URGENT HELP!!! GET MY PUPPY HOME

[Tiddlypom]

Lots of vets and vet nurses that I know have various much loved waifs and strays which were brought in to be pts for various reasons, often financial.

They can't keep them all, but some pull at the heartstrings more than others.

 

[Quigleyandme]

I jumped on the OP for buying a puppy when she couldn’t afford vet treatment but on reflection I don’t think I was being fair to her. I would never have expected or planned to be asked for £600 for an ultrasound and blood test and another £600 for a drip and overnight accommodation. I can foresee insurance premiums rising exponentially to keep pace with fees, and as pet ownership in the UK is never going to be, nor should it be, the exclusive preserve of the comfortably off, there will be a welfare crisis. Vets will price themselves right out of work. You can shear a sheep as often as you like but you can only kill it once.

 

[Arzada]

Lots of vets and vet nurses that I know have various much loved waifs and strays which were brought in to be pts for various reasons, often financial.

They can't keep them all, but some pull at the heartstrings more than others.

I imagine that that is a very tough part of the job. Someone comes along and tugs at your heartstrings but you have already homed others who have done the same and there just isn't room/finances for another to join your family.

 

[ester]

Given quite how busy vets are I can't see them pricing themselves out of work any time soon.

Arzada if its something that's going to be a relatively easy rehome they will take it on and then use their connections network to find a suitable place for it. Which is why an ex hhoer friend has a chixterrier instead of the medium sized dog she was initially looking for

 

[Aru]

So based on this thread next time I have a critical puppy who needs a lot of intensive care and surgery asap to have a chance at survival and an owner with no money to pay for treatment...I should kill it rather then offer the owner the chance at surrender. Noted.

Because that's why I became a vet. To kill puppies because their owners didn't consider the potential financial implications of pet ownership.

Stories like this are actually pretty common...at least monthly or weekly at some of the busy emergency centres. Most emergency vets now are not allowed offer surrender because of people like the op complaining after. So euthanisa is the option presented in no finance and severe illness cases...

I think it's sad it's come to that. We are lucky enough to work with a charity who will occasionally accept surrenders where I work but that's not an option for ooh clinics at night time. Also helps that once the pets been surrendered to the charity there is no more information given out on if it lived or not. Also means the owner can blame the charity not the vets for no longer having a dog. The public seems to find that more palatable. Less media storms when it's a charity instead of the vets themselves saving lives in financial cases.

Because who doesn't love killing puppies over finances instead of saving them.

Owners used to be grateful that their pets didn't have to die because they weren't able to afford their care. Guess things have changed.

You can't win.

 

[Red-1]

The receptionist who offered to take Hector on certainly wasn't being unethical. He was 'worth' zero. A sick, old, poor condition, untrained waif. Not even house trained.

She had just taken a shine to him, felt a connection.

I guess she was in the business because she loved animals, who knew?

I know this as Hector was smothered in kisses every visit for years after, until that receptionist left.

The vets just offered one solution. One where OP could have the comfort that their conscience was salvaged. They could have said no, PTS, or yes, I will pay you.

So based on this thread next time I have a critical puppy who needs a lot of intensive care and surgery asap to have a chance at survival and an owner with no money to pay for treatment...I should kill it rather then offer the owner the chance at surrender. Noted.

Because that's why I became a vet. To kill puppies because their owners didn't consider the potential financial implications of pet ownership.

Stories like this are actually pretty common...at least monthly or weekly at some of the busy emergency centres. Most emergency vets now are not allowed offer surrender because of people like the op complaining after. So euthanisa is the option presented in no finance and severe illness cases...

I think it's sad it's come to that. We are lucky enough to work with a charity who will occasionally accept surrenders where I work but that's not an option for ooh clinics at night time. Also helps that once the pets been surrendered to the charity there is no more information given out on if it lived or not. Also means the owner can blame the charity not the vets for no longer having a dog. The public seems to find that more palatable. Less media storms when it's a charity instead of the vets themselves saving lives in financial cases.

Because who doesn't love killing puppies over finances instead of saving them.

Owners used to be grateful that their pets didn't have to die because they weren't able to afford their care. Guess things have changed.

You can't win.

I would have been grateful.

I may have been sad, I may have felt guilty, but I don't think I would have started a campaign against you!

 

[Goldenstar]

I know a lot of vets .
Most of the small animal vets I know have had a small animal who came to PTS because the owner could not afford to treat .
I know lots of them have friends that ended up with an extra pet this way , the veterinary nurses also adopt animals this way .
Its a good thing that compassion has a role in modern vet care , many many animals need a white knight at some point in their lives and lucky is the pet who finds one at the vets at the lowest points in their lives .
One of my closest friends had a mongrel who she got in these circumstances Inga the Icelandic Igloo dog was a wonderful little dog who was so so lucky the night she arrived in my friends life .



