# URGENT HELP!!! GET MY PUPPY HOME



## Nf89 (23 September 2021)

I don’t know who to turn to anymore or even what my rights are. This is such a complex situation and I strongly believe my emotions have been taken advantage of. I would welcome any advice anyone might have. I’m going to copy the letter I sent to the vet as it gives all information just blank out names. Thanks in advance for any suggestions. 

Dear whom it may concern, 

Please find all information below regarding my complaint, if I feel this is not looked at fairly and all circumstances taken into consideration I will be seeking further advise from RCVS, who I have already been told to contact but would rather we could sort an agreement between us first. 

I would like to raise some concerns I have over C**** my puppy and the information I received from your vet on the 21/09/21, I do not feel I have received the best practise from your surgery. 

C**** was bought in by my friend as I had not yet registered him with a vet as only bought him 48hrs beforehand. All vets I called in my area would not register new clients or did not have any appointments for that day. My friend phoned your ver**** branch as that is where she is registered and explained the situation in full, they agreed to see C**** and put him on the system in my friends name. C**** was very poorly when he was bought into you, the vet that checked him over explained it could be a fold of the intestines or parvo. Because C**** was not my friends dogs she called me and I was on the phone while information was being given and spoke to the vet. It was explained to me that C**** would need an ultrasound and blood tests for parvo and any other infection costing £600 and over night care with pain meds and fluids costing another £600. This was £1200 before any treatment and if it was parvo he would be put to sleep. As you can imagine my emotions were all over the place and I was devastated, I explained I did not have that sort of money right there and then so was there any way they could do an ultrasound and check the intestines first before doing bloods incase it was that? I was told no he needed both as he was so poorly. I was also told that if he needed surgery that would be a few thousand pound on top of the £1200. The vet was really upset by the situation and also said it was awful as it was just down to money so went away to see what could be done. When entering the room again she said there were 2 options either put C**** to sleep which she didn’t want to do to a 14 weeks old puppy or sign him over to the vets so I did not have ownership of him any longer and someone there would keep him and pay for the bill. I did not want my puppy put to sleep so agreed to sign him over. I do not believe I was in the right mental state to make that decision and at the time did not have full capacity due to my emotional state.
My friend asked when signing the paperwork can I sign this as he isn’t my dog and she was told yes because he was on the system as hers. I gave my friend permission to sign it but as stated I was not in a fit state of mind. The next day after a sleepless night and being so upset by the whole situation I realised I had been backed into a corner, what choice had I had. Either pay £1200 there and then plus more after treatment or sign him over, there was no time to think about it the decision had to be made straight away as his life was in danger. 
I called the following morning to ask how he was doing and if they had found what was wrong with him and was told he had had surgery through the night as he had a cold in his intestines but was doing well. I explained all the above and asked if there was anyway he could be signed back over to me if I paid the bill and asked for a cost. Reception said they would call me back that morning. No one did, I called again and asked how he was and if the cost had been worked out yet and again told someone will call me back. 
I was then called by another lady who changed all c**** details on the system over to mine so he was no longer in my friends name and she told me they still hadn’t done the bill but he was doing well and really perked up. Meanwhile I know someone who works along side your vets so asked her if a payment plan was something that could be offered and she said yes it should be. 
After calling late in the afternoon for the 3rd time I explained I needed the cost as my dad would put a £500 payment down and I could work out a payment plan for the remaining, I was informed someone from finance would call me back. 18.20 came still no call and only 10 mins until the practise closed, I rang again and spoke to the head vet who said £500 isn’t enough and how would I manage weekly payments if my dad was the one paying the £500? 

As explained above I was backed into a corner and was not in the right state of mind when signing c**** over to your vets. The bill as of last night was not £1200 plus a few thousand for surgery it was £1950 so I do not believe I have been given all the correct information. I also now believe I am going to be refused my dog back due to money, I understand your a business but you also have a duty of care to animals and surly money should not come before that duty? I’m not refusing to pay I’m simply asking for some compassion and understanding in this unusual situation. Never did I expect 48hrs after buying a puppy to then be hit with a bill like this. After looking at the terms and condition on our practise website you state that even with an inability to pay, emergency treatment to elevate suffering will always be given. These terms have been broken on your behalf because my 2 options when explaining I did not have that money there and then were to put him to sleep or sign ownership over to the vets.
Kind Regards 

Since sending this letter the vets have point blank refused a £500 payment and a payment plan and have said without full payment I can’t have him. They have also stopped giving me any info on how he is and said your not his owner anymore. I have spoke with the RCVS and they couldn’t help so they put me in touch with their mediator service who said because he was signed over (even via my friend) I had given up ownership so the vets did not have to give him back without full payment.
I can’t bare the thought of loosing him


----------



## Amymay (23 September 2021)

What a sad and difficult decision. 

I hope you’ve contacted Trading Standards about the condition of the puppy and given them the breeders information.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (23 September 2021)

Then you need to pay the bill in full.  Was he not insured?  Most puppies come from the breeder with 5 weeks free insurance.  Can you get a credit card or bank loan to pay the bill?  If you do that will you be able to afford to look after the pup properly in future?


----------



## Amymay (23 September 2021)

Excellent point regarding breeder insurance.


----------



## Nf89 (23 September 2021)

Pearlsasinger said:



			Then you need to pay the bill in full.  Was he not insured?  Most puppies come from the breeder with 5 weeks free insurance.  Can you get a credit card or bank loan to pay the bill?  If you do that will you be able to afford to look after the pup properly in future?
		
Click to expand...

He didn’t come with insurance and I have tried all avenues honestly I just can’t raise £2500 like that. I was in the process of sorting insurance it just wasn’t done yet I had had him 48hrs.
 I cant feel worse than I do. Iv owned dogs before I’m not new to it and they will always be cared for I always have insurance guess I was just to slow at sorting it this time


----------



## Amymay (23 September 2021)

Deleted


----------



## Nf89 (23 September 2021)

Amymay said:



			What a sad and difficult decision.

I hope you’ve contacted Trading Standards about the condition of the puppy and given them the breeders information.
		
Click to expand...

first question I asked was could this of been know and we were told no, the vet said it’s common in puppy’s under a year and there’s no way of telling until they are really poorly. He wasn’t purchased from a breeder. He is 15 weeks old, another case of someone getting a puppy but my child’s allergic so being sold and we bought him.


----------



## ycbm (23 September 2021)

I think these situations are bound to come up and it's not the first I've heard of on this forum. It is completely unethical,  in  my view,  for a vet (or vet's  employee) who is charging for treatment to take ownership of a client's animal in the heat and stress of an ongoing critical situation. 

I understand that this means that a small number of animals will be put to sleep when they could survive,  but what's happening now is simply not ethical.
.


----------



## Amymay (23 September 2021)

Nf89 said:



			first question I asked was could this of been know and we were told no, the vet said it’s common in puppy’s under a year and there’s no way of telling until they are really poorly. He wasn’t purchased from a breeder. He is 15 weeks old, another case of someone getting a puppy but my child’s allergic so being sold and we bought him.
		
Click to expand...

Then I apologise for my assumptions.


----------



## honetpot (23 September 2021)

My friend had something similar happen to her after an RTA. I can sort see both sides, if you can not afford treatment, and the vet us taking the risk, their time is money ,and if they have to operate they will have to pay for the assistant's time and ongoing treatment with no guarantee they will get paid they want some control over the animal. If you had your car fixed you would have to pay for it before it left the garage, and most services carried out the 'goods' are by the service provider holds until paid for. You wanted the puppy treated, and really how ever much it cost that is what you have to pay, but you could not.
  Most breeders have their puppies chipped and vaccinated before they are sold, so they have been checked over by a vet. You shouldn't really be a puppy of that age from someone who was not the breeder, at fifteen weeks it should have both its Parvo vaccinations.


----------



## Nf89 (23 September 2021)

ycbm said:



			I think these situations are bound to come up and it's not the first I've heard of on this forum. It is completely unethical,  in  my view,  for a vet (or vet's  employee) who is charging for treatment to take ownership of a client's animal in the heat and stress of an ongoing critical situation.

I understand that this means that a small number of animals will be put to sleep when they could survive,  but what's happening now is simply not ethical.
.
		
Click to expand...

As soon as I walked out that vets I couldn’t believe what had just happened, I didn’t sleep all night and the next morning I felt like I had been put in an impossible situation


----------



## Nf89 (23 September 2021)

honetpot said:



			My friend had something similar happen to her after an RTA. I can sort see both sides, if you can not afford treatment, and the vet us taking the risk, their time is money ,and if they have to operate they will have to pay for the assistant's time and ongoing treatment with no guarantee they will get paid they want some control over the animal. If you had your car fixed you would have to pay for it before it left the garage, and most services carried out the 'goods' are by the service provider holds until paid for. You wanted the puppy treated, and really how ever much it cost that is what you have to pay, but you could not.
  Most breeders have their puppies chipped and vaccinated before they are sold, so they have been checked over by a vet. You shouldn't really be a puppy of that age from someone who was not the breeder, at fifteen weeks it should have both its Parvo vaccinations.
		
Click to expand...

But I’m not refusing to pay, I have offered £500 now and then £100 a week. He didn’t have parvo he had a folded intestine, and I had proof of vaccinations the vet wanted to test for parvo as he was displaying a lot of the symptoms. I have known of 2 puppy’s to die from parvo who were fully vaccinated against it.


----------



## Spotherisk (23 September 2021)

What about Lucy’s Law?  This puppy has surely been sold illegally?


----------



## Pearlsasinger (23 September 2021)

Nf89 said:



			But I’m not refusing to pay, I have offered £500 now and then £100 a week. He didn’t have parvo he had a folded intestine, and I had proof of vaccinations the vet wanted to test for parvo as he was displaying a lot of the symptoms. I have known of 2 puppy’s to die from parvo who were fully vaccinated against it.
		
Click to expand...


The trouble is that you need to pay in full on the day at most vet practices.  They would normally only offer a payment plan to someone that they know well.  Is there no way that you can raise the money to pay in full?


----------



## DizzyDoughnut (23 September 2021)

Nf89 said:



			As soon as I walked out that vets I couldn’t believe what had just happened, I didn’t sleep all night and the next morning I felt like I had been put in an impossible situation
		
Click to expand...

So if you walked out of the vets were you there? In your first post it sounded as though your friend took the puppy in and your were on the phone to her/the vet.
While I don't agree that the vets should have pushed you into signing over your puppy, I can also understand them not wanting to risk not getting paid, as you're not an established customer of theirs, they don't know you. I'm sure you'd have the best intentions of paying but I'm sure lots of people promise to pay and then don't.
Is there no way you could get a loan/credit card or borrow money from someone?


----------



## TPO (23 September 2021)

Could you apply for a credit card? If you can realistically afford £100 per week then you'll pay it off quickly.

