Veterinary ethics

A

angelish

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 December 2009
Messages
3,498
Location
aboot haff an hour north of geordie land
Visit site
Hi
I'm not quite sure i'm posting this in the right place as it was a post on facebook about a dog that got me thinking but i also know a few people who have been in the same situation with horses

Can a Vet ethically really refuse to treat a suffering Dog/Cat/Horse etc ?

it was a post about a very ill dog and the vets had refused to treat the animal without the owner paying for any treatment up front
i have heard the same said about some people with horses who are not very good payers , vets refusing to come out and treat the animal etc

i can understand that vets are trying to make a living too and cannot afford to keep on bad payers or to let people build up more debt than they can possibly pay off etc
But surely if an animal is really suffering there is some sort of welfare obligation to a vet to have to treat it

just to be clear here i have my horse insured for this reason and also have money saved for any disasters , i pay my bills as soon as they arrive through the door as imo my vet is very important to me
 
my understanding is that vets take an oath and part of that is to do everything they can to prevent suffering, if an animal needs treatment to prevent suffering and owners refuse to pay (for what ever reason) a vet is obligated to offer to end suffering, i.e euthanaise.

makes me cross that people think vets should be responsible for the well being of all animals-maybe more responsibility should be put on the breeders that produce these animals in the first place?
 
twiggy2 said:
my understanding is that vets take an oath and part of that is to do everything they can to prevent suffering, if an animal needs treatment to prevent suffering and owners refuse to pay (for what ever reason) a vet is obligated to offer to end suffering, i.e euthanaise.

makes me cross that people think vets should be responsible for the well being of all animals-maybe more responsibility should be put on the breeders that produce these animals in the first place?
Click to expand...

oh yes and the owners who take no responsibility for keeping money back for such disasters or/and buying animals that they obviously cannot afford to pay vet fees for
I think it is very difficult for vets in a situation were an animal is suffering and the owners all ready owe thousands to the practise or are known bad payers etc

i know of a couple of cases though were a vet has refused to treat/come out to an animal in need of treatment and i was just pondering weather they ethically could really refuse to treat it
 
angelish said:
oh yes and the owners who take no responsibility for keeping money back for such disasters or/and buying animals that they obviously cannot afford to pay vet fees for
I think it is very difficult for vets in a situation were an animal is suffering and the owners all ready owe thousands to the practise or are known bad payers etc

i know of a couple of cases though were a vet has refused to treat/come out to an animal in need of treatment and i was just pondering weather they ethically could really refuse to treat it
Click to expand...

euthanaisa is a form of treatment, it is one that ends suffering so no they can't refuse to end suffering for an animal they are presented with. I am not sure about refusing to pay a visit as they animal has not been presented to them.
 
I had this happen At work with a dog, it was horrid. A child I was teaching had a jack Russell. Her father was a lovely man but he had learning difficulties, doing his best, working two jobs but never really earning money to support his family. One day his large dog attacked the jack and the vets refused to treat because they knew he would struggle to pay the bill. They pts instead, even although the dog could have been saved, with enough money, the father asked me to break the news to his very voiltile daughter. It was horrid, but the least I could do. She was a handful at the best of times. I was very upset about the dog because knowing the man he would have paid the bill but if would have taken time. Sadly vets are a business.
 
Sukistokes2 said:
I had this happen At work with a dog, it was horrid. A child I was teaching had a jack Russell. Her father was a lovely man but he had learning difficulties, doing his best, working two jobs but never really earning money to support his family. One day his large dog attacked the jack and the vets refused to treat because they knew he would struggle to pay the bill. They pts instead, even although the dog could have been saved, with enough money, the father asked me to break the news to his very voiltile daughter. It was horrid, but the least I could do. She was a handful at the best of times. I was very upset about the dog because knowing the man he would have paid the bill but if would have taken time. Sadly vets are a business.
Click to expand...

he had a large dog and a small dog his choice why should the vets carry the debt?
the vets clearly did not refuse to treat they offered a treatment option the chap could afford
 
What about the PDSA? I can understand the vets being very put out if a client wouldn't/couldn't pay, most try to accommodate the ones who have difficultry, but are willing to pay, but get fed up with those that won't pay. But in that case wouldn't the vets refer the owner to the PDSA?
 
Sukistokes2 said:
I had this happen At work with a dog, it was horrid. A child I was teaching had a jack Russell. Her father was a lovely man but he had learning difficulties, doing his best, working two jobs but never really earning money to support his family. One day his large dog attacked the jack and the vets refused to treat because they knew he would struggle to pay the bill. They pts instead, even although the dog could have been saved, with enough money, the father asked me to break the news to his very voiltile daughter. It was horrid, but the least I could do. She was a handful at the best of times. I was very upset about the dog because knowing the man he would have paid the bill but if would have taken time. Sadly vets are a business.
Click to expand...

The vet refused because he knew the father would struggle to pay or the vet offered a treatment that cost X, Y and Z and the father chosen cheaper option ie PTS as he could not afford paying for the treatment?
 
Orangehorse said:
What about the PDSA? I can understand the vets being very put out if a client wouldn't/couldn't pay, most try to accommodate the ones who have difficultry, but are willing to pay, but get fed up with those that won't pay. But in that case wouldn't the vets refer the owner to the PDSA?
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly (it was long ago), one has to be on some sort of benefits to be eligible.
 
Orangehorse said:
What about the PDSA? I can understand the vets being very put out if a client wouldn't/couldn't pay, most try to accommodate the ones who have difficultry, but are willing to pay, but get fed up with those that won't pay. But in that case wouldn't the vets refer the owner to the PDSA?
Click to expand...

I get sick of people thinking the PDSA should pick up the tab for those who won't pay vet fees. They are a charity set up to help people of limited means (they have their own criteria for who qualifies for their help) not there to pay for treatment for anyone who buys a pet but doesn't bother to organize themselves so that they can afford to pay vet fees. A lot of bad payers in life are not poor but choose to spend their money in other ways and pay their debts off bit by bit, if at all, because that's what suits them.
 
PDSA-the pet has to be registered BEFORE it falls il and I believe you can only have 2 animals registered and you have to be in receipt of certain benefits.
So the responsibility is (as it should be) with the owner to make sure they have found out what they are eligible for and make sure they fulfill the requirements to qualify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top