As for people who buy puppies with out consideration of worse case scenarios good manners prevents me saying what I think of them .

 

[ycbm]

No I don't want puppies killed ARU. But I don't want people feeling coerced into signing them over in the heat of the moment when they've just been told their pet is going to die. I also don't want people who have decided not to put their animal through an operation which has a high chance of not succeeding and who have instructed the vet to put it to sleep to feel forced into changing their mind and handing it over. That is another case that has come up on the forum.

This is what I think should happen, or something like it. The owner should sign that they lose ownership of the animal if they do not source the funds to pay the full costs within 7 days. And they can't take possession until that payment is made. That gives them a fair chance to get their head straight and beg borrow or steal the money, or settle their minds that handing over is the right thing to do and their own choice made with free will. It also allows the cost to be known and the decision to be made on fact not an estimate that could be significantly too high or too low. It leaves the vet practice no better or worse off than it would have been, it just means a wait by the potential new owner to find out if they have their new pet or not.

I just don't think it's right for people to be pushed into making these decisions in the heat of a desperately emotional moment and then be unable to reverse them even if they find they can get the money almost immediately.

It's not right either for vets to be left open to accusations of malpractice or social media onslaught like this one by an aggrieved owner. It's avoidable, and not just by the big companies banning their staff from doing it, because it very clearly serves a good purpose for a lot of animals.
.

 

[bonny]

No I don't want puppies killed ARU. But I don't want people feeling coerced into signing them over in the heat of the moment when they've just been told their pet is going to die. I also don't want people who have decided not to put their animal through an operation which has a high chance of not succeeding and who have instructed the vet to put it to sleep to feel forced into changing their mind and handing it over. That is another case that has come up on the forum.

This is what I think should happen, or something like it. The owner should sign that they lose ownership of the animal if they do not source the funds to pay the full costs within 7 days. And they can't take possession until that payment is made. That gives them a fair chance to get their head straight and beg borrow or steal the money, or settle their minds that handing over is the right thing to do and their own choice made with free will. It also allows the cost to be known and the decision to be made on fact not an estimate that could be significantly too high or too low. It leaves the vet practice no better or worse off than it would have been, it just means a wait by the potential new owner to find out if they have their new pet or not.

I just don't think it's right for people to be pushed into making these decisions in the heat of a desperately emotional moment and then be unable to reverse them even if they find they can get the money almost immediately.

It's not right either for vets to be left open to accusations of malpractice or social media onslaught like this one by an aggrieved owner. It's avoidable, and not just by the big companies banning their staff from doing it, because it very clearly serves a good purpose for a lot of animals.
.

I doubt many vets would be happy to house an animal for 7 days while you see if you can come up with the money

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

Well put ycbm - just about to post very similar thoughts but you have worded it so much better than I could have done. A balanced view from both the clients point of view and also the vets.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

I doubt many vets would be happy to house an animal for 7 days while you see if you can come up with the money

Well one assumes that whoever took over ownership of this dog for the OP, either the vet or their employee, has had to home it somewhere for 7 days at their own cost anyway. I am sure there could be some sort of reasonable daily charge for the animal while the owner attempts to either raise funds or decide that permanent handing over ownership is the right choice for them and their pet? Obviously not a huge daily fee that would push the payment even more out of the pet owner's reach, just the basic costs of daily housing?

 

[TPO]

I doubt many vets would be happy to house an animal for 7 days while you see if you can come up with the money

Exactly so they pay for the emergency surgery while you figure out if you can afford to pay for it for 7 days.

No one should own any animal without the funds to euthanise it at thr very least.

OP did have a choice and I think this series of events is totally different from the other thread where a vet pressurised the person into surgery that they felt compromised the animals quality of life and that they wanted to pts.

No wonder vets have such a high suicide rate. Can't do right for doing wrong

 

[ycbm]

I doubt many vets would be happy to house an animal for 7 days while you see if you can come up with the money

But it's no different from what happens now. At the end of 7 days either the adopter pays or the owner does.
.

 

[TGM]

But it's no different from what happens now. At the end of 7 days either the adopter pays or the owner does.
.

 

[TGM]

From what I can make out from the OP, the vet HAS offered the chance to have the pup back if the bill is paid in full. The OP has only offered £500 and a payment plan though and I suspect the vets think they won't stand a chance of getting the rest of the money.

 

[ycbm]

From what I can make out from the OP, the vet HAS offered the chance to have the pup back if the bill is paid in full. The OP has only offered £500 and a payment plan though and I suspect the vets think they won't stand a chance of getting the rest of the money.

I read it the same way.