If you have a good credit rating then perhaps put the bill on your current credit card then apply for 0% balance transfer. It'll save you you wee bit in interest


----------



## Nf89 (23 September 2021)

DizzyDoughnut said:



			So if you walked out of the vets were you there? In your first post it sounded as though your friend took the puppy in and your were on the phone to her/the vet.
While I don't agree that the vets should have pushed you into signing over your puppy, I can also understand them not wanting to risk not getting paid, as your not an established customer of theirs, they don't know you. I'm sure you'd have the best intentions of paying but I'm sure lots of people promise to pay and then don't.
Is there no way you could get a loan/credit card or borrow money from someone?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry that was me making a writing mistake should say as soon as my friend walked out I couldn’t believe what had happened (I was on the phone to her the whole time she was in there with them) Iv asked everyone no one is able to help. I understand they don’t know if I will pay or not and they are worried £2000 is a lot of money but if the vets own him who pays for that bill then? He’s not being sold apparently a staff member is keeping him


----------



## windand rain (23 September 2021)

Not sure what you are expecting us to say/do. I don't have spare money but I have an almost empty credit card for emergency vet bills. Could yout friend not pay on a payment scheme and you pay her if she is known to them and you can be trusted to pay her/him. You have to pay up or PTS in these situations you are lucky the vets have taken him on to be honest. I bet they won't get thousands when they rehome him


----------



## TPO (23 September 2021)

Nf89 said:



			Sorry that was me making a writing mistake should say as soon as my friend walked out I couldn’t believe what had happened (I was on the phone to her the whole time she was in there with them) Iv asked everyone no one is able to help. I understand they don’t know if I will pay or not and they are worried £2000 is a lot of money but if the vets own him who pays for that bill then? He’s not being sold apparently a staff member is keeping him
		
Click to expand...

Sometimes, especially in instances of someone at the practice taking ownership of the animal, the costs are slashed to just the trade cost of drugs and materials used with staff giving their time for free. Staff can pay it off in a payment plan too.

That was the case at a couple of places where I've been


----------



## Nf89 (23 September 2021)

Spotherisk said:



			What about Lucy’s Law?  This puppy has surely been sold illegally?
		
Click to expand...

I’m not aware of Lucy’s law, I will google it


----------



## DizzyDoughnut (23 September 2021)

Also just for general info every single vet around me has stopped taking on any new clients as they have been inundated with new clients and simply can't take anymore on, they are also having trouble finding vets to employ so can't just take on more staff to cope with the sudden increase in demand. They are urging people to find and register with a vet before they get their new pet, otherwise you could end up stuck in an emergency and unable to get routine jabs etc


----------



## Amymay (23 September 2021)

Nf89 said:



			I’m not aware of Lucy’s law, I will google it
		
Click to expand...

Lucy’s Law is a ban on third party puppy sales, ie puppy dealing.  However it doesn’t prevent someone who bought a puppy for themselves selling it on (as apparently in your situation).


----------



## SusieT (23 September 2021)

So you bought a puppy yes? Without any insurance or provision for vet bills? Presumably not from a reputable breeder ?
You must have thought about getting it vaccinated? Which vets had you registered him with for this?
Your vets did offer you treatment - you declined it as you could not afford it. You then signed puppy over as someone else was willing to pay the bill? 
Unless you can pay the full bill why should the puppy return to you - instead of to the people who were willing to pay the bill to treat his illness there and then? How will you provide for the puppies future veterinary needs? 

Could you not have put the money on a credit card or taken out a loan? Why does anyone else have to work out how to finance/etc surgery for a puppy you purchased? 
Sorry- its sad but I would take it as a sign that you were not meant to have this puppy and move on -.


----------



## Nf89 (23 September 2021)

Amymay said:



			Lucy’s Law is a ban on third party puppy sales, ie puppy dealing.  However it doesn’t prevent someone who bought a puppy for themselves selling it on (as apparently in your situation).
		
Click to expand...

Yep just googled it I was aware of this law just didn’t realised it was called Lucy’s law. She was the only puppy/ pet in the house and we were given proof of vaccinations, microchip ect. Although I don’t agree with getting rid of a puppy at 15 weeks because of an allergy if we didn’t buy her someone else would of. It wasn’t going to stop her being sold on


----------



## SusieT (23 September 2021)

Also - ref being backed into the corner- unfortunately this is the nature of sick animals - why should puppy suffer because you haven't planned properly, I assume the vets could not wait or he would have died. I think emergency treatment if you cant afford e.g. surgery is euthanasia- so without someone else taking on said puppy he would be dead.


----------



## Nf89 (23 September 2021)

SusieT said:



			So you bought a puppy yes? Without any insurance or provision for vet bills? Presumably not from a reputable breeder ?
You must have thought about getting it vaccinated? Which vets had you registered him with for this?
Your vets did offer you treatment - you declined it as you could not afford it. You then signed puppy over as someone else was willing to pay the bill?
Unless you can pay the full bill why should the puppy return to you - instead of to the people who were willing to pay the bill to treat his illness there and then? How will you provide for the puppies future veterinary needs?

Could you not have put the money on a credit card or taken out a loan? Why does anyone else have to work out how to finance/etc surgery for a puppy you purchased?
Sorry- its sad but I would take it as a sign that you were not meant to have this puppy and move on -.
		
Click to expand...

As stated in previous comments, he wasn’t bought from a breeder, he was 15 weeks old, vaccinated, micro chipped but the family who bought him at 8 weeks old had a child who was allergic. I’m not a first time dog owner. I have always had insurance for my animals, this time I just stupidly didn’t sort it quick enough. I had him 48hrs


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (23 September 2021)

DizzyDoughnut said:



			Also just for general info every single vet around me has stopped taking on any new clients as they have been inundated with new clients and simply can't take anymore on, they are also having trouble finding vets to employ so can't just take on more staff to cope with the sudden increase in demand. They are urging people to find and register with a vet before they get their new pet, otherwise you could end up stuck in an emergency and unable to get routine jabs etc
		
Click to expand...

Same round here.
Mine are also now refusing to pts dogs for anything non injury/sickness related. They have had a good number of calls about behaviour issues etc.
Both local RSPCA branches are full, not just staffie types but apoo things too. 

OP, credit card.


----------



## SusieT (23 September 2021)

'He didn’t come with insurance and I have tried all avenues honestly I just can’t raise £2500 like that. I was in the process of sorting insurance it just wasn’t done yet I had had him 48hrs.

Insurance takes ten minutes to sort online..


----------



## Amymay (23 September 2021)

Deleted


----------



## SusieT (23 September 2021)

You haven't answered why you cant get a credit card or loan and how you would afford ongoing care?


----------



## Amymay (23 September 2021)

SusieT said:



			Insurance takes ten minutes to sort online..
		
Click to expand...

And takes 14 days to ‘kick in’, as you’ll be aware….


----------



## Nf89 (23 September 2021)

SusieT said:



			You haven't answered why you cant get a credit card or loan and how you would afford ongoing care?
		
Click to expand...

Insurance isn’t instant though is it? So regardless of taking 10 mins or not it won’t of covered him. Credit card/ loan isn’t an option at present as in the process of getting accepted for a mortgage and been told not to apply for any credit (not that that is any of your business) and before you say well what’s more important your dog or a mortgage ect ect I don’t have some huge deposit saved which I could of dipped into I’m doing a first time buyer scheme. I can afford on going care because I would have insurance for any future problems and actually there isn’t ongoing care for this condition needed, they bounce back and recover with no other complications. 48 hours after surgery and he’s ready to go home and is just on pain meds. That was actually the update yesterday so 24hrs after surgery


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (23 September 2021)

Nf89 said:



			Insurance isn’t instant though is it? So regardless of taking 10 mins or not it won’t of covered him. Credit card/ loan isn’t an option at present as in the process of getting accepted for a mortgage and been told not to apply for any credit (not that that is any of your business) and before you say well what’s more important your dog or a mortgage ect ect I don’t have some huge deposit saved which I could of dipped into I’m doing a first time buyer scheme. I can afford on going care because I would have insurance for any future problems and actually there isn’t ongoing care for this condition needed, they bounce back and recover with no other complications. 48 hours after surgery and he’s ready to go home and is just on pain meds. That was actually the update yesterday so 24hrs after surgery
		
Click to expand...

Well, then you've sadly answered your own questions 😥
You didnt make provision before getting pup, no vet arranged, no funds to pay for any emergency and no means to secure funds.

Chalk it up as a learning experience and avoid getting another animal until you have everything covered.


----------



## SusieT (23 September 2021)

' Credit card/ loan isn’t an option at present as in the process of getting accepted for a mortgage and been told not to apply for any credit (not that that is any of your business) and before you say well what’s more important your dog or a mortgage ect ect I don’t have some huge deposit saved which I could of dipped into I’m doing a first time buyer scheme. ' -ok so  you can't get credit or don't want to is really the answer- you could have delayed your mortgage while sorting puppy if it will only take you three months to pay off but choose not to. Why should the vets be down the money for 3 months who may also have bills to pay/credit to take care of?

You can't be that attached after only having him 2 days and not willing to compromise on anything personally to save his life , only wanting other people to compromise.


----------



## AdorableAlice (23 September 2021)

Nf89 said:



			first question I asked was could this of been know and we were told no, the vet said it’s common in puppy’s under a year and there’s no way of telling until they are really poorly. He wasn’t purchased from a breeder. He is 15 weeks old, another case of someone getting a puppy but my child’s allergic so being sold and we bought him.
		
Click to expand...

Very sadly you are one of many who buy puppies without full history.  The puppy, if it came from a licensed breeder did not leave the breeders premise until it was a minimum of 8 weeks old. So the third party whom you bought him off had only had him  a matter of 7 weeks before they moved him on.  Lucy's Law would apply in this case, however if you can't fund the veterinary care there is no way you will fund a civil case against the vendor and trading standards won't be interested in a one off case.


----------



## Nf89 (23 September 2021)

Thank you for the comments I’m not replying anymore as I feel bad enough as it is without being judged and made to feel worse. I’m not a bad pet owner Iv had dogs in the past who have been very well cared for and had the best lives and been loved unconditionally. No I hadn’t got insurance sorted yet but even if I had he wouldnt of been covered as you can’t claim on them for so many days after activation anyway, no I didn’t have a £2500 fund for a vet bill at that moment as I honestly didn’t expect 2 days after buying him to be hit with a bill like that (as nieve as that might sound) but really what are the chances. I just thought someone on here may of known another source of advice or if I had any rights at all which clearly I don’t 😢 
Thanks goodnight


----------



## Gloi (23 September 2021)

You are lucky the vets have been willing to take him if you can't afford to pay , rather than just put him down.
Next time take more care what you buy and don't support dubious breeding practices.


----------



## Amymay (23 September 2021)

I think the only source of advice that anyone could recommend would be a solicitor.


----------



## AdorableAlice (23 September 2021)

With him in ownership for just 2 days I do wonder if the vendor knew there was a health issue about to erupt.  Such a very sad situation all round.

