Vets letter to RCVS

[Clodagh]

I simply can’t understand anyone being offended by a vet asking if you have insurance. After all if you have insurance you have it for a reason and would surely want the vet to know

Thank you to the vets, once again, who have posted on this thread. You’re amazing at what you do

I too am going to email my vets today.

People seem to look for offence.
I say again, if you don’t trust your vet go to a different one.

 

[MurphysMinder]

People seem to look for offence.
I say again, if you don’t trust your vet go to a different one.

This is it in a nutshell. I was with a wonderful practice for over 30 years, then it was taken over and senior partners retired. I stayed with them but then had a very poor experience regarding ooh/euthanasia and left, I just didn't have the same confidence in them . I'm now with a wonderful independent practice who have their own ooh and in house referral in a modern purpose built hospital.

 

[AmyMay]

People seem to look for offence.
I say again, if you don’t trust your vet go to a different one.

When Jack became very ill I was practically shouting ‘he’s insured, he’s insured’ as we took him in.

 

[Alibear]

I have no issue with vets themselves or the nurses, doing a tough job for naff all money and naff all respect. How it's come to this I do not know.
I do question the training given to new vets, which seemed to be a point in the original letter. As it seems to be a formulaic and step process to order diagnostics.
I get a process is useful but it seems newer vets are not enabled/empowered to be confident in diagnosis using their own skills and knowledge.
Then there's the corporate ownership, where the client's bills increase, but the vets are paid less and worked to the bone.
It's similar to the current NHS challenges and those challenges also appear when you go private.

I don't have an answer but I do admit to finding it frustrating. It's all very well saying change practise but these issues are wide spread and it's getting more and more difficult to find a practise where they don't occur.

 

[photo_jo]

18 months ago I was quoted £878 for the removal of my cat's ear flap - down to the cartilage - due to a cancerous growth on it, I was advised to remove the other one at the same time for another £878 - no discount for the fact the cat would already be anaesthetised etc etc. The price did not include the initial consultation nor follow up visits. In the end both ears were done for £700 which included all follow up visits, a drip (he's an older cat), and microchipping. The difference between the two practices was the first one is corporate owned, the second is a private practice.

 

[photo_jo]

It's similar to the current NHS challenges and those challenges also appear when you go private.

Interestingly I was told by a surgeon that does both NHS and private work that the private hospitals now prefer self funding over insured because insurers have capped what they will pay for specific procedures

 

[Clodagh]

18 months ago I was quoted £878 for the removal of my cat's ear flap - down to the cartilage - due to a cancerous growth on it, I was advised to remove the other one at the same time for another £878 - no discount for the fact the cat would already be anaesthetised etc etc. The price did not include the initial consultation nor follow up visits. In the end both ears were done for £700 which included all follow up visits, a drip (he's an older cat), and microchipping. The difference between the two practices was the first one is corporate owned, the second is a private practice.

I’m sure there are other differences as well, but even so you exercised your right to look elsewhere. Is that so awful?

 

[Quigleyandme]

My son and daughter in law are vets. My son is a major in the army currently posted in Knightsbridge and my DiL is a clinical director specialising in dairy and poultry of a corporate in Gloucestershire. I’m not a vet basher. I live in the west of Ireland and my vet practice in an independent covering farm, equine, poultry and small animal. Costs of services are a fraction of what they are in the UK. Even factoring in lower property prices the difference is significant. Ireland is a wealthy country with high wages and a high standard of living but a completely dysfunctional insurance industry. If obtainable at all it is prohibitively expensive so we don’t have it. I think this has kept professional fees lower for better or worse.

 

[ester]

I have no issue with vets themselves or the nurses, doing a tough job for naff all money and naff all respect. How it's come to this I do not know.
I do question the training given to new vets, which seemed to be a point in the original letter. As it seems to be a formulaic and step process to order diagnostics.
I get a process is useful but it seems newer vets are not enabled/empowered to be confident in diagnosis using their own skills and knowledge.
Then there's the corporate ownership, where the client's bills increase, but the vets are paid less and worked to the bone.
It's similar to the current NHS challenges and those challenges also appear when you go private.

I don't have an answer but I do admit to finding it frustrating. It's all very well saying change practise but these issues are wide spread and it's getting more and more difficult to find a practise where they don't occur.

New vets have always been new vets I don’t think we can expect them to go off piste when they start out, they’re still learning at that point.
In the case of complaints they also have to be able to show they did the things as they ‘should have’ been done.