 

[Birker2020]

Yes, which is why, surely you sort it as soon as!
Mine was in place 2 weeks before I collected Cecil so he was fully covered when I got him home. He also had 4 weeks free but I didn’t realise that until I’d arranged my own.

I'm not being nasty or critical but isn't that fraud? If you are not covered for the first 14 days to lie to the insurance company and say you have taken ownership earlier than you actually did to ensure you were fully covered when the animal does actually go to you? Does everyone do this? Is this the norm? Like I say I am just curious as I've never thought about it before. Maybe I am just very naive.

 

[Aru]

The holding and giving people time to pull money together used to happen quite a bit back in the day. It helps that back then there were also less expensive treatment options available which also helped....but similar to in this case..people resented being asked to pay for vet care and reported vets for being "unethical" and asking for payment before release. So vets are generally not allowed to hold animals in lieu of payment in most countries I've worked. Sort of ties that hands on that option. It was another decent option and helped a lot of animals. Times have changed unfortunately.

Instead once surgery work up etc has been agreed on and preformed vets are expected to hand patients back to their owners once they are stable and later chase people who have no money or intention of paying for services rendered instead.
So that's something that any business with sense will try to avoid. What agreeing to payment plans for critical cases does consistently is accumulate a large debt and financial loss very quickly for the business and makes your boss really really angry at you for being so naive as to trust people at their word and agree to a payment plan.... in my personal experience anyways.
That's why vets now ask for often large deposits before doing any major surgery or workup that is suspected to end in surgery, especially with new clients! People just don't pay bills despite promises. I've occasionally done payment plans over my career against my better judgement. I've only had one owner actually pay it off completely....I won't go into how many people have let me down.

The place we are at now in the industry is because multiple bridges have been burned in the past. This isn't that uncommon of the situation afterall.

The easiest option for the Vet is actually to kill the dog in these cases. Case closed and no litigation or threats to the rcvs once that's done and the animal is no longer suffering.

Thankfully the majority of us in the profession still don't take that option....but I bet the vets this puppy is with now must wonder if it wasn't the wisest choice in hindsight given the way the OPs acting.

 

[Goldenstar]

Who would take a puppy home love it care for it after surgery with the risk of handing it back to a feckless owner .

Why did Op not take the puppy to the PDSA ?

 

[bonny]

Who would take a puppy home love it care for it after surgery with the risk of handing it back to a feckless owner .

Why did Op not take the puppy to the PDSA ?

You have to be on certain benefits to use the PDA not just short of money

 

[Aru]

Who would take a puppy home love it care for it after surgery with the risk of handing it back to a feckless owner .

Why did Op not take the puppy to the PDSA ?

The OP has enough money to be in the process of buying a house.

pdsa you have to fit certain criteria ..benefits etc

 

[Goldenstar]

So really she’s chosen not pay .
She thinks private vets should run a sort NHS for pets where those who pay their bills get to subsidise those who chose to send money on other things .
No thanks to that .

 

[meleeka]

The holding and giving people time to pull money together used to happen quite a bit back in the day. It helps that back then there were also less expensive treatment options available which also helped....but similar to in this case..people resented being asked to pay for vet care and reported vets for being "unethical" and asking for payment before release. So vets are generally not allowed to hold animals in lieu of payment in most countries I've worked. Sort of ties that hands on that option. It was another decent option and helped a lot of animals. Times have changed unfortunately.

Instead once surgery work up etc has been agreed on and preformed vets are expected to hand patients back to their owners once they are stable and later chase people who have no money or intention of paying for services rendered instead.
So that's something that any business with sense will try to avoid. What agreeing to payment plans for critical cases does consistently is accumulate a large debt and financial loss very quickly for the business and makes your boss really really angry at you for being so naive as to trust people at their word and agree to a payment plan.... in my personal experience anyways.
That's why vets now ask for often large deposits before doing any major surgery or workup that is suspected to end in surgery, especially with new clients! People just don't pay bills despite promises. I've occasionally done payment plans over my career against my better judgement. I've only had one owner actually pay it off completely....I won't go into how many people have let me down.

The place we are at now in the industry is because multiple bridges have been burned in the past. This isn't that uncommon of the situation afterall.

The easiest option for the Vet is actually to kill the dog in these cases. Case closed and no litigation or threats to the rcvs once that's done and the animal is no longer suffering.

Thankfully the majority of us in the profession still don't take that option....but I bet the vets this puppy is with now must wonder if it wasn't the wisest choice in hindsight given the way the OPs acting.

Presumably you can’t always take the dog on, so is it only the cute ones that don’t get killed? Or do you manage to rehome every dog with a useless owner? How do you decide which dogs live and die?

 

[Tiddlypom]

Presumably you can’t always take the dog on, so is it only the cute ones that don’t get killed? Or do you manage to rehome every dog with a useless owner? How do you decide which dogs live and die?