Sadly not uncommon.


----------



## P3LH (23 September 2021)

One wonders if we are all going trip trap over a bridge with this thread…


----------



## Umbongo (24 September 2021)

Unfortunately I don't think you have a leg to stand on. You either chalk this down to a learning experience or see if they will give you the puppy back if you can pay up in full. However they are not required to do that, and it sounds like they have not acted unlawfully or unethically. 

There are some loan companies that work directly with veterinary clients, I would ask the vet if they can recommend one so that you can pay the vets up front and repay the loan company. Most vets will not set up a payment plan for a new client.

The vets did offer you an option to eleviate suffering...euthanasia. It is not a nice option but an option none the less. You were lucky that your vets were in the position to offer to have him signed over and the puppy was able to get the treatment he required. The costs and risks involved will transfer to the member of staff who is keeping him.

Some insurance companies do a free 4 week puppy/kitten cover where the cover starts straight away.

Intususeption can occur very quickly and would have required surgery ASAP, so your puppy would not have had time to wait. You made a good decision and the puppy will go on to have a good life.


----------



## Red-1 (24 September 2021)

I actually think that in this situation I would thank the vet profusely for taking the puppy on and shouldering the responsibility so he wasn't put to sleep.

I say this from the perspective of having been in the same situation, although with us, we found Hector on the street, took him on (after advertising and failing to find any owner interested in having him back) and he then became very ill. The final bill was actually around £1,400 but, at the time of going through it, we didn't know what the final bill would be for a scraggy, aged mongrel dog. The vet's receptionist took a shine to him and offered to pay his bills if we signed him over. 

We didn't as we were already fond of him, and he was now (having picked him up) our responsibility. However, far from being insulted at the offer, I was glad that someone fought his corner. I had some of the money and my lovely mum paid some for us too, but otherwise we would have taken a loan. If that hadn't been possible, then PTS would have been his fate, if the vets staff hadn't stepped up. 

It seems that, if the vet staff hadn't stepped up, the puppy would already have been PTS? I would say that, whichever staff member stepped up, they have earned the right to own the puppy, as they took the £ risk. They took ownership, in every way as well as the signed over one.

As you are in a tricky time of life, getting a mortgage etc, I would move on. Once established in your new home, then consider another dog. I don't think you did much wrong, BTW. You took on a dog, it fell ill and you didn't have potentially thousands to put the dog right. Someone offered to take the responsibility and you accepted. It worked out right for all concerned, including the dog. The only issue is now, that you are trying to reverse the decision. So, I would drop that.


----------



## Sandstone1 (24 September 2021)

I have a feeling I have heard this story before or at least one very like it....


----------



## ycbm (24 September 2021)

P3LH said:



			One wonders if we are all going trip trap over a bridge with this thread…
		
Click to expand...

I think it's real.  It certainly happens,  if this particular story isn't,  and it needs to be brought out into the open.  



Sandstone1 said:



			I have a feeling I have heard this story before or at least one very like it....
		
Click to expand...

That's because it's happening at vets all over the place.  It's unethical,  it shouldn't be happening.  I know vets are human and I know it will mean some animals die who could have been saved,  but ime people in the throes of an emotional storm should not be being put in a positron where they feel obliged to sign their animals over to employees of the practice which would otherwise charge them to treat it.  It isn't ethical.  Sooner or later there will be accusations that vet bill estimates were inflated and/or costs to employees were lowered to allow an employee to take ownership of a valuable animal.  I don't think vet practices should be putting themselves or their clients in this position and I'm surprised the standards set by their professional bodies allow it.  
.


----------



## meleeka (24 September 2021)

I think it’s unethical too.  The charges  are presumably costs only for the emoloyee so it’s not as if they are stepping in and paying the same bill.

It’s always worth remembering that vets are running a business and ultimately what they do is about making a profit (not so much independents, but definitely the likes of CVS), they aren’t the Florence Nightingales of the animal world.   I wonder how that sits with those than went into the job with a genuine love of animals?


----------



## Pearlsasinger (24 September 2021)

ycbm said:



			I think it's real.  It certainly happens,  if this particular story isn't,  and it needs to be brought out into the open. 



That's because it's happening at vets all over the place.  It's unethical,  it shouldn't be happening.  I know vets are human and I know it will mean some animals die who could have been saved,  but ime people in the throes of an emotional storm should not be being put in a positron where they feel obliged to sign their animals over to employees of the practice which would otherwise charge them to treat it.  It isn't ethical.  Sooner or later there will be accusations that vet bill estimates were inflated and/or costs to employees were lowered to allow an employee to take ownership of a valuable animal.  I don't think vet practices should be putting themselves or their clients in this position and I'm surprised the standards set by their professional bodies allow it. 
.
		
Click to expand...


That is what would concern me about the practice.  
Perhaps people should just not take on pets that they can't afford to support.  
I understand that Red-1's situation was somewhat different, as her dog was a stray but in fact if she hadn't been able to afford the treatment he should have been passed on to a charity which would have paid for the treatment and then rehomed him.  Animals should only be rehomed to staff members by vet practices if their help has been actively sought in rehoming the animal.  My grandparents rehomed a dog, after their own terrier had been pts, the Griffon had belonged to another long-term client who had had to move into residential care and was unable to take the dog with her.  The vet practice asked my grandparents if they would take him. 
I always think the potentially most worrying time in a dog's life is the few days/weeks after leaving the breeder, before the new owner knows what is normal for the animal and they are extremely vulnerable while so young.  That is the time when we insure, although we self-insure for the rest of the dog's life.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (24 September 2021)

Hmm, I am not sure its unethical. Isnt it unethical that people buy animals that they can't afford? Vets are not charities. Vets get sick to the back teeth of people spending sums of money on animals and then pleading poverty. My vet this year said that he'd had a huge number of new dog owners, spending thousands on poorly bred dogs claim that they cannot afford the vets fees and didn't bother with insurance. Most vets ime will try and accommodate someone who has fallen on hard times but many of these clients who claim they can't pay are repeat offenders (I am not saying you are OP but the bad ones tar everyone). 

OP you had the money apparently, even though it's earmarked for a very important thing-its not for a veterinary business to subsidise your mortgage.

A solution was given, euthanasia might be a shame but it isnt a welfare issue. Signing over animals to staff has been going on for eons, even when I first started working for SA practices back in the 80s. Happens in equine practice as well. Often these animals are rehomed to people that they know who are reliable.

chalk it up to experience and be glad the dog has a good outcome.


----------



## SOS (24 September 2021)

The bill is different for an owner and a staff member as the staff member can take off the labour costs involved as they are working there and doing it themselves. The owner can’t do that. It’s not a new thing for pets to be signed over to the practice, if anything with my anecdotal experience it’s getting rarer as people will sue over anything these days. FYI at several vets I have worked at there was NO discount for staff members at all but they could have treatment money docked off wages.

As for OP most points have been covered. Clearly another ill informed purchase, any reading around puppies tells you to insure immediately or have back up for emergencies. This was not done. The dog had an expensive emergency, which the vets offered options for treatment or PTS.

As for it “being a duty of care” that bit majorly got my back up. It is a duty of care for us to alleviate suffering. It’s not our fault that your lack of financial planning only allows it to be alleviated by PTS. Harsh but true and do not put your guilty conscious onto the vets. 

Vet bashing is one of the reasons the suicide rate is so high in the profession.

I hope if this is real the poor puppy gets a permanent home after a rocky start. He’s been let down by the first family who should have handed him back to the breeder to find another home not sold on. And let down again by OP.


----------



## scats (24 September 2021)

What an unfortunate situation, but one that perhaps people really should plan for, or at least consider.  I know nobody thinks that within 48 hours of getting a puppy (or any animal) that they will need expensive medical treatment, but the reality is that it can happen at any time.
No-where near the same situation, but when I was 18 I bought a kitten home from a cat rescue that clearly had awful cat flu.  I had been to see it a few weeks before and put a deposit on it and was shocked to hear just a few weeks later it was ready to be collected when I knew it was only 5 weeks old.  Anyway, I went along and took one look at it and saw the state it was in so took it.  Within an hour I was at the vet with my long suffering parents, spending over £100 trying to save it’s life (which we did).
I always have an emergency credit card for situations like this, or the possibility that insurance won’t pay out for whatever reason.

In your situation OP, is it worth getting some legal advice about where you stand?


----------



## poiuytrewq (24 September 2021)

Amymay said:



			And takes 14 days to ‘kick in’, as you’ll be aware….
		
Click to expand...

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. 

What an awful situation. I kind of think as some people have said that you may have to draw a line under this, grateful that the puppy is now healthy and has treatment and is in a presumably very good home where all his needs will be met.


----------



## poiuytrewq (24 September 2021)

Another thing I’d like to point out is that it’s easy to blame the vets for being unethical etc but the reality is they are a business, if you took a car to a garage, got £2000 worth of work done and couldn’t pay you wouldn’t get to drive it home. 
In that situation everyone would think “fair enough”


----------



## teddy_eq (24 September 2021)

As most others have said, I think you and the puppy are incredibly lucky that these vets agreed to operate, cover the costs internally and provide a home for the puppy.

It's a sad situation but your expectations of this veterinary practice to accept a payment plan are frankly unrealistic.

Painful as it may be OP, get your mortgage and new house sorted then, when you're in a financial position to do so, either source a puppy / dog from a rescue centre or, purchase from a KC registered breeder. There is no shortage of wonderful dogs out there.


----------



## Parrotperson (24 September 2021)

Nf89 said:



			As stated in previous comments, he wasn’t bought from a breeder, he was 15 weeks old, vaccinated, micro chipped but the family who bought him at 8 weeks old had a child who was allergic. I’m not a first time dog owner. I have always had insurance for my animals, this time I just stupidly didn’t sort it quick enough. I had him 48hrs
		
Click to expand...

wouldnt have mattered if you had sorted insurance out. Theres usually a 14 or 30 day clause on a policy before which they won't pay out. 

Its hard but I don't see what you can do if you haven't got the money or can't raise it. 

Nest time buy from a reputable breeder and do your research first. Don't buy off adverts on the internet (Facebook, pets4homes etc).


----------



## Mrs. Jingle (24 September 2021)

I think you have been very unlucky OP - and I can understand that you are probably emotionally all over the place with what has happened, and so quickly within just 48 hours of getting the pup. I don't think you need a lot of online bashing and holier than thou comments in response to your original post, I can imagine you are beating yourself up over it all enough without help from others to make you feel even worse about yourself.

But you have been very lucky, or at least the pup has, that a member of their staff was happy to step in and pay for all vet fees in exchange for ownership for the sick pup.  I think you have had some clear answers that really do tell you the bottom line is you cannot get your pup back, but at least the pup's life has been saved so that must be some comfort.

