Would you bankrupt yourself for a horse's vet fees?

A

Alfiem

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 September 2011
Messages
226
Visit site
This post isn't meant to start an argument:p I know most people have their horses insured for vets fees and this post is not to have a dig saying people shouldn't have horses if they can't afford an 8k vet bill. And again if you would be happy to sell your home to pay for vet bills that's your decision and I respect that.

Personally I wouldn't. I love horses but they are not the be all and end all of my life, and personally I would have to call it a day if the insurance money runs out and we are no further forward. I also would refuse to pay £160 a month for medication for the retired horse, this may seem very callous but that money pays for my other 2 useful horses, and the retired horse would be PTS with dignity and respect, not passed on.

I also think that keeping a roof over my head is pretty important too, and couldn't justify losing my home to pay for vet fees, nor would I run up more than I could afford to pay back on loans or credit cards.

I have insurance for my vet's fees, the pet plan hi XS policy upto 3k - if mine went lame once the money ran out he would be chucked out for a year, and if still not right PTS as I think then it will never be right. And I would never put any of mine through colic surgery.

Anyone have any views on this?
 
Alfiem said:
This post isn't meant to start an argument:p I know most people have their horses insured for vets fees and this post is not to have a dig saying people shouldn't have horses if they can't afford an 8k vet bill. And again if you would be happy to sell your home to pay for vet bills that's your decision and I respect that.

Personally I wouldn't. I love horses but they are not the be all and end all of my life, and personally I would have to call it a day if the insurance money runs out and we are no further forward. I also would refuse to pay £160 a month for medication for the retired horse, this may seem very callous but that money pays for my other 2 useful horses, and the retired horse would be PTS with dignity and respect, not passed on.

I also think that keeping a roof over my head is pretty important too, and couldn't justify losing my home to pay for vet fees, nor would I run up more than I could afford to pay back on loans or credit cards.

I have insurance for my vet's fees, the pet plan hi XS policy upto 3k - if mine went lame once the money ran out he would be chucked out for a year, and if still not right PTS as I think then it will never be right. And I would never put any of mine through colic surgery.

Anyone have any views on this?
Click to expand...

I suppose it all depends how selfish you are in life, and how much time you spend thinking about 'me, me, me'.
I have three horses, uninsured.
I have put two of mine through colic surgery.
I am paying for drugs each month to keep two of mine alive (one on Preds, one on Prascend).
But you know, all life is precious, and to me horses are not just vehicles for me to ride for my own selfish enjoyment.
S :D
 
I think every ones personal circumstances will definitly be a key to any decision, but me and OH have always said if its ' life saving' and our dogs / horses would still have some sort of value in life then we would remorgage the house, if prognosis was poor and and reduce value of life then whether it be money or not we would be brave enough to make the right call.
 
literally bankrupt myself, lose the house?

No.

Ive got other people to think of as well its not just me to think of.
 
it would depend on the horse.

i had a mare that had a tendon injury, she did have insurance but bills exceeded this, i never had planned to keep her but i loved that horse, and my view was if she coudl still jump wed take the chance. she came good.. and is alive and kicking.

my coloured horse i have now id move hell and high water for he is totally the love of life.

i bought a horse from the sales, he came in lame gave himself colic, after the 3rd visit from the vet in 10 hours i siad this is it. i will do everything for him but his next call out would be pts. (just to add after the colic i had the lamness investigated total bill 800 quid )

to put it in to perspective .. i can be a bit of a hard cow, but ive been paying my vets 80 quid a month for over 4 years.. thats a lot of vets bill!

i could at the end of the day never let a horse suffer in anyway.
 
I've got myself into serious debt before when my horses' treatment costs went beyond the insurance cover.... but back then I lived with my parents so my outgoing costs were a lot lower and I had a guaranteed roof over my head.

But now? No I wouldn't.

I have no one to fall back on.
 
I would give up my 'extras' ie sky, and cut back, prob sell my car and down size. I don't own my own house so can't sell that but don't think I would, as it would of taken me years to get to one in the first place. But I would manage the best I could to provide for the horse, and I have done in the past.

But I've got a son so I can only give so much. I have insurance, highest level of vet fees on the policy I can have. But I would go down the turn way route if possible and see how that went.