You do realise that the suicide rate amongst vets is very high? Part of the answer to your question might be the stress they endure deciding just which animals live or die.

Toss a coin? Heads you live, tails you die?

 

[Aru]

Presumably you can’t always take the dog on, so is it only the cute ones that don’t get killed? Or do you manage to rehome every dog with a useless owner? How do you decide which dogs live and die?

I never take the dog on in these situations personally- my random vet acquisition so far has been dogs and cats without owners and times up that I couldn't face euthanising on the day mostly early in my career when I still worked rurally. I've still euthanised an lot of animals in my time as a vet unfortunately.

In the rare time(I've been very lucky) that I've been in this situation where I think the owners only euthanising due to financial concerns- now that I live in an urban area with options. I discussed out local charity option to the owner in their list of options. There's a always a list of options. They just aren't all popular. Euthanasia is always a potential treatment option for a sick animal.
The owner still has to decide what they want to do with their animal in these cases.
Plenty of people still chose euthanasia over rehoming a dog even when surrender is option. That's the owners call.

But I'm always going to tell the broken legged young animal owner with 0 money about the surrender option because I don't like euthanising animals with very treatable conditions that are manageable. Terrible unethical vet that I am.

As a general rule I guess surrender is usually offered to adoptable young animals who should adapt to a new home reasonably easily and have curative conditions.
Dont worry vets euthanise plenty of managable cases for owners who cannot manage them. Some of them even bother us years later when we think about it.

First rule of being a vet. Don't care more then the owners does....or at least try not to.

The main animals I've seen surrendered are puppies with parvo virus though. Broken leg dogs have time. Painrelief and stabilise and the owner has time to see what they can do...amputation, splint v surgery.
Parvo and blockage or intersusception etc dogs don't. They need decisions made as they are often time critical cases.
Out patient care, pts or surrender are the parvo case options in financial concern cases if the puppy isn't already in dire straits on presentation.

I consider it my job to offer options. Owners job is to make decisions and decide how much they want to pay for medical care.

No owner who has made it to the vet with a pet is a truly useless owner though. Plenty of animals will never darken our doors. The ones who at least seek medical care are trying to help the animal...even if it they cannot take on the financial burden people who present for vet care aren't useless. Useless would be letting the animal die in pain at home instead.

 

[Birker2020]

I'm not being nasty or critical but isn't that fraud? If you are not covered for the first 14 days to lie to the insurance company and say you have taken ownership earlier than you actually did to ensure you were fully covered when the animal does actually go to you? Does everyone do this? Is this the norm? Like I say I am just curious as I've never thought about it before. Maybe I am just very naive.

Is someone going to answer my question please. I am intrigued to know if everyone does this?
Surely if you make a claim against a new horse they would want to see a bill of sale? Or dog?

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

So really she’s chosen not pay .
She thinks private vets should run a sort NHS for pets where those who pay their bills get to subsidise those who chose to send money on other things .
No thanks to that .

Yes, exactly! She has available enough of a deposit to be applying for a mortgage (as part of a 1st Time buyer's scheme) but she doesn't want to use that money to pay the £2000 vet bill.

 

[MurphysMinder]

Is someone going to answer my question please. I am intrigued to know if everyone does this?
Surely if you make a claim against a new horse they would want to see a bill of sale? Or dog?

Any pups I have bought or sold have been covered by the KC 4 week insurance. I have however activated the insurance before the pup has gone to new home on more than one occasion, if the owner has paid for it. This was after a pup I kept whilst owners were on holiday had a freak accident and broke her leg. I paid the vets bill and let the pup go at a reduced price, but luckily she made a full recovery.

 

[Birker2020]

Yes, exactly! She has available enough of a deposit to be applying for a mortgage (as part of a 1st Time buyer's scheme) but she doesn't want to use that money to pay the £2000 vet bill.

Maybe she has reasons to want to escape her current housing situation, she might have kids and it might be an unsuitable place, maybe she is renting and the house is full of mould, maybe she is in an abusive relationship with a partner and needs to escape, maybe it is near the school she desperately wants to get her kids into. There could be loads of reasons that are life changing. She could get a credit card, a 0% and get the money that way, but heck, not everyone knows the ins and outs of that.

 

[Aru]

Presumably you can’t always take the dog on, so is it only the cute ones that don’t get killed? Or do you manage to rehome every dog with a useless owner? How do you decide which dogs live and die?

You know this is a pretty loaded question though.right?
Was your intention to make me feel bad?
Make me feel guilty about euthanising animals when noone is willing to financially care for them?
Or imply that I'm a bad person for offering people the choice of surrender instead of euthanasia? Should I be doing it more or less. I'm confused by the cute comment in particular.

I'm curious about the thought process behind it.