Perhaps just move on now, get on with settling into your new home and consider getting a rescue dog at a later date. Hopefully when you are more financially prepared to take on a pet with all the commitment that needs, both financially and emotionally. Sorry you have had such a bad experience, we all make mistakes from time to time, hopefully it can be a learning curve and be happy the pup did not have to be PTS.


----------



## meleeka (24 September 2021)

poiuytrewq said:



			Another thing I’d like to point out is that it’s easy to blame the vets for being unethical etc but the reality is they are a business, if you took a car to a garage, got £2000 worth of work done and couldn’t pay you wouldn’t get to drive it home. 
In that situation everyone would think “fair enough”
		
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I don’t think it’s unethical for the vet to expect to be paid, I think it’s unethical for them to put pressure on the owner to sign the animal over when they are already in a stressful situation. What I think should happen is that the owner should be given the option to try and find/borrow the money and only when they’ve done that and decided the dog should be pts should an alternative be mentioned.


----------



## ycbm (24 September 2021)

poiuytrewq said:



			Another thing I’d like to point out is that it’s easy to blame the vets for being unethical etc but the reality is they are a business, if you took a car to a garage, got £2000 worth of work done and couldn’t pay you wouldn’t get to drive it home. 
In that situation everyone would think “fair enough”
		
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is suggesting that vets should provide treatment for free.  But a car doesn't die overnight if the owner is given 24 hours to get their head straight and their act together about how much the bill will be,  so  I don't think the situation compares. I do think these cases could do with the involvement of an independent third party to avoid putting down animals which are likely to survive,  which would probably need to be a charity. 

I can foresee the big insurance companies issuing a blanket ban on staff employed by the practice taking on client's animals in lieu of payment from the owner.  
.


----------



## Quigleyandme (24 September 2021)

I do feel for you but you have been the author of your own downfall. I suspect you have been duped into buying a sick puppy from a puppy mill. By doing so you have supported this repulsive industry. There is loads of information online about the pitfalls to avoid and the right way of going about buying a puppy. Dog ownership is expensive. You really shouldn’t have one if you can‘t afford to cover contingencies. With regard to the vet; the arrangement sounds really unethical and akin to emotional blackmail to me. The pup is OK which is a blessing. I echo others here who have advised walk away and chalk it up to experience. I had to do so when I paid £7500 for a young horse (pre-pandemic when that was a lot) that arrived with a snotty nose and died a few months later. The vet fees were as much as the horse and I still lost him so I am not talking without some self-awareness of my own mistakes and lack of judgment.


----------



## Quigleyandme (24 September 2021)

Is the PDSA turning prospective clients away or were they not an option geographically?


----------



## skinnydipper (24 September 2021)

Intussusception is an emergency and not something that could wait for the owner to try and drum up funds.

The gut telescopes and cuts off the blood supply.

Babies can die from this if not diagnosed and operated promptly, I expect puppies would too.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (24 September 2021)

Quigleyandme said:



			Is the PDSA turning prospective clients away or were they not an option geographically?
		
Click to expand...


PDSA is only able to treat the pets of people claiming certain benefits.  As  OP has a mortgage application in the pipeline, I doubt that she falls into one of those categories.  I have no idea why she didn't use part of her saved house deposit to pay for the treatment and then work out how to put  that amount back. That is one of the things that don't add up to me.


----------



## twiggy2 (24 September 2021)

Often when animals are signed over to the care of the vets the animals are then homes through a rescue centre the vets already work with, some go to staff or family of staff.
IME animals are signed over and the bills are then swallowed by the practice, even a large cooperate I worked at did this.
At the end of the day  etc are not charities to subsidise pet ownership.
A fold in the intestines is an emergency and requires emergency surgery so if suspected need swift action and time is of the essence so there is no time to allow an owner to source funds.
As others have sadi the OP has stated they had funds but these funds were allocated to a mortgage, I don't judge anyone for how much they want to use their money but a choice was made by the ow er not to use those funds but they are expecting a business to take them on their word that they will pay over time, if the money is there why should the vets wait to be paid whilst a house purchase goes ahead for the person wanting to owe them money?


----------



## Rowreach (24 September 2021)

Out of interest, how many of you totally put together, never made a misjudgement in your lives people have taken ownership of a horse on the basis of a successful vetting, and then arranged the insurance (which requires the vet cert) and spent the next 14 days praying it doesn't self destruct in the field?


----------



## paisley (24 September 2021)

Its obviously a very distressing and unfortunate situation and my sympathies, as the day I got my pup he managed to smack his face into a bush and get a tiny cut on his eyelid. Cue 14 days of crossed fingers and daily saline eye washes before insurance kicked in 
However, the veterinary business is struggling on an unprecedented scale. Dealing with the sheer volume of clients and keeping over worked staff is only part of it.
Its not fair to expect the whimsical 'James Herriot' approach nor is it fair to regard veterinary practices as the animal version of the NHS. From what I can gather, the pup was treated (thus fulfilling the emergency to alleviate suffering clause and duty of care), and the practice would like to be paid. Emotions regarding a pet are totally understandable (talking as someone who cried their eyes out for about a week waiting on the whippets negative biopsy result) but there needs to be a serious shift in current attitude towards vets and the services they provide.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (24 September 2021)

Rowreach said:



			Out of interest, how many of you totally put together, never made a misjudgement in your lives people have taken ownership of a horse on the basis of a successful vetting, and then arranged the insurance (which requires the vet cert) and spent the next 14 days praying it doesn't self destruct in the field?
		
Click to expand...



I have made plenty of misjudgements over the years but never the particular one that you cite. I have never had a horse vetted (with no regrets) and always self-insured.  Neither have I ever had to ask a vet to subsidise my pet-owning.  I have robbed Peter to pay Paul, many a time, however and if I had been in OP's position I would have used the mortgage deposit to pay the vet bill, without a 2nd thought.


----------



## Rowreach (24 September 2021)

Pearlsasinger said:



			I have made plenty of misjudgements over the years but never the particular one that you cite. I have never had a horse vetted (with no regrets) and always self-insured.  Neither have I ever had to ask a vet to subsidise my pet-owning.  I have robbed Peter to pay Paul, many a time, however and if I had been in OP's position I would have used the mortgage deposit to pay the vet bill, without a 2nd thought.
		
Click to expand...

You’re in a position to do that, so am I, we are fortunate. I don’t personally think that precludes everyone else from ever owning an animal, nor does it mean that some of the comments on here towards the OP have been entirely fair.

Upthread they explained the situation regarding their house purchase and why there’s no deposit money.

I think a lot of posters are missing the point of the thread and giving the OP an unnecessarily hard time. A couple (Mrs Jingle and Red1 in particular) have at least provided practical and sensible advice, and actually read what was written instead of the usual jumping to assumptions that some people did.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (24 September 2021)

Rowreach said:



			You’re in a position to do that, so am I, we are fortunate. I don’t personally think that precludes everyone else from ever owning an animal, nor does it mean that some of the comments on here towards the OP have been entirely fair.

Upthread they explained the situation regarding their house purchase and why there’s no deposit money.

I think a lot of posters are missing the point of the thread and giving the OP an unnecessarily hard time. A couple (Mrs Jingle and Red1 in particular) have at least provided practical and sensible advice, and actually read what was written instead of the usual jumping to assumptions that some people did.
		
Click to expand...


I think it is a question of priorities, personally.  My priority would have been to pay the vet bill and if I were able to find £100 per week, I would have used that to replace the 'borrowed' deposit, rather than agreeing to sign over the pup in a panic.  I am not certain that the vet practice has come out of this episode well though, it does sound that OP was pressured into signing the pup over.  But then, I am not convinced that this particular pup and vet practice exist, either.


----------



## Quigleyandme (24 September 2021)

I’m not usually one to stick my neck out here for fear of a metaphorical karate chop to the throat and I’m not vet bashing in any way, shape or form. My son and DiL are both vets but he is with the army and she is farm. I have thought about it at length but I still feel very uncomfortable with the Judgment of Solomon thing that was played out here. I also don’t understand why small animal vet fees in the UK are so astronomically high. You can’t insure an equine here in Ireland and I actually have no idea if you can buy pet insurance but my elderly farm mog had an emergency visit to the vet last week. He was sedated, examined, swabbed, given a long acting antibiotic and a long acting steroid and the bill was €66. The follow up visit yesterday was FOC. This is an up-to-date, very professional, multi-disciplinary practice but somehow they manage to do their jobs and make a decent living without charging in the mid to high three figures for an ultrasound and bloods.


----------



## twiggy2 (24 September 2021)

Rowreach said:



			Out of interest, how many of you totally put together, never made a misjudgement in your lives people have taken ownership of a horse on the basis of a successful vetting, and then arranged the insurance (which requires the vet cert) and spent the next 14 days praying it doesn't self destruct in the field?
		
Click to expand...

I have made many misjudgements, never had a horse vetted or insured, same for all my pets, that said if I do not wish to afford a given treatment I would have an animal PTS, the OP had a pot of money to draw on and chose to use it on something other than the puppy (not judging its OP's choice and nothing to do with me) the vet bashing is unfair though, at the time if the vets had not offered the opportunity to sign the puppy over it would be a dead puppy.


----------



## teddypops (24 September 2021)

They have said that if you pay the bill in full you can have the puppy back. That’s what you have to do then. I wouldn’t expect a vet who doesn’t know you to wave you and your dog off into the distance trusting that you - a stranger to them - will pay the remainder of the bill. Having worked in a vets, there are so many people who think it’s ok to not pay a bill, then never be heard from again.


----------



## smiggy (24 September 2021)

Ok, look at this from the vets point of view.
you present them with an animal needing expensive emergency surgery or euthanasia on humane grounds. There is no time to dither at this point .
you categorically say you can’t pay.
they try and find a solution, ie sign dog over and we pay , and bear in mind they will be doing this because some soft hearted member of staff can’t bear to see it euthanased, not because they want your dog.
you agree to sign dog over 
they fix dog 
you change your mind and want him back 
they say , no problem, here’s the bill and hey lucky you , it’s less than we thought, just pay bill and collect dog.
you say, oh no , actually I still can’t pay bill but want dog back or I’m going to kick up a fuss, cause you of dog napping and report you 

at what point is the vet the unreasonable one ?
bear in mind, dog would otherwise be dead .


----------



## honetpot (25 September 2021)

My friend who's cat was involved in an RTA couldn't afford the bill, so signed the cat over, and it died after surgery. It may seem unfair, but the vet is providing a service, if the dog had died, would the now ex owner still want to pay the bill, and would they still think they had been pressured?
 I find most small animal vets very fair, I took a stray which was ill to the vet and it had to be euthanised, which I was happy to pay for, and they waved the fee. Just disposing of the body costs money, how many cats end up at the vets to be scanned after being found on the road, and they have to pay for disposal.
  When any animal has a medical emergency it's a pressured situation, and most horse owners have to make their minds up quickly what's best for the animal, and what is best for them. With horses there is not usually the option of signing over in return for treatment, you can either afford the treatment, or the insurance will pay or it's euthanised. I have had to do this, it is of course stressful, but that's the downside of taking on the responsibility of animals


----------



## Lipglosspukka (25 September 2021)

honetpot said:



			My friend who's cat was involved in an RTA couldn't afford the bill, so signed the cat over, and it died after surgery. It may seem unfair, but the vet is providing a service, if the dog had died, would the now ex owner still want to pay the bill, and would they still think they had been pressured?
		
