is a wind up you need to do a long post, start at the beginning and detail EVERYTHING in the order and when it happened

It does come across that vets decided which day to have, op got horse delivered there then operated on all without contacting owner - or thats how I first read it so sorry if wrong.
Which is why I think the lines of communication have got crossed somewhere along the line.

OP if that is what happened then would be very very angry.
Click to expand...
 
I would also be very very angry that neither the vet nor the YO thought to contact myself at the first instance. However a conversation was had where it sounds like you agreed that the horse may as well be operated on now it was there. At no point have you said you said no once horse there!
So I dont think there is an argument about consent.
I do think there is an argument regarding the assumption the horse was coming in & the transportation of it to the vets.
Would be having serious words with vets. My first thought is there has been a mix up at vets - they must have thought consent had been given. Either way its no excuse for not contacting you as the owner if the horse hadn't turned up as expected.
 
why would it be a wind up?

Please feel free to read through my other posts to see I am not a stupid little child.
 
I think because none of us can imagine a YO who would say oh yes, so and so obviously completley forgot that her horse is supposed to be having an operation at the vets today..... I wont ring her and double check I will arrange private transport and get the horse taken in immediately.

thats the bit I really dont get :confused:
 
wench said:
why would it be a wind up?

Please feel free to read through my other posts to see I am not a stupid little child.
Click to expand...



For me its the fact that the story seemed incomplete and incredulous, and then when people pushed for answers it all seemed a bit ' cagey'.

If its genuine then sorry.
 
YO was as much in the dark as me about the horse being booked in. Never at any point have I said he knew the horse was supposed to be going in.
 
but the vets rang the yard owner .........


at which point YO knew/assumed horse was going in

and arranged transport without your knowledge.

If I have that wrong how on earth did the horse get there if nobody knew it was going in? teleportation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top