 

[Clodagh]

When we first learn to ride a horse we don’t immediately learn counter canter, for instance. I don’t think you can expect someone newly qualified to be 100% confident in off the cuff diagnosis. In fact I think that would be a bad thing.

 

[AandK]

I don’t think I have ever had a vet ask if my animal is insured as the first question, yes it may come up if more complicated treatment is needed , but that is it .
When I was facing the prospect of my dog having complicated surgery the vet booked me an appointment after scans just to discuss options and even then didn’t push me to go ahead (I did with a great outcome ).
I’m not a vet but my daughter is so I see some of it from both sides , and get so fed up with the money grabbing vets thing. Like Redders it is cheaper for my daughter to give me a prescription than get prascend/bute herself .

I guess I am lucky that over the years I have never had vets ask if my horse/dog is insured as a first question, maybe later in treatment discussions but that would be a mix of me mentioning it or them asking. I have never let the fact an animal is insured push me into treatment I don't agree with, I have declined vets suggested treatment options as not best for the animals long term QOL (e.g. hip replacement for a 12yo lab, or lump removal surgery for a 26yo horse with uncertain outcome). I wouldn't be offended even if it was the first question they asked, I get why it is asked as explained further upthread, to me I will do what I think is best for my animal regardless of whether they are insured or not.

 

[SO1]

I wonder if the insurance question is not just about affordability. Horse insurance goes up to 5k normally which may not always be enough to cover difficult diagnostics and treatments.

I wonder if it also about financial planning with insurance the vet knows the funds are likely to come but they may have to wait and also involves completing the paperwork.

With self funding they may get the money earlier and no paperwork or there is a risk that the person will be a slow payer. Time chasing debts I suppose has to be factored into costs.

I changed saddlers recently and if the invoice is not paid within 24 hours an extra 5% is added per day of non payment.

 

[Sealine]

As horse owners we are pretty clued up on our animals (horses, dogs, cats etc). We know how to look after them, daily observation and monitoring of their health and behaviour, basic first aid, when to call a vet etc. When we do call a vet we have discussions about the various options around how invasive treatments are, costs, rehab, outcomes etc. Most of us have had to make the final PTS decision for multiple animals and although it doesn't get an easier we know it's part of ownership. At the risk of sounding patronising, the average pet owner doesn't have these skills or experience, especially new pet owners since Covid. I've seen friends taking their pet to the vet and paying thousands of pounds with no real understanding of what treatment the animal is having, what their chance of a full recovery is or what the medication is that they are paying for or any side effects. A couple of times I've tried to tactfully tell friends they are spending alot of money and they need to ask if there are other options or if they should consider PTS. In hindsight they often agree that I was right and that they wouldn't write a blank cheque and blindly agree to anything a vet suggested in future. Other times I've made to feel like a hard, terrible person. It's up for debate whether the vets are at fault here or the owners.

Personally I've never had a problem with any of the small or large animal vet practices I've used regarding costs or treatments but I've always made it clear to the vet what my approach is and asked lots of questions. I've also been lucky and my small animals have never been insured or needed expensive investigations or treatments and I've had funds available to pay for whatever they've needed. My horses have always been insured and I have made claims over the years but I suspect I've paid more in premiums than I've claimed.

 

[suestowford]

Medication is the bit that threw me. I had no idea vet practices had to buy from certain suppliers - whereas I can go on the internet & get from the cheapest if I've got a prescription. That's ridiculous. Those suppliers to vets have no incentive to price competitively.

Absolutely this! But fair play to the surgery I use, when the cost of Prascend through them doubled in just a few months, they said I'd be better off buying online with a prescription from them. They were as shocked as I was by the increase.

I am usually asked when I register a dog at a practice (about insurance) and the vet then doesn’t broach it.

It's on my notes on their computer, I've seen it there when I've been in the consultation room. Insuring is a personal choice and mine is, not to do it. I have saved up a contingency fund, this has been on the go for 25+ years and has never been raided for anything other than vet bills. So I don't get asked the question any more. I agree it's important for the vet to know whether they have got to deal with an insurance company or not.
All my animals are old now, I dread to think how much I'd pay for insurance, and that's assuming that I would even get cover.

The surgery I use has recently been taken over by a corporate, but most of the vets are still there. I've been with the surgery now for a very long time, and there has only been one time that I was not happy about what they did. But I didn't even need to complain as they were on that lapse straight away and sorted it all out for me. That's why I stay there, despite suspicions about the corporate overlords.