Click to expand...

This is spot on.


----------



## scats (25 September 2021)

Rowreach said:



			Out of interest, how many of you totally put together, never made a misjudgement in your lives people have taken ownership of a horse on the basis of a successful vetting, and then arranged the insurance (which requires the vet cert) and spent the next 14 days praying it doesn't self destruct in the field?
		
Click to expand...

I was a complete numpty.  I got my dates wrong with the initial 3-month for accidental injury only thing and started a claim for lameness one day before the 3 month limit was up.  Needless to say the insurance wouldn’t pay (quite rightly, my stupid fault) and I was lumbered with a £2k bill the week before Christmas.  You live and learn, as they say!


----------



## Rowreach (25 September 2021)

smiggy said:



			Ok, look at this from the vets point of view.
you present them with an animal needing expensive emergency surgery or euthanasia on humane grounds. There is no time to dither at this point .
you categorically say you can’t pay.
they try and find a solution, ie sign dog over and we pay , and bear in mind they will be doing this because some soft hearted member of staff can’t bear to see it euthanased, not because they want your dog.
you agree to sign dog over
they fix dog
you change your mind and want him back
they say , no problem, here’s the bill and hey lucky you , it’s less than we thought, just pay bill and collect dog.
you say, oh no , actually I still can’t pay bill but want dog back or I’m going to kick up a fuss, cause you of dog napping and report you

at what point is the vet the unreasonable one ?
bear in mind, dog would otherwise be dead .
		
Click to expand...

A couple of posters have managed to say all that and still managed to show a bit of understanding at the same time ...


----------



## Lipglosspukka (25 September 2021)

smiggy said:



			Ok, look at this from the vets point of view.
you present them with an animal needing expensive emergency surgery or euthanasia on humane grounds. There is no time to dither at this point .
you categorically say you can’t pay.
they try and find a solution, ie sign dog over and we pay , and bear in mind they will be doing this because some soft hearted member of staff can’t bear to see it euthanased, not because they want your dog.
you agree to sign dog over 
they fix dog 
you change your mind and want him back 
they say , no problem, here’s the bill and hey lucky you , it’s less than we thought, just pay bill and collect dog.
you say, oh no , actually I still can’t pay bill but want dog back or I’m going to kick up a fuss, cause you of dog napping and report you 

at what point is the vet the unreasonable one ?
bear in mind, dog would otherwise be dead .
		
Click to expand...

I don't think your post is unkind. It's just matter of fact. 

The poster had had this puppy for two days. She can't have been that attached to it anyway 🤷🏼‍♀️


----------



## Equi (25 September 2021)

Think op is getting way more agro than is really necessary. Insurance wouldn’t have kicked in and this is a totally random thing to happen, no one expects for this to happen two days after getting the pup. In an ideal world we would all have 10k sitting in the bank for things like this but that’s not reality. I don’t think vets should have the right to demand death or ownership it feels unethical, I do understand they can’t do treatment without knowing if it can be paid for (a vet refused to come to my mare with horrible foal stuck distocia without payment upfront) but the fact the owner was not even there and they only did this via the phone sits off with me.

I think it’s a very unfair comment to say they only had it two days so can’t have card about it - we all know how important our animals are to us from the second we get them.

I don’t know what the solution is if you can’t provide full payment immediately (and sounds like the vet is done with you so might not even accept that now) but it’s all a very sad affair and upsetting for all.


----------



## twiggy2 (25 September 2021)

Equi said:



			Think op is getting way more agro than is really necessary. Insurance wouldn’t have kicked in and this is a totally random thing to happen, no one expects for this to happen two days after getting the pup. In an ideal world we would all have 10k sitting in the bank for things like this but that’s not reality. I don’t think vets should have the right to demand death or ownership it feels unethical, I do understand they can’t do treatment without knowing if it can be paid for (a vet refused to come to my mare with horrible foal stuck distocia without payment upfront) but the fact the owner was not even there and they only did this via the phone sits off with me.

I think it’s a very unfair comment to say they only had it two days so can’t have card about it - we all know how important our animals are to us from the second we get them.

I don’t know what the solution is if you can’t provide full payment immediately (and sounds like the vet is done with you so might not even accept that now) but it’s all a very sad affair and upsetting for all.
		
Click to expand...

The thing is the owner has said they did/do have the money but it is allocated to a mortgage!
What would you like vets to say in a life or death emergency when an animal is suffering?


----------



## Equi (25 September 2021)

No, they said they have a first buyers scheme and as far as I know that will not be a very large amount of money sitting ready to be spent.


----------



## Lipglosspukka (25 September 2021)

Equi said:



			No, they said they have a first buyers scheme and as far as I know that will not be a very large amount of money sitting ready to be spent.
		
Click to expand...

Even a first time buyer scheme requires you to have 5%, does it not?


----------



## Pearlsasinger (25 September 2021)

I have to say that the thread title raised my hackles somewhat.  I can imagine that if the thread had gone a different way, there would have been a plea for help in raising the money to pay the vet bill.


----------



## Equi (25 September 2021)

Lipglosspukka said:



			Even a first time buyer scheme requires you to have 5%, does it not?
		
Click to expand...

Could be a very cheap house 🤷🏻‍♀️


----------



## YorksG (25 September 2021)

Pearlsasinger said:



			I have to say that the thread title raised my hackles somewhat.  I can imagine that if the thread had gone a different way, there would have been a plea for help in raising the money to pay the vet bill.
		
Click to expand...

That was my thought as well,  I believe the next would have been crowd funding, if the responses had been different....


----------



## ester (25 September 2021)

The vets are really pretty stuck between a rock and hard place. If they treated in these circumstances without getting the animal signed over people would have that expectation of not needing to pay for vets fees. The few I've known in similar situations have just been pleased that there has been an alternative for the animal rather than to PTS to end suffering. 

Arguably they could insist that the animal gets signed over to a charity that will pay for treatment but given that these are often emergency cases I suspect that wouldn't be practical.


----------



## Rowreach (25 September 2021)

twiggy2 said:



			The thing is the owner has said they did/do have the money but it is allocated to a mortgage!
What would you like vets to say in a life or death emergency when an animal is suffering?
		
Click to expand...

No they didn't.


----------



## Rowreach (25 September 2021)

YorksG said:



			That was my thought as well,  I believe the next would have been crowd funding, if the responses had been different....
		
Click to expand...

Yet another assumption.


----------



## YorksG (25 September 2021)

Rowreach said:



			Yet another assumption.
		
Click to expand...

It is, but based on the thread title, asking for help to get the puppy back, when if she paid the bill she'd get the animal back...


----------



## Pearlsasinger (25 September 2021)

RR, I think you must have missed this post




Nf89 said:



			Credit card/ loan isn’t an option at present as in the process of getting accepted for a mortgage and been told not to apply for any credit (not that that is any of your business) and before you say well what’s more important your dog or a mortgage ect ect I don’t have some huge deposit saved which I could of dipped into I’m doing a first time buyer scheme.
		
Click to expand...


1st time buyer schemes all appear to need a minimum 5% deposit, which in some schemes the gvt will match.  I cannot find any 100% mortgage schemes for 1st time buyers.


----------



## Lipglosspukka (25 September 2021)

Pearlsasinger said:



			RR, I think you must have missed this post





1st time buyer schemes all appear to need a minimum 5% deposit, which in some schemes the gvt will match.  I cannot find any 100% mortgage schemes for 1st time buyers.
		
Click to expand...

Plus credit card or loan ARE an option. They are just chosing not to take it as getting a mortgage is their priority.


----------



## Boulty (25 September 2021)

My personal thoughts on this are that anyone taking on an animal of any sort should have a cushion for if / when things go wrong be that on day 1 or 10 years down the road. Even if the animal is insured / planned to be as there is always a cooling off period when starting insurance & then there's random exclusions, excesses & things it turns out they don't cover. 

Ideally these days that should probably be upwards of £1k (not necessarily sat in the bank as a low or no interest credit card would do the job as long as the repayments would be affordable).  If someone takes an animal on knowing they can't raise the money for a vet bill if something goes wrong then there is the possibility they will have some hard choices to make at some point in that animals life. Euthanasia is a very sad & unfortunate thing for all the humans involved when it is for financial reasons but it is not a welfare issue for the animal when it is giving them an end to their pain in the only way their owner is able to.


----------



## splashgirl45 (25 September 2021)

a breeder bought the runt of the litter in and wanted her PTS as she couldnt sell her...my vet didnt PTS and gave the pup a home and she has turned out fine.. they are not all in it for the money and do have hearts...


----------



## Tiddlypom (25 September 2021)

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 (25 September 2021)

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 (25 September 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (25 September 2021)

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 (27 September 2021)

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 (27 September 2021)

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.



Aru said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (27 September 2021)

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 (27 September 2021)

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 (27 September 2021)

ycbm said:



			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.
.
		
Click to expand...

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 (27 September 2021)

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 (27 September 2021)

bonny said:



			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
		
Click to expand...

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 (27 September 2021)

bonny said:



			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
		
Click to expand...

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 (27 September 2021)

bonny said:



			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
		
Click to expand...

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


----------



## TGM (27 September 2021)

ycbm said:



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


----------



## TGM (27 September 2021)

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 (27 September 2021)

TGM said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

I read it the same way.


----------



## Birker2020 (27 September 2021)

poiuytrewq said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (27 September 2021)

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 (27 September 2021)

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 (27 September 2021)

Goldenstar said:



			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 ?
		
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Aru (27 September 2021)

Goldenstar said:



			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 ?
		
Click to expand...

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

pdsa you have to fit certain criteria ..benefits etc


----------



## Goldenstar (27 September 2021)

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 (27 September 2021)

Aru said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (27 September 2021)

meleeka said:



			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?
		
Click to expand...

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 (27 September 2021)

meleeka said:



			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?
		
Click to expand...

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 (27 September 2021)

Birker2020 said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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?


----------



## Pearlsasinger (27 September 2021)

Goldenstar said:



			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 .
		
Click to expand...


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 (27 September 2021)

Birker2020 said:



			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?
		
Click to expand...

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 (27 September 2021)

Pearlsasinger said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (27 September 2021)

meleeka said:



			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?
		
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## skinnydipper (27 September 2021)

IMHO it is not the responsibility of the vet to cover fees when the owner is unable to pay nor to provide a rehoming service.


