not saying a thing.....

Pearlsasinger said:
I have had a vet tell me that she would not advise colic surgery for a large Draft horse. I wouldn't have agreed to it if she had but fortunately the horse pulled through at home with the vet's treatment.
Click to expand...
When the old pony here colicked 18 months ago the vet said the exact same thing to me, that he was not a candidate for surgery so if the drugs didn't work it would be the end for him. Fortunately he too recovered and is still here now.
 
Actuall
Exasperated said:
If the vet in clinical attendance had advised euthanasia, it would be a brave insurance claims manager told that vet they were wrong. Possibly a compulsory second opinion with exceptionally valuable horses?
The issue is rather that for (whatever) reasons, attending vets are increasingly less likely to advise euthanasia in the first instance; worse, they are too often reluctant to advise this even as situations deteriorate. Clearly this has financial implications, but welfare considerations should be paramount, and vets can certainly override pushy or unrealistic owners when welfare dictates: prevention of suffering - but increasingly rare that they do.
Click to expand...
Actually the beva guidelines for what conditions euthanasia of insured horses has always been been both strict and limited. They are currently being updated.
 
ester said:
Actuall

Actually the beva guidelines for what conditions euthanasia of insured horses has always been been both strict and limited. They are currently being updated.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting if the beva update states that an attending vet (or two, dependent on insurance contract) who states the welfare situation demands euthanasia, is to be disregarded.
That is the bottom line, one would always hope and expect that professionals will strictly regulate their behaviours, should go with the territory.
 
ester said:
Actuall

Actually the beva guidelines for what conditions euthanasia of insured horses has always been been both strict and limited. They are currently being updated.
Click to expand...

It is. I claimed for death and while they paid out I had to provide all the BEVA paperwork from my vet to prove that euthanasia was essentially the only option.
 
Exasperated said:
If the vet in clinical attendance had advised euthanasia, it would be a brave insurance claims manager told that vet they were wrong. Possibly a compulsory second opinion with exceptionally valuable horses?
The issue is rather that for (whatever) reasons, attending vets are increasingly less likely to advise euthanasia in the first instance; worse, they are too often reluctant to advise this even as situations deteriorate. Clearly this has financial implications, but welfare considerations should be paramount, and vets can certainly override pushy or unrealistic owners when welfare dictates: prevention of suffering - but increasingly rare that they do.
Click to expand...

It’s a whole can of worms though as every vets ‘personal’ stance on euthanasia is very different to another’s.

I know one vet who advised a friend PTS her horse as there was no known treatment for the lameness she was suffering with and chances of the horse coming fully sound were slim. Friend chose to chuck horse in a field for 6 months and rehab barefoot as a last-chance saloon and horse came fully sound. A small miracle for sure and vet wasn’t right or wrong, just giving the facts about the the diagnosis at the time.

On the other end of the scale there’s a vet that publicises quite openly on social media that they don’t believe in euthanising elderly horses unless all treatments have been tried, regardless of how costly or invasive they are or how lengthy the recovery. Personally that wouldn’t be my own stance as an owner so if they were my vet we’d be in conflict.

I just think vets having/sharing a strong personal opinion on euthanasia either way is very tricky ground.
 
I still don’t think the above goes far enough in considering whether the horse is able to return to living a “normal” life within a reasonable timeline / still don’t think there’s a lot of clear guidance for cases of chronic lameness that aren’t so bad they’re nearly unable to move.

IMO this means being able to live socially (ie turnout in some form) with other horses, move comfortably in all paces (possibly with pain relief to allow this in the case of arthritis) without said movement causing lameness and being able to eat enough to maintain weight (even if this has to be in mash form).

Obviously short periods of box rest or lameness during recovery is expected but I feel that if a horse is only field sound with a lot of micromanagement to the point it’s affecting QOL (eg only sound if turned out alone in a postage stamp so can’t run around and only if the ground is perfect and this is the way it has to be forever) then that’s a potential welfare issue & a perfectly acceptable reason to euthanise.
 
I’m still pretty bruised 2 years on after a vet tried to get me first to trial a course of steroids on my uninsured late 13yo homebred after I’d just witnessed her having a protracted and very unpleasant seizure. This was on top of a partially witnessed previous incident recorded on cctv in which had resulted in her careering blindly through a line of fencing which she couldn’t see.

Luckily young vet who did attend was much more pragmatic and did the deed on the same day. She also reckoned from the symptoms and the form of the seizure that it was most likely a frontal lobe tumour. So no cure.

I do keep my retirees on as managed happy pasture ornaments, but I have a very definite red line and seizures are most definitely the wrong side of that line.

I’m pretty secure in my own skin about doing the right thing by my animals, but that really shook me up.
 