 

[Jenko109]

I do not see the problem with asking 'is he insured?'

When my whippet presented with a fever and some pain, my vet asked if he was insured.

As he was, they referred him on to the specialist where he had an MRI, spinal tap etc and concluded a diagnosis and treatment plan that same day.

If he had not been referred and money had been a cause for concern, then they may have continued to do some in house diagnostics at my usual vet, but this could have taken more time and we would have been without a diagnosis for longer.

Insurance allowed me to get him referred and throw the kitchen sink at it.

 

[skinnydipper]

At the risk of sounding patronising, the average pet owner doesn't have these skills or experience, especially new pet owners since Covid. I've seen friends taking their pet to the vet and paying thousands of pounds with no real understanding of what treatment the animal is having, what their chance of a full recovery is or what the medication is that they are paying for or any side effects.

My dog has a couple of health conditions which require ongoing treatment and regular review, for one she is under the care the local vet and the other requires more specialist input and treatment. I was at the specialist vets again with her yesterday and the vet said exactly this, that some people go, don't ask any questions and don't seem to want to know about the condition or treatment. And then there is me .

For those that object to paying the cost of a consultation at the general practice vet, lets hope your dog never needs to be referred to a vet specialist.

 

[Tarragon]

I think it is worth noting in this discussion, that, for the most part, people are not pointing fingers at individual vets; it is more about the system as a whole. And there is nothing wrong for people within an industry to be critical about their own industry. I work in IT, and do the graduate training, and have seen over the last 15 years a big shift in what they teach IT graduates, and, in my opinion, I think that the changes have not been good on the whole. We are getting people who know less about the art and science of how to write a good program and more about subjects that are mostly irrelevant to an actual development job. It is not the fault of the graduates; it has just meant that the training we give them has had to evolve.
I feel that, on a whole, the average horse owner is more knowledgeable about their animals than the average pet owner, and less pragmatic than the average livestock farmer, and this means that each group look for different things from their vet. I once had a discussion on a similar topic as this with my sister-in-law who is a small animal vet working for a large corporation in a large northern town, and it became very apparent, very soon, that we were not talking the same language!

 

[Landcruiser]

Just come back and caught up on this thread. It makes me so tired, reading some of the comments. I see now that the original letter writer IS a vet (which I doubted when I read it), and though he makes some important points about corporates, I feel that he's mostly just stirred up the vet bashers and added to the difficulties we already face in the business. I've seen the letter shared a few times on FB, and inevitably there's a whole chain of negative comments underneath. "My vet quoted me £400 for a dental and my cat doesn't even need one." "My friend's vet charged her £2000 to fix her dog's broken leg, how do they expect people to afford that?" "The vet made me pay a consult fee but they didn't even DO anything." "I took my cat to OOH vet and they wanted £200 just to see him." On and on and on.

The thing is, ten years ago I was probably the same. I thought vets were wildly expensive, earned loads of money, and had a pretty cushy life spent with animals, the life I'd quite have liked for myself having grown up reading Herriot. I didn't apply myself at school so it never happened, but I never gave up the thought that I'd like to work with animals, so after leaving teaching and a bit of dotting around I landed a receptionist post at a small animal practice in a local village. Very early on the then boss/clinical lead and I had a heart to heart, probably because I'd questioned something or other. He told me how the costs break down - eye opener number 1. He also told me about independent v corporate - eye opener number 2. At this point the business had recently been bought by a corporate, whereas previously he had run it as an independent. Eye opener number 3 was seeing the sheer relentlessness of a typical day. The vet isn't just there doing your consult. They typically start with rounds, then might go straight into back to back surgeries, then several hours of 15 minute consults, then running and interpreting tests, phoning results, writing clinical notes, making referrals, follow up care of inpatients, checking and dispensing ordered medications, fielding queries from the reception team, etc etc. Our full time vets start at 8.30 and officially stop at 7, but are almost always there later. It's not unusual for them to be there until 8.30, meaning a full on, 12 hour day. It's also not unusual to find a vet asleep in the staff room, or crying.

The only people bringing the money in in a vet practice are the vets. But each vet is supported by a whole team of people who also need paying. Practice management, admin, insurance admin, reception, nurses, animal care assistants, maintenance...and that's without the cost of rent, new equipment, disposables, and so it goes on. The costs have risen along with the availability of new treatment options. Your 15 minute consult fee is spread between all of these things, it doesn't go in the vet's back pocket.