----------



## Birker2020 (27 September 2021)

Aru said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

There are 17,000 dogs pts in this country every year that are in good health but cannot be rehomed yet people breed and breed and breed to add to the mix especially during Covid as the price went through the roof.  There should be a law against breeding whether mongrels, cross breeds or pedigrees.  In America in the kill shelters they take armfuls at a time of dogs and shove them in a big box with a lid and turn on the gas, I've seen it with my own eyes, puppies sat on top of already gassed dogs wondering what's going on as the lid goes down on them.  Dreadful.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (27 September 2021)

Birker2020 said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...



In most of those cases it would have been very foolish to even contemplate taking on a new pup.  The fact remains that she has available a sum of money which should be adequate to pay the unforeseen vet bill and prefers, for whatever reason, to prioritise future housing, despite being sure that she can afford to pay the vet £100 per week on top of the £500 deposit that she was able to put down towards the bill.


----------



## AdorableAlice (27 September 2021)

Birker2020 said:



			There are 17,000 dogs pts in this country every year that are in good health but cannot be rehomed yet people breed and breed and breed to add to the mix especially during Covid as the price went through the roof.  There should be a law against breeding whether mongrels, cross breeds or pedigrees.  .
		
Click to expand...

There is, Animal Welfare Act 2006, as amended 2018.


----------



## skinnydipper (27 September 2021)

....


----------



## splashgirl45 (27 September 2021)

Birker2020 said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

no its not fraud,  the puppy did not belong to her, it was reserved and she took ownership after 2 weeks has passed.  if you are buying a puppy and its not yet ready to leave its owner, you say you want it and pay when you collect so your ins is in place 2  weeks before you own it properly.  thats the prudent thing to do.


----------



## splashgirl45 (27 September 2021)

Birker2020 said:



			There are 17,000 dogs pts in this country every year that are in good health but cannot be rehomed yet people breed and breed and breed to add to the mix especially during Covid as the price went through the roof.  There should be a law against breeding whether mongrels, cross breeds or pedigrees.  In America in the kill shelters they take armfuls at a time of dogs and shove them in a big box with a lid and turn on the gas, I've seen it with my own eyes, puppies sat on top of already gassed dogs wondering what's going on as the lid goes down on them.  Dreadful.
		
Click to expand...

  the reason there are so many dogs in homing centres is that they dont seem to want to rehome, even 6 month old puppies, to someone who already has dogs.  i have always had more than one dog and the last 2 times i wanted a rescue as one of mine had passed away, i tried all of the rescues within a couple of hours journey and wasnt successful so i bought mongrels, not a poodle mix designer dog, just a mutt, as my single dog was missing her friend...


----------



## ycbm (27 September 2021)

splashgirl45 said:



			no its not fraud,  the puppy did not belong to her, it was reserved and she took ownership after 2 weeks has passed.  if you are buying a puppy and its not yet ready to leave its owner, you say you want it and pay when you collect so your ins is in place 2  weeks before you own it properly.  thats the prudent thing to do.
		
Click to expand...


I think to be strictly above board you would need to pay for the puppy in full 2 weeks before you pick it up,  possibly with an agreement from the breeder that the money will be refunded in full of the puppy is not fit to be picked up.  I think insurance companies require you to own the animal you are insuring.  I'm sure plenty of people just lie though.

The 14 day wait is a real pain with horses too,  but it's the fault of people who used to wait until an animal got ill before they insured it.  It still happens with lame horse a lot.  
.


----------



## windand rain (27 September 2021)

Yep they certainly don't want to rehome it is harder to get a dog from a shelter than it is to adopt a child both are whimsical. I tried as OH and I were older no kids, no pets, 6ft fence, 50 or more years of dog ownership and no we were too houseproud as we had cream carpets fitted in our new home. Bought a puppy so another dog not rehomed


----------



## CorvusCorax (27 September 2021)

While I think there may be an element of Jackanory in the OP, vets in these islands generally don't put animals down hand over fist, I was contacted just last week by a vet looking for other options rather than PTS.

I've never owned a horse because I know I could never afford it. In the case of something catastrophic happening, and I have thought about it a lot, I would not categorically rule out PTS, but not just on the grounds of cost. Months of cage rest and multiple operations, vet trips and metal work can be extremely stressful for a dog.


----------



## ycbm (27 September 2021)

They won't rehome to people who work or are out of the house for other reasons for several hours a day,  I've heard.  As if its better for a dog to live in kennels than be on its own in someone's home for a while.  🤷.


----------



## Goldenstar (27 September 2021)

My KC puppies have arrived with insurance in place to cover two weeks , You can then take it on or let it lapse .


----------



## Goldenstar (27 September 2021)

ycbm said:



			They won't rehome to people who work or are out of the house for other reasons for several hours a day,  I've heard.  As if its better for a dog to live in kennels than be on its own in someone's home for a while.  🤷.
		
Click to expand...

My SIL was turned down because she oversaw lunchtime at the primary school at the end of their road that took one hour a day .
Experienced owners dog proof garden one well adjusted lab already . 
They bought a puppy of course .


----------



## ycbm (27 September 2021)

Goldenstar said:



			My SIL was turned down because she oversaw lunchtime at the primary school at the end of their road that took one hour a day .
Experienced owners dog proof garden one well adjusted lab already .
They bought a puppy of course .
		
Click to expand...

That's just crazy,  why can't the charities realise that? 
.


----------



## blackcob (27 September 2021)

Looking at the policy wording of a couple of the popular ones then it would be fraudulent or at least render any claim ineligible to take out a policy for a dog still in the breeder's possession, there's clauses about the dog being no less than 8 weeks of age and the pet being in both your ownership and possession before the policy is taken.

I think the usual process is for the breeder to arrange 4/5 weeks free cover, the owner either converts this to a full policy or takes out their preferred policy on the day they take possession of the dog, accepting that this will have a 10-14 day exclusion period. Anything that happens in that initial time period is claimed for on the breeder policy (converting to a full policy if continuous cover is needed for an ongoing condition).


----------



## skinnydipper (27 September 2021)

CorvusCorax said:



			While I think there may be an element of Jackanory in the OP, vets in these islands generally don't put animals down hand over fist, I was contacted just last week by a vet looking for other options rather than PTS.
		
Click to expand...

Belgian Shepherd Rescue were contacted yesterday morning by a vet in Dorchester who wanted to help a 9 month old Mal booked to be PTS that afternoon for "aggression".

I was upset at the thought that someone had screwed up and the dog was going to lose its life.  I am glad to say that the story has a happy ending.

https://www.facebook.com/BelgianShepherdRescueUk/


----------



## CorvusCorax (27 September 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			Belgian Shepherd Rescue were contacted yesterday morning by a vet in Dorchester who wanted to help a 9 month old Mal booked to be PTS that afternoon for "aggression".

I was upset at the thought that someone had screwed up and the dog was going to lose its life.  I am glad to say that the story has a happy ending.

https://www.facebook.com/BelgianShepherdRescueUk/

Click to expand...

Not a dissimilar story.


----------



## skinnydipper (27 September 2021)

ycbm said:



			They won't rehome to people who work or are out of the house for other reasons for several hours a day,  I've heard.  As if its better for a dog to live in kennels than be on its own in someone's home for a while.  🤷.
		
Click to expand...

Try a breed rescue.


----------



## meleeka (27 September 2021)

blackcob said:



			Looking at the policy wording of a couple of the popular ones then it would be fraudulent or at least render any claim ineligible to take out a policy for a dog still in the breeder's possession, there's clauses about the dog being no less than 8 weeks of age and the pet being in both your ownership and possession before the policy is taken.

I think the usual process is for the breeder to arrange 4/5 weeks free cover, the owner either converts this to a full policy or takes out their preferred policy on the day they take possession of the dog, accepting that this will have a 10-14 day exclusion period. Anything that happens in that initial time period is claimed for on the breeder policy (converting to a full policy if continuous cover is needed for an ongoing condition).
		
Click to expand...

If the free insurance is converted to a full policy there is no 14 day wait.  I know this because my parents got a rescue with two weeks free insurance, luckily converted it to a full policy, then ended up claiming £3k on day 15 of ownership.


----------



## Karran (27 September 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			Try a breed rescue.
		
Click to expand...

Spaniel Aid and Save Our Spaniels turned me down when I was looking as I was out of home more than 4 hours a day - actually asked me if I was able to cut down my hours and when I stared at them in shock, they then told me to apply again once i'd retired as I sounded "Ideal". [/QUOTE]



skinnydipper said:



			Belgian Shepherd Rescue were contacted yesterday morning by a vet in Dorchester who wanted to help a 9 month old Mal booked to be PTS that afternoon for "aggression".

I was upset at the thought that someone had screwed up and the dog was going to lose its life.  I am glad to say that the story has a happy ending.

https://www.facebook.com/BelgianShepherdRescueUk/

Click to expand...

That was Mrs Collie's story at just 6 months old!

I don't know what the answer is in this persons case. But in October last year, I ended up having to max out credit cards replacing my boiler and car suspension in same month. A few days before payday Mrs Spaniel decided to add to the drama by slicing a pad open that required an op and stitches. She was insured but vets wanted payment upfront which I just didn't have. A 0% credit card would have taken days to come in and I wasn't prepared to wait. They offered me payment via Klarna which I am hugely grateful for, which I was able to pay back in full once I had been paid and her insurance paid out. 
Disasters happen and I can see both sides of the coin and i'm very relieved I had that option. Not as serious as parvo or twisted guts etc but I do understand that moment of sheer panic in the vets when they gave me the cost and I knew I didn't have the funds or anyone to go to in order to get the funds and my bill was a lot less than OP's!


----------



## Pearlsasinger (27 September 2021)

ycbm said:



			I think to be strictly above board you would need to pay for the puppy in full 2 weeks before you pick it up,  possibly with an agreement from the breeder that the money will be refunded in full of the puppy is not fit to be picked up.  I think insurance companies require you to own the animal you are insuring.  I'm sure plenty of people just lie though.

The 14 day wait is a real pain with horses too,  but it's the fault of people who used to wait until an animal got ill before they insured it.  It still happens with lame horse a lot. 
.
		
Click to expand...



Most reputable breeders included approximately one month's 'free' insurance with the cost of the pup,which is covered seamlessly when it leaves withthe new owner. Other possibilities are free insurance as part of  vaccination/worming package or, as my vet does, an annual package of insurance, vaccination, worming, flea-treatments, which if you worm and de-flea frequently works out cheaper than paying for each item separately.


----------



## blackcob (27 September 2021)

Sorry, poor wording on my part for the first bit - the latter option (taking out their preferred policy on day 1 of ownership) would incur a 10-14 day wait on *that *policy. If you needed to make a claim on the breeder policy cover it would almost always make sense to convert it, even if it weren't your preferred insurer, to ensure continuous cover and not end up with an exclusion. Worst case scenario you pay a month's premium on the policy you don't use, if you're out of the refund period.