But I wouldn't let the horse suffer to keep it with me
 
Last edited:
I've not bankrupt myself but my insurance ran out 3k ago & horse poss needs another 3k surgery soon-ish. I always said I would never go above my insurance & thought people that did were foolish! However once you're in that situation it's often a different matter & you think differently. The issues the horse has aren't just something that can be solved by retiring the horse & turning it away & I wasn't prepared to lose him without trying. I've decided if appropriate I'll let them have another crack at surgery but then enoughs enough if that doesn't work.
 
I have a family to think of so wouldn't be able to put them all out on the streets.
My old sec d was my horse of a lifetime. He went crippled lame very suddenly, unisured for vet bills owing to his age. I could have attempted some treatment, but the success rate would have been about 20%, the bill would have been around £500, and the most it would have lasted would have been 3 months. The poor lad was in so much pain it was kinder to PTS.
 
Tricky one. Do you carry on with treatment hoping against hope that the horse comes sound eventually or do you give up then wonder if it was the right thing to do forever after?

When I reached my insurance limit with my Hanoverian X, I sat and thought about the projected further £8000 cost and decided against it. I have a husband who would have been affected by the debt and the prior condition/issues would have affected his future, probably adversely, on top of which, his recovery was very doubtful.

It broke my heart to tell the vet to PTS, but I still think it was the right decision.

Not the same, but I happily forked out £6000 for the dog and would have paid anything had it saved him and with my current horse I would probably do the same.
 
Last edited:
If there was a good chance of my boy becoming sound enough to be comfortable out in a paddock for the rest of his days then yes I would.

I got him as a just broken 4 yr old and he has taken me beyond what I ever thought imaginable. The wear and tear on his legs is because of me, lets be honest if we all kept our horses in a paddock and didn't do anything with them the chances of them breaking down would be far lower. I did everything I could to reduce the effects of wear and tear but I also have to accept the concequences of going out eventing/showjumping/hunting ect. I've always said that I will live in a carboard box before my horse/dog goes without. But then I don't have any dependables and my horse and dog are my life.
 
I think we have to be careful not to confuse the financial aspects of the OP's post, with the consideration of the horse's best interests.
Sometimes the two coincide - it is better for the horse to be PTS, as well as being the cheaper option.
I think we should always try, within the limits of our resources, to do the best for our animals, but this doesn't always mean further treatment.
I don't regret colic surgery on either of my two - but doubt if I'd ever do two colic surgeries on the same horse - purely because statistically their chances of survival are so reduced.
S :D
 
An impaction colic case died today because the owner's just wouldn't (not couldn't) pay for surgery, which may well have saved the horse. An awful lot of money had been spent training this horse for a professional job, more than colic surgery would have cost. Surgery would've been cheaper than training a replacement.

Should the owners have just paid? Or were they thinking the horse would never perform as well after colic surgery and best to let it die? Why not actually PTS rather than legit just die? It would have been cheaper to PTS immediately rather than pay for painkillers etc.
 
Sorry - but to me you are cold and callous - its not something you can plan for and tbh 3k in vets bills and thats the end of the line - you cant buy a holiday anywhere decent for 3k in this day and age..... 3k and that's all your prepared to push yourself too - suggest you give up the horses and keep goldfish - you can always scooptthem up in a net and wack em on concrete to put them out of their misery.
 
Shilasdair said:
I suppose it all depends how selfish you are in life, and how much time you spend thinking about 'me, me, me'.
I have three horses, uninsured.
I have put two of mine through colic surgery.
I am paying for drugs each month to keep two of mine alive (one on Preds, one on Prascend).
But you know, all life is precious, and to me horses are not just vehicles for me to ride for my own selfish enjoyment.
S :D
Click to expand...

In my 4 years of being on the horse and hound forum i have not come accross such a self praising and insulting post.

The fact that some people make the decison not to keep a horse alive which had no working use should never be criticised, eually those who are in a position to do so should always question weather it is the right thing in the long term - for some horses it is, for other horses its not.

However, for someone to suggest that on the whole people have put horses down because of finance and not long term welfare is just bloody ignorant and rude.
 
cinammontoast said:
An impaction colic case died today because the owner's just wouldn't (not couldn't) pay for surgery, which may well have saved the horse. An awful lot of money had been spent training this horse for a professional job, more than colic surgery would have cost. Surgery would've been cheaper than training a replacement.