Insurance. We (reception) try to remember to ask when a pet is registered but things change, policies lapse or exclusions are applied. I have never, ever, ever known a vet ask if a pet is insured before even examining the pet. I think it's mostly apocryphal. It comes up at some point and people assume at that point the price will rise, and that's what they remember of the consult. I don't believe vets, who are there for the most part because they are dedicated people who care for animals, ask that question BEFORE even looking at the pet.

But as Redders has explained up thread, knowing the insurance status is part of the whole picture. Nobody ups their prices for insured pets (which would be illegal) but knowing whether there is or isn't insurance can help the vet/owner to choose the optimum treatment within the available budget. I don't understand people getting the hump about it. This whole "I don't insure and that doesn't mean I don't want the best for my pet and how dare you imply otherwise by asking me about it?" vibe is unnecessary, it's not meant as a personal slight.

And by the way. There IS a difference between Tesco sandwiches and M&S sandwiches. M&S have more choice, better quality ingredients, and much more fill (no dry crusts). A sandwich isn't just a sandwich any more than a vet is just a vet.

 

[SkylarkAscending]

And by the way. There IS a difference between Tesco sandwiches and M&S sandwiches. M&S have more choice, better quality ingredients, and much more fill (no dry crusts). A sandwich isn't just a sandwich any more than a vet is just a vet.

Which is exactly the point I was making

 

[ycbm]

I do not see the problem with asking 'is he insured?'

When my whippet presented with a fever and some pain, my vet asked if he was insured.

As he was, they referred him on to the specialist where he had an MRI, spinal tap etc and concluded a diagnosis and treatment plan that same day.

If he had not been referred and money had been a cause for concern, then they may have continued to do some in house diagnostics at my usual vet, but this could have taken more time and we would have been without a diagnosis for longer.

Insurance allowed me to get him referred and throw the kitchen sink at it.

If that was the gold standard for your dog and any dog with the same condition, and likely to improve his chances of recovery, then that treatment has to be offered to everyone regardless of their insurance status.

If vets want to avoid accusations of milking insurance, then the question of how the treatment is to be paid for should come after the explanation of the treatment options available.
.

 

[Jenko109]

If that was the gold standard for your dog and any dog with the same condition, and likely to improve his chances of recovery, then that treatment has to be offered to everyone regardless of their insurance status.

If vets want to avoid accusations of milking insurance, then the question of how the treatment is to be paid for should come after the explanation of the treatment options available.
.

As he was referred to a specialist, I'm unsure how they could be accused of milking my insurance it wasn't them getting paid.

I personally think it makes more sense to understand what a client is able to afford. It does not mean that the vet cannot make it clear that ideally they would do XYZ.

 

[paddy555]

Vets, for me, are one of the few things that I stress about. In fact they totally freak me out after a few unhappy incidents. PTS or poorly animals no problem, I can cope well. I can nurse poorly animals happily. . Vets are a different matter as I have had a lot of problems over the years. 50% of my vet treatment has been excellent over the years. That leaves the other 50%. I would have lost 2 horses if I had listened to 2 different vets. Fortunately one I refused PTS and got a different vet out who laughed at the first vets diagnosis of botulism.
The second instance involved a 7mo foal which having got him to horse hospital at my insistence they promised to do what they could to save his life. (lawsonia) The young vet there saw a serious problem even as he was coming off the lorry and within minutes blood tests were flying around to both internal and external labs, we spent 2 hours standing in the exam room being examined, scanned etc. It was serious. Losing him was a possibility.

The local vet who had seen him the previous day didn't even really recognise a problem and I had to insist even on a blood test. They couldn't even be bothered to speak to me the following day on the phone when his true problems became apparent and I needed them to refer him. I do have to admit they were very very sheepish afterwards when they were required by the horse hospital to liase with me for several weeks afterwards for his ongoing treatment.

In neither case did I complain to the practice because those vets were partners. Nor was I unpleasant nor did I question their conduct. I simply voted with my feet.