The breeder of my last puppy kindly asked if I had a preference for the 4 week free policy, having used various companies previously, and as I knew I wanted a Petplan policy anyway it meant I could benefit from continuous cover.


----------



## skinnydipper (27 September 2021)

Karran said:



			Spaniel Aid and Save Our Spaniels turned me down when I was looking as I was out of home more than 4 hours a day - actually asked me if I was able to cut down my hours and when I stared at them in shock, they then told me to apply again once i'd retired as I sounded "Ideal".
		
Click to expand...

I am sorry that was your experience.

My sister and her OH were turned down by RSPCA when she worked full time days and her OH worked shifts.  They were able to adopt from a breed rescue.  The dog was taken out by a dog walker on the occasional days when she was going to be alone for more than a few hours.


----------



## Karran (27 September 2021)

That was what happens here. I live with my brother who does shifts so after I do the big start and end of day walks, he either takes them for a 10 min wander at 11 or 3 depending on shifts. He also gets 1 weekend off a month so a lot of the time there is someone about. It worked out ok in the end. He is besotted with Mrs Collie and her story was only heading in one direction so everyone is a winner really!


----------



## Red-1 (27 September 2021)

ycbm said:



			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.
.
		
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that would be fair. If they offered that, then it would be all too tempting to agree to it, if the treatment failed and the animal died, who would decide to pay? The whole point is that the animal is sick, may or may not recover, may have a big bill or a small bill. That is the risk. 

I say that as a person who offered to buy a horse (with whom I had big history) in order to fund a colic operation, as the owner said they would not and the horse was failing. The deal would have been done then and there, I could have potentially saved the horse. 

If the horse had died, I would have been left holding the bill, my risk, I would have lost.

If the horse recovered, the owner, on your agreement, could have whisked in, no risk, and paid the bill. I could still have lost. 

Can't see anyone agreeing to that! It simply isn't fair.




Birker2020 said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...




Birker2020 said:



			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?
		
Click to expand...

I have done this with my last 2 horses. Started the insurance as soon as I paid the deposit (as soon as I had a financial interest in the horse), before vetting even. The insurance company knew and were in agreement. One failed the vet, you have 14 days to cancel the insurance, I did. 

With the others, one week of the part where you are only insured for external injury had already passed before they came home. Not fraud when you explain that is what you are doing, just minimises your risk.


----------



## meleeka (27 September 2021)

Karran said:



			I don't know what the answer is in this persons case. But in October last year, I ended up having to max out credit cards replacing my boiler and car suspension in same month. A few days before payday Mrs Spaniel decided to add to the drama by slicing a pad open that required an op and stitches. She was insured but vets wanted payment upfront which I just didn't have. A 0% credit card would have taken days to come in and I wasn't prepared to wait. They offered me payment via Klarna which I am hugely grateful for, which I was able to pay back in full once I had been paid and her insurance paid out. 
Disasters happen and I can see both sides of the coin and i'm very relieved I had that option. Not as serious as parvo or twisted guts etc but I do understand that moment of sheer panic in the vets when they gave me the cost and I knew I didn't have the funds or anyone to go to in order to get the funds and my bill was a lot less than OP's!
		
Click to expand...

That’s awful that even though you are insured you still have to have funds available.  In your case your vets found another way, but what if they hadn’t?!  I makes you wonder what the point of insurance is at all.


----------



## ycbm (27 September 2021)

Red-1 said:



			No, I don't think that would be fair. If they offered that, then it would be all too tempting to agree to it, if the treatment failed and the animal died, who would decide to pay?
		
Click to expand...

If that happened then the potential adopter would be no worse off than in the current situation, where they adopt the animal and it dies.  I can see the moral hazard of the owner hedging their bets to wait and see if the animal survives,  and maybe the time period should be 24 or 48 hours not a week, but in reality if the animals are dying or the treatments failing on a frequent enough basis to make this an issue then I'd have to start questioning the ethics of painful  treatments. 

The likelihood is that if a way isn't found to avoid this "heat of the moment" signing over,  then commercial pressure will end the practice of vet employees adopting animals completely and more of them will die.  I believe this has already happened with some of the big groups and with the reputational damage inflicted by social media attacks it can only get worse.  
.


----------



## ester (27 September 2021)

I think it's worth saying that this isn't always veterinary employees taking ownership/it is often short term/they have contacts/they know which charities they work with and whether they might agree to take it on inc. funding care. Otherwise it can sound a bit like vets/nurses are just doing it to acquire pets.


----------



## rara007 (27 September 2021)

Fwiw I understand it’s illegal for most vets to offer long term payment plans in the UK as they’re not correctly financially registered. We’re advised against signing anything over and have to personally commit to it if we do not ‘the business’, for exactly this reason. Anything stray has to go via a charity so there is no comeback on us when it turns out it wasn’t stray all along. This varies between practices but most have been stung by expensive cases being claimed back and most have eye watering unpaid bills as debt. I’ve probably signed 4 things over in my 5 year career so far (all behavioural/ethical rather than unwell). I put 5 to sleep last night, 2 old and unwell, 1 roughly middle aged and behavioural (why these become 2am emergencies is beyond me, I usually assume a domestic situation or they’re worried their day vet would decline) 1 that had been left too long and was now too sick for the owners budget plus another hit by a car that couldn’t afford to investigate let alone treat. That’s the reality of emergency care in deprived areas, and we don’t even insist on 100% of payment at the time and genuinely every week have debts that are unlikely to ever be paid left. I have euthanised both puppies and kittens with the same condition as OPs in the last year. I have colleagues that have dogs that were puppies with the same condition that turned out to have further problems associated with bad breeding. Fortunately in day practice it is a rarer occurance and I knew the type of work I was getting myself into. I do sometimes wonder if it’s eating away at my compassion but it’s totally unfeasible to take the emotional strain of every case. The night before was large breed dog euthanasia as no money for an urgent surgery with uncertain prognosis, he had at least 5 of them all over 50kg and they were allegedly working dogs. The amount of times it’s ‘I have 3 kids and 3 cats and 4 dogs’ so can’t pay. We all make our choices. I have plenty of  animals (2 dogs, 2 horses, 18 chickens and an expensive sport but no mortgage or children. There’s no suffering in death (and I eat meat most days).
I think the OPs puppy was very fortunate to get this opportunity and I think the vets have been more than fair, I hope it doesn’t get any complications (which it is at high risk for) and goes on to have a loved life wherever that may be. I’m sorry the OP is upset by the situation they ended up in and no one likes decision making under stress but unfortunately that’s an unavoidable part of medicine. It’s generous they’ve given you updates and are even considering him being signed back over. That’s pretty unusual.


----------



## honetpot (27 September 2021)

ycbm said:



			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.
.
		
Click to expand...

 I think it's about ownership and consent as well as money. If you have ever bought a horse for a £1, in law that £1 means it's a legally binding contract, it makes the line clear, it's not given or a loan, it's sold. Funding treatment for an animal that is not yours, and you have no idea of the ongoing costs and decisions to be made, makes a legal mire. If further treatment is expensive who will pay, if the balance of best interests to PTS is unclear, who makes that choice? If the animal dies and then the vet has to take them to at least small claims to get the money, it just extra stress for someone who is just trying to do their professional best for the animal. Hell, you book into a hotel and the first thing they do is take your credit/debit card details, and you sign for charges, and if you read the small print, often any damage to the room.


----------



## Amymay (27 September 2021)

Really interesting getting the vets point of view. Thanks to those of you who have responded.


----------



## meleeka (27 September 2021)

ester said:



			I think it's worth saying that this isn't always veterinary employees taking ownership/it is often short term/they have contacts/they know which charities they work with and whether they might agree to take it on inc. funding care. Otherwise it can sound a bit like vets/nurses are just doing it to acquire pets.
		
Click to expand...

That is what I think it sounds like, although i’m sure it isn’t actually the case.   

I’m not sure it’s fair to keep putting the burden on rescues, especially if it happens fairly often as was suggested by a vet upthread.

I have a friend that ‘can’t afford’ expensive vet treatment.  In reality it means her animals aren’t important enough to make sacrifices and have savings/pay for insurance  for.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (27 September 2021)

I find it very interesting that OP hasn't come back to the thread recently.  I think we can all rest assured that although similar situations do arise fairly frequently in several vet practices that HHO'ers know about, no dogs were actually harmed in the writing of this story.


----------



## Landcruiser (27 September 2021)

ycbm said:



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

It really isn't that simple. Here's a recent case from our vet practice. 
Whelping bitch brought in one evening as emergency, in terrible underweight condition, on point of death. Never seen the client before. Two live but very weak pups and obviously more to come. Owner couldn't pay for any treatment and was given sad option to euthenize,  because an  emergency (out of hours) caesarian was clearly needed. Other option given- sign over and we would do what we could. Owner signed over. Caesarean resulted in several (long) dead pups, bitch on life support, rallied after a few days, recovered and able to part feed surviving pups.  One pup died after 2 weeks of 24 hour care, one survived. Both surviving dogs looked after by relay team of vets and nurses, taking them home over night and giving their time freely, surviving pup eventually adopted at 8 weeks by staff member, bitch adopted at this point by friend of another staff member. 
Now, where in that scenario would you put the option for the original owner to pay the bill and reclaim the dog/s? Because If that option is there after 7 days for one owner surely it should be there for all. 
There have to be procedures in place for these situations. We always offer the services of a 3rd party credit agency, but we absolutely can't treat animals for nothing, potentially running up massive bills that people walk away from, causing huge admin costs, hassle, and losses to the business. No vet, ever, went into practice because they wanted to kill animals, or steal animals from owners. Every vet I know cares deeply about the welfare of the animals, and that is at the absolute front of whatever they do. Our clinical team bent over backwards to help this particular little dog, and we've been round this block many many times. Many of us have taken on pets this way, not because we were looking for another pet (or the resultant ongoing costs) but because we cared about the animal's welfare. None of us have taken them on lightly or without much soul searching and consideration


----------



## DabDab (27 September 2021)

I think that's the crux of the thing though - there should be protocols and procedures for how to deal with situations like this, agreed across the profession. These situations are not uncommon and it is a key ethical issue, the principles of which are pretty central to the practice of veterinary medicine. And yet it seems to be left up to individual practices to make decisions on a case by case basis. 

The current situation seems desperately unfair for vets who are at the pointy end of making these decisions, and likely to cause all sorts of odd/stressful/legally ambiguous situations between the practice & the customer.

I don't have much sympathy for the OP tbh, because from what they've written here they appear to be protecting their financial position in preference to paying for the puppy's medical care. However, I do think the vet practice has inadvertently created a bit of a confusing pickle of a situation - dealing with the owner over the phone, offering to let them pay the bill and take the puppy back afterall, implying that a payment plan would be possible if it wasn't their Dad's £500. All of that could just be the OPs interpretation of course, but that's the point of a governing body-led set of protocols


----------



## Birker2020 (28 September 2021)

Red-1 said:



			I have done this with my last 2 horses. Started the insurance as soon as I paid the deposit (as soon as I had a financial interest in the horse), before vetting even. The insurance company knew and were in agreement. One failed the vet, you have 14 days to cancel the insurance, I did.