Should the owners have just paid? Or were they thinking the horse would never perform as well after colic surgery and best to let it die? Why not actually PTS rather than legit just die? It would have been cheaper to PTS immediately rather than pay for painkillers etc.
Click to expand...

That seems an odd decision both financially and in terms of future horse use - the science suggests that horses can return to normal function after colic surgery (after the initial recovery period which isn't actually that long).
But maybe they just didn't have the money.
S :D
 
But it's true. If you can't afford a sudden £3000 bill and you prefer to PTS (on top of insurance) rather than let the horse suffer or in the case of an old horse, perhaps be buted up so it looks ok to ride and then sold on to God knows what, should you be crucified or praised?
 
Shilasdair said:
Agree, LS, and unlike the OP, if my horse was lame (aka in pain) I couldn't just chuck it out for a year once the money ran out. :(
I'd feel a responsibility to either treat the injury or if I was really skint, to PTS.
S :D
Click to expand...

I think I put that wrong - I would never chuck a horse out that was in pain per se, Although I do have an arthritic field ornament who has danilon for comfort!

What I mean is an injury that needed time, but the horse was paddock sound - if it was in pain it would be PTS

Does that even make sense???
 
cinammontoast said:
But it's true. If you can't afford a sudden £3000 bill and you prefer to PTS (on top of insurance) rather than let the horse suffer or in the case of an old horse, perhaps be buted up so it looks ok to ride and then sold on to God knows what, should you be crucified or praised?
Click to expand...

Praised. There are a lot of owners who would stuff it full of bute and then sell it to a dealer. I know I ended up with a horse from a dealers who Rossdales vets said should have been PTS long ago but despite a decent competion history someone decided that instead of PTS a good long term servant, they would flog it to a rough dealers yard. As far as i am concerned they should be PTS!
 
I knew what you meant all along. It was quite the norm a decade ago, before vets saw pound signs for scanning and nerve blocking etc. And quite often it worked too.
 
If you asked me a year ago if I would treat my 18 yr old TB if he had a life threatning injury, I probably would have said no.

But then he did have one (he broke his leg). I had him on full livery at the time and my other one on diy - and although he was insured, had the cost of livery at the vets to pay ontop. Without my amazing friend (his other mum) I would not have been able to cope with the costs alone - but she paid his livery at the vets for the whole 10 weeks he was there, meaning I was able to cover the cost of 2 livery fees back at the yard, and my other horses day to day costs etc.

Its almost been a year and he is now sound enough to be out in his field like a normal horse and be so happy and content again. We are able to hack out in walk, but I don't know that he will ever be able to do any more than that.

I can't even start to add up how much it has cost us over the year to get him sound. His vet fees were covered, minus a £500 excess and minus call out fees when he came home £100 a go, so I must have paid £1000+ in vet bills. Add on all the costs of having a horse on box rest for 6 months, daily petrol costs to go to the vets every night for the 10 weeks he was there, electric fencing needed, bandages, wraps etc etc - between his other mum and me we have spent thousands.

The problem is you can't forsee all of that at the start and once we knew there was a chance of recovery for his, we both felt we had to give it a shot.

A year on, much poorer, it has 100% been worth it for our very expensive big pet!!
 
Gingerwitch said:
Sorry - but to me you are cold and callous - its not something you can plan for and tbh 3k in vets bills and thats the end of the line - you cant buy a holiday anywhere decent for 3k in this day and age..... 3k and that's all your prepared to push yourself too - suggest you give up the horses and keep goldfish - you can always scooptthem up in a net and wack em on concrete to put them out of their misery.
Click to expand...

ERRRR?? what planet exactly? And yes I do keep fish and if you knew anything about them you euthanaise with clove oil dissoloved in water, much more humane than bashing them...As I said this post is for intelligent people to DISCUSS in an adult manner, not rant and rave, Thankyou.
 
My old boy was found with an injury in his paddock and I spent several thousand dollars treating it. ( vet & Physio & painkillers ).
The cost of the treatment meant I had to cost cut in a lot of things, I've had to sell some possessions. In the end we couldn't control his pain & he was pts, the cost was not a factor.
If he'd lived i would still happily pay for his treatment, as long as he was pain free... I would draw the line at losing the roof over my head though.
I'm also lucky that I had things I could sell, a credit card & the opportunity to do extra hours at work.
Kx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top