Boulty said:
I still don’t think the above goes far enough in considering whether the horse is able to return to living a “normal” life within a reasonable timeline / still don’t think there’s a lot of clear guidance for cases of chronic lameness that aren’t so bad they’re nearly unable to move.

IMO this means being able to live socially (ie turnout in some form) with other horses, move comfortably in all paces (possibly with pain relief to allow this in the case of arthritis) without said movement causing lameness and being able to eat enough to maintain weight (even if this has to be in mash form).

Obviously short periods of box rest or lameness during recovery is expected but I feel that if a horse is only field sound with a lot of micromanagement to the point it’s affecting QOL (eg only sound if turned out alone in a postage stamp so can’t run around and only if the ground is perfect and this is the way it has to be forever) then that’s a potential welfare issue & a perfectly acceptable reason to euthanise.
Click to expand...

The insurance guidelines are pretty unforgiving, for most chronic conditions if you were pursuing a claim you’d be better off going for LOU and then choosing to PTS yourself later. With colic you if you don’t opt for surgery you basically have no hope of claiming for anything.

It’s why I find it quite farcical when people claim high-value competition horses are PTS as their insured value is more than they’re worth alive, you won’t get a penny under most circumstances.

For general QOL decisions unfortunately I think owners have to take ultimate responsibility. Vets can advise, but the onus shouldn’t be on the vet to have to make the call other than to give owners the hard facts about what options are available and long term prognosis. And no, I don’t think owners always make the right decision, but I don’t believe the blame for that should lie at the vets door.
 
I know someone who put her 2 yr old filly through a 45 minute trailer ride to the vet hospital because there was a 1% chance that colic surgery would be successful and the insurance company insisted. Needless to say the poor horse didn't recover. But the owner got the insurance payment.
I know it can be very difficult to make decisions in the moment but this is one reason why we don't insure.
 
I gave up insuring when a mare with congestive heart disease was not deemed eligible to be pts and insurance claimed. The vet said that in another 5-7 days she would meet the criteria, once she could no longer get to her feet and eat. There was no way I would let her get as far as that, she was seriously unhappy as she was.
 
Tiddlypom said:
I’m still pretty bruised 2 years on after a vet tried to get me first to trial a course of steroids on my uninsured late 13yo homebred after I’d just witnessed her having a protracted and very unpleasant seizure. This was on top of a partially witnessed previous incident recorded on cctv in which had resulted in her careering blindly through a line of fencing which she couldn’t see.

Luckily young vet who did attend was much more pragmatic and did the deed on the same day. She also reckoned from the symptoms and the form of the seizure that it was most likely a frontal lobe tumour. So no cure.

I do keep my retirees on as managed happy pasture ornaments, but I have a very definite red line and seizures are most definitely the wrong side of that line.

I’m pretty secure in my own skin about doing the right thing by my animals, but that really shook me up.
Click to expand...
This is awful, it's not just a consideration of what's best for the horse but also in not putting people at unnecessary risk if they have to handle her or if she went through a fence out onto the road. You'd never be able to relax wondering when the next one would happen.
 
Gosh this thread is making me so, so glad I do not insure; a lot of it is because there'd be so many exclusions on mine and in the eyes of the horse market they have no real value. However it seems it's also wiser to simply put money aside so you can have full autonomy over the treatments you use on your own animal. I know I've wondered about insuring before but fundamentally I'm really glad it's not an extra layer of complications in what are already emotionally charged decisions.
 
FieldOrnaments said:
Gosh this thread is making me so, so glad I do not insure; a lot of it is because there'd be so many exclusions on mine and in the eyes of the horse market they have no real value. However it seems it's also wiser to simply put money aside so you can have full autonomy over the treatments you use on your own animal. I know I've wondered about insuring before but fundamentally I'm really glad it's not an extra layer of complications in what are already emotionally charged decisions.
Click to expand...

I don’t think (hope?) insurance probably plays much part in most people ultimate decisions, more just that a lot of people would get a shock when they try to claim. Insurance companies certainly aren’t particularly transparent about it and a lot of people assume they’re doing the right thing protecting their most valuable asset but chances are you’ll never be able to claim a penny…

It’s one of the reasons I also don’t waste my time insuring my horses for their full value and jumping through the hoops of providing x-rays and vetting certificates, it’s ultimately a waste of time in the event you actually try and claim their value back anyway. :rolleyes:
 
FieldOrnaments said:
Briefly unblocked them to see what's what. It's a horse with such painful feet it won't stand on 3 for foot care so they put it in the sling and lift the whole animal off the ground.
Animal has elevated insulin, 'active infection in feet' & rotational laminitis. (But of course he's got rotation because of trim, not metabolic issues).

I'm blocking them again now for my own sanity! I find many of their posts really distressing
Click to expand...
Read this, not going to look 😢
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top