I have learnt to be very careful with vets over the years based on my experiences. I took a dog who the practice were already dealing with to be PTS in the middle of the night (on welfare grounds due to illness as it was the kindest thing to do.) I agreed to yet more tests the following day but I left very specific instructions that at the first sign of trouble (for the dog) she was to be PTS. They didn't. They totally fee chased as the insurance were paying and luckily they did pay many thousands of pounds later. She came home 2 days later. I knew something bad had happened as the vet nurse phoned me at 7.30 am to tell me she had made it through the night, there was no reason at that stage why she shouldn't have and I certainly hadn't authorised that sort of treatment. It was covered up. I never got a satisfactory answer. I considered asking to see all of their medical notes however I was saved from that when the clerical staff, by mistake, sent the very detailed bill to me rather than the insurers. I worked through exactly what had happened. No way should I have been kept in the dark. My instructions to PTS were totally disobeyed.

I don't have any problem in paying for good service from vets, I appreciate the costs. . I appreciate that they do work hard. However it would be pointless any vet considering insurance or how much I was going to pay if I presented a pet for treatment. Simply because I would have absolutely no idea. .



. Apart from one vet whom I trust completely but will be retiring soon with a small animal you seem to see many different vets. Before considering money I like to know what the problem is and how confident I feel with the diagnosis and further possible tests. Then what the options are. Having got all the info then I consider how we are going to move forward. Payment doesn't come into the equation. What is best for the animal is the question for me. Then if the animal is insured I let them know so they can write the correct details on the forms to keep the insurers happy.

I shall have to consider moving from the practice mentioned in para 3 when my vet retires. There were a lot of other problems in their treatment of my dog in that episode and in the end I refused to attend the branch in question nor to deal with the vets.

Leaving if you are not satisfied is an easy suggestion but finding a small animal practice with OOH facilities within a reasonable distance is not so easy. Having read another thread on here about having to move pets into a hospital from your vet overnight and back again in the morning was something that had never occurred to me.
I thought I had found a replacement (a corporate) with a vet I know and am very happy with but no OOH just a helpline.

as for insurance in general it seems to have pushed prices up to how much can the insurance be hoped to pay. Going back a few years vets used to give a different prescription for treatment. It was called "time".

If that was the gold standard for your dog and any dog with the same condition, and likely to improve his chances of recovery, then that treatment has to be offered to everyone regardless of their insurance status.

If vets want to avoid accusations of milking insurance, then the question of how the treatment is to be paid for should come after the explanation of the treatment options available.
.

this.

 

[ycbm]

I personally think it makes more sense to understand what a client is able to afford. It does not mean that the vet cannot make it clear that ideally they would do XYZ.

You are getting too focused on the fact that you could personally couldn’t afford this treatment without insurance. Others can. Which means that everyone must be offered the same treatment options whether they are insured or not. Which makes the question irrelevant before the treatment options are offered. And actually the question then is really "how is this going to be paid for?" and not "are you insured? ".
.

 

[Snowfilly]

It’s a sad letter, and a true one.

Many modern vets are not animal people at heart, always pressing for further treatment rather than considering the quality of life.

I would say roughly 30% of the vets I’ve seen in the last few years aren’t ones that I would trust my animals too. I’ve had multiple conversations with practices stating that the pensioner ponies are not candidates for treatment at a high level and I still have vets coming out and push, push, push. The understanding and care for the animals is a vanishing thing, second to money the treatment can bring in. After one experience when a horse in hospital was given a treatment I had already said not to do - and I was then billed for - I found myself going in circles trying to find someone to address this with as the practice closed ranks and denied all knowledge.

Luckily I’ve been able to find a farm animal practice who will treat horses and send some vets with common sense out. I haven’t had to ban anyone from that practice from the yard but I currently have a list of 5 vets from the other two local ones who aren’t allowed on the place because I cannot trust them to do or advise what is right for the animal.

Vets on this thread, you might be fine professionals and that’s great. It doesn’t change the fact that some of your colleagues are not and the average owner has very little recourse in dealing with them.

 

[photo_jo]

I’m sure there are other differences as well, but even so you exercised your right to look elsewhere. Is that so awful?

The cat certainly got better treatment at the private practice - the vet who operated was way more experienced than the vet at the first and I was recommended him by a specialist vet I happen to know- it was more that's the difference between costs at a private practice and one that's owned by a corporate company.

 

[Redders]

Some insurance policies for small animals state they won’t cover things if not treated within x amount of time of problem noted, which is another reason we ask. It’s never been my first question, ever, and never will be. I can appreciate why people may perceive it negatively, I guess I just don’t understand why it’s such an assumption that it’s negative or so see can get more money. Probably because the thought never crosses my mind. I’ll be mindful of it, but I think I need to accept that there will be times where regardless of when it was asked and if I explain the reasons why I asked, it will be the one thing some people with remember from the consult. I can only try my best to explain why I am talking about money as best I can.

I had one today, didn’t ask about money at all, pet was really very sick. I said I was worried, I said why, I said possible diagnoses. I listed initial investigations and why needed and what next steps might be. I explained I was concerned we would find something we couldn’t fix and that saying a peaceful goodbye now was an entirely reasonable option. I had already given pain relief as the first thing I asked was if they would consent to me giving that straight away. The owner decided they wanted to investigate to see we could find something treatable. I said ok I’ll just get you an estimate and consent form. They swore at me and rolled their eyes, and said ‘of course, all about the money, my dog is dying here and you just want the money’. I hadn’t even given them the proposed cost at that point, just said I would get an estimate.

I HAVE to give an estimate before I start treatment. I HAVE to. The estimate was over 1000k for what the owner said they wanted, they have to be aware of that before I start.

 

[Redders]

Thank you to those who have said how being asked about money made them feel and how they may prefer it to be broached x

 

[teapot]

I simply can’t understand anyone being offended by a vet asking if you have insurance. After all if you have insurance you have it for a reason and would surely want the vet to know

I wonder whether it's an accountability thing 'how dare you insinuate I might not be able to afford my animals' but that may well fit into the wider changes in society we're seeing... Anyone who is a sensible owner, whether it's a dog or horse, isn't going to bat an eyelid re the insurance question. Those expecting vets bills to be like the NHS, ie free at point of use, would easily take it a different way imho.

 

[nagblagger]

I respect my equine vets and have a brilliant relationship with them. However I have recently changed my small animal vets, after 25+ years, ('my' vet retired) not necessarily because they have gone corporate, but the calibre of a couple of the more junior vets who are more procedure, process, orientated, with no 'people' skills. To me this shows their own insecurities, the trust has gone. I hasten to say it is not their fault if their training has changed, like the medical/nursing profession, no wonder they need the reassurance of equipment, investigations to confirm a diagnosis, rather than clinical judgement, plus the increase risk of litigation which all cost money. (When did a nurse/doctor take a manual blood pressure or feel for a pulse) I am not against junior vets if they have appropriate mentors, they have done procedures on my equines under strict supervision, sadly the experience vets are the ones that are leaving the profession so there is a gap in this mentorship.

I like to know my vets and build a relationship of trust between us to be able to have serious, sensible conversations about pros and cons of treatment including costs. involved and insurance status. I would pay more for this type of examination and conversation, than diving in for blood tests etc.

However, i have shadowed both types of vets for a few days and it was an eye-opener, my horses are always out ready for the vet and I ignorantly though this was the norm. So many owners were waiting till we arrived to drag their horse from a far field, making us late for the next appointments - so it continued. I do appreciate vets can be late, but they normally telephone with the new eta. Some were down right rude, i did ask why it was tolerated and was informed they were clients and businesses need clients to survive.
Respect to you all.

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

Some insurance policies for small animals state they won’t cover things if not treated within x amount of time of problem noted, which is another reason we ask. It’s never been my first question, ever, and never will be. I can appreciate why people may perceive it negatively, I guess I just don’t understand why it’s such an assumption that it’s negative or so see can get more money. Probably because the thought never crosses my mind. I’ll be mindful of it, but I think I need to accept that there will be times where regardless of when it was asked and if I explain the reasons why I asked, it will be the one thing some people with remember from the consult. I can only try my best to explain why I am talking about money as best I can.

I had one today, didn’t ask about money at all, pet was really very sick. I said I was worried, I said why, I said possible diagnoses. I listed initial investigations and why needed and what next steps might be. I explained I was concerned we would find something we couldn’t fix and that saying a peaceful goodbye now was an entirely reasonable option. I had already given pain relief as the first thing I asked was if they would consent to me giving that straight away. The owner decided they wanted to investigate to see we could find something treatable. I said ok I’ll just get you an estimate and consent form. They swore at me and rolled their eyes, and said ‘of course, all about the money, my dog is dying here and you just want the money’. I hadn’t even given them the proposed cost at that point, just said I would get an estimate.

I HAVE to give an estimate before I start treatment. I HAVE to. The estimate was over 1000k for what the owner said they wanted, they have to be aware of that before I start.

That is disgusting, I am so sorry you were treated like that and that it doesn't sound like an uncommon scenario for vets.