With the others, one week of the part where you are only insured for external injury had already passed before they came home. Not fraud when you explain that is what you are doing, just minimises your risk.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, never knew this was even an option, I too hate this 14 day wait.  This is when problems will manifest.


----------



## Birker2020 (28 September 2021)

Pearlsasinger said:



			I find it very interesting that OP hasn't come back to the thread recently.  I think we can all rest assured that although similar situations do arise fairly frequently in several vet practices that HHO'ers know about, no dogs were actually harmed in the writing of this story.
		
Click to expand...

She probably felt, as others had pointed out, that she was being unfairly jumped on and had the common sense to get out when she did instead of trying to justify her actions which she probably also felt she wanted to do to show she wasn't the type of person she was made out to be.


----------



## Clodagh (28 September 2021)

Birker2020 said:



			Thanks, never knew this was even an option, I too hate this 14 day wait.  This is when problems will manifest.
		
Click to expand...

If you buy a well bred pup from a decent breeder it will come with insurance which then you proceed with or it covers you for the 2 week period.
It is the cash merchants that don’t bother with this that cause a problem. 
Also a decent breeder is far less likely to sell a pup with an underlying or serious health issue.


----------



## SOS (28 September 2021)

Vet practices are seen as unfair for not offering payment plans/needing payment upfront but I have been there doing debting for practices and it is normally an eye watering amount. Some of the vile comments and attitudes I have been on the receiving end of after asking someone to pay a bill, for treatment that saved their pets life, is astonishing. 

Unfortunately you do lose compassion over time in practice. You hear the sob stories over and over again about the bill being too expensive, then see the owner turn up with a new Merle bulldog or brand new range rover. I won’t even go into some of the situations I saw in a PDSA service that have made me unfortunately lose trust in the charity as it’s system is taken advantage of everyday.

One of the reasons I have stepped into behind the scenes of clinical practice is I have lost tolerance for the suffering to animals on a daily basis by their so called beloved owners, from obesity, lack of preventative care/vaccination, prolonged pain due to financial concerns, the list goes on.

Pets are a privilege not a right and should be seen as a luxury. If you cannot afford their ongoing care do not get one.


----------



## ycbm (28 September 2021)

SOS said:



			Vet practices are seen as unfair for not offering payment plans/needing payment upfront but I have been there doing debting for practices and it is normally an eye watering amount. Some of the vile comments and attitudes I have been on the receiving end of after asking someone to pay a bill, for treatment that saved their pets life, is astonishing
		
Click to expand...

This is so wrong.  I don't know what the solution is.  Is there one? 
.


----------



## SOS (28 September 2021)

ycbm said:



			This is so wrong.  I don't know what the solution is.  Is there one?
.
		
Click to expand...

To me the solution is to enforce the message that pets are not an initial cost and that’s it and that their lifelong (10,15,20 years) care is the owners responsibility. It sounds silly to responsible owners but never over estimate knowledge in pet owners. I would welcome pet selling sites to say “£2000 purchase price. Estimated lifetime cost £20k” for example. 

In the past year I have been asked or moaned at because…
“Why does my 8 week old puppy poo more than once a day, I don’t? Can I just feed it once and less food as it’s disgusting and inconvenient?” - A cockerpoo puppy owner 
“What do you mean puppies need that amount of food? I can’t afford to feed her three times a day” - A cane corso puppy owner
“My cats don’t need flea treatment as I hoover everyday” - Had just bought three cats for each of their very young children.
“Why don’t vets tell people how expensive their fees are before they get animals, it’s robbery” - A lawyer that let their puppy eat rat poison, twice.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (28 September 2021)

meleeka said:



			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?
		
Click to expand...

one of the shitiest things I've seen posted on HHO in a long time.


----------



## teddypops (28 September 2021)

SOS said:



			Vet practices are seen as unfair for not offering payment plans/needing payment upfront but I have been there doing debting for practices and it is normally an eye watering amount. Some of the vile comments and attitudes I have been on the receiving end of after asking someone to pay a bill, for treatment that saved their pets life, is astonishing. 

Unfortunately you do lose compassion over time in practice. You hear the sob stories over and over again about the bill being too expensive, then see the owner turn up with a new Merle bulldog or brand new range rover. I won’t even go into some of the situations I saw in a PDSA service that have made me unfortunately lose trust in the charity as it’s system is taken advantage of everyday.

One of the reasons I have stepped into behind the scenes of clinical practice is I have lost tolerance for the suffering to animals on a daily basis by their so called beloved owners, from obesity, lack of preventative care/vaccination, prolonged pain due to financial concerns, the list goes on.

Pets are a privilege not a right and should be seen as a luxury. If you cannot afford their ongoing care do not get one.
		
Click to expand...

I no longer work as a vet receptionist due to the nastiness of some clients which usually involved asking them to pay a bill or saying no to credit. ‘But we’ve just booked a holiday’ ‘l’ve just bought a new horse’ were regularly used excuses. Funnily enough, if people asked for credit, they were told no, but they could pay instalments in advance, no one took us up on the offer! (Obviously for non urgent treatment).


----------



## MotherOfChickens (28 September 2021)

Birker2020 said:



			There are 17,000 dogs pts in this country every year that are in good health but cannot be rehomed yet people breed and breed and breed to add to the mix especially during Covid as the price went through the roof.  There should be a law against breeding whether mongrels, cross breeds *or pedigrees*.  In America in the kill shelters they take armfuls at a time of dogs and shove them in a big box with a lid and turn on the gas, I've seen it with my own eyes, puppies sat on top of already gassed dogs wondering what's going on as the lid goes down on them.  Dreadful.
		
Click to expand...

I will never apologise for buying pedigree dogs from responsible breeders nor ponies. It is not my responsibility to take on someone else's responsibility from a rescue centre. I have never contributed towards the numbers in rescues although I've had a few rescues myself but I refuse to feel guilty about a problem that is not of my making, be it canine or equine. The killing of dogs in shelters is horrible and gassing abhorrent but the only people responsible are those that put them there in the first place.


----------



## Landcruiser (28 September 2021)

teddypops said:



			I no longer work as a vet receptionist due to the nastiness of some clients which usually involved asking them to pay a bill or saying no to credit. ‘But we’ve just booked a holiday’ ‘l’ve just bought a new horse’ were regularly used excuses. Funnily enough, if people asked for credit, they were told no, but they could pay instalments in advance, no one took us up on the offer! (Obviously for non urgent treatment).
		
Click to expand...

I'm still hanging on in there, but aggression and refusal/unwillingness to pay seem to be increasing by the day. Only yesterday I stood my ground (because I'm old and cussed and assertive) to two seperate aggressive male clients. One wanted to book an appointment for a sick dog, but discuss serious behaviour issues/an allegation that this was our fault because it had happened since the dog was spayed, in another of his dogs (neither of which we had seen for well over a year)  "while the vet was examining the sick dog." Thereby treating two dogs in one 15 minute consult. He was very aggressive when I told him he would need a separate paid consult for each dog. I was backed up by clinical staff who called him back to discuss - but after being equally rude and aggressive to our head nurse he decided to take his business elsewhere and good luck with that. 
The other was someone collecting a cat after a spay, who aggressively questioned every item on the bill, complained about waiting 15 mins (after showing up half an hour late without appology) and generally refused to sit down, instead standing over me at the desk in an intimidating fashion. Which was water off a ducks back - because it's virtually daily, this abuse. 
This is why vet bashing is so unfair. Vet practices are under incredible strain from all directions. People like OP, who have taken on a pet without first registering with a vet and making sure they have insurance/funds for illness or injury, are adding hugely to the stress levels. Apparently 3.2 million pets have been taken on since first lockdown - some days it feels like they are all phoning us asking to register, or for advice because something has gone wrong (but they can't even pay a consult fee). We are all doing our best and working hard and long, but it feels like we are sinking, as a profession whatever we do. People need to be more responsible for their own sh1t.


----------



## MissTyc (28 September 2021)

SOS said:



			To me the solution is to enforce the message that pets are not an initial cost and that’s it and that their lifelong (10,15,20 years) care is the owners responsibility. It sounds silly to responsible owners but never over estimate knowledge in pet owners. I would welcome pet selling sites to say “£2000 purchase price. Estimated lifetime cost £20k” for example.

In the past year I have been asked or moaned at because…
“Why does my 8 week old puppy poo more than once a day, I don’t? Can I just feed it once and less food as it’s disgusting and inconvenient?” - A cockerpoo puppy owner
“What do you mean puppies need that amount of food? I can’t afford to feed her three times a day” - A cane corso puppy owner
“My cats don’t need flea treatment as I hoover everyday” - Had just bought three cats for each of their very young children.
“Why don’t vets tell people how expensive their fees are before they get animals, it’s robbery” - A lawyer that let their puppy eat rat poison, twice.
		
Click to expand...

This 100 times over!
I think with horses that message is clearer, mostly because monthly livery fees are the first barrier and a very obvious one at that. When you buy a horse you need somewhere to put it and most people don't have their own land. Then you discover hay and bedding costs, etc etc ... As a big expensive animal, the costs of keeping a horse are well advertised. The costs of keeping a dog, however, are less clear because there's no standard monthly outlay.  I am amazed at the price people pay for puppies while also expecting it to then basically live on table scraps and zero vet care.


ETA payment in advance, I think this is why so many vets offer "yearly plans" now that spread out the cost of routine care across the year.  My equine vet does this, too, albeit more informally in that he can't stop me from transferring money to my account when I have some so then my bill is surprisingly low as pre-paid a few hundred


----------



## DizzyDoughnut (28 September 2021)

I'm another that just transfers money to my account with the vet whenever I some spare because I'm bound to use it!  It makes bills far less painful to pay and means I don't have to worry about finding money for accidents or emergencies, because it's already just sitting there waiting.



MissTyc said:



			This 100 times over!
I think with horses that message is clearer, mostly because monthly livery fees are the first barrier and a very obvious one at that. When you buy a horse you need somewhere to put it and most people don't have their own land. Then you discover hay and bedding costs, etc etc ... As a big expensive animal, the costs of keeping a horse are well advertised. The costs of keeping a dog, however, are less clear because there's no standard monthly outlay.  I am amazed at the price people pay for puppies while also expecting it to then basically live on table scraps and zero vet care.


ETA payment in advance, I think this is why so many vets offer "yearly plans" now that spread out the cost of routine care across the year.  My equine vet does this, too, albeit more informally in that he can't stop me from transferring money to my account when I have some so then my bill is surprisingly low as pre-paid a few hundred 

Click to expand...


----------



## splashgirl45 (28 September 2021)

i have been with the same vet practice for almost 20 years and when i had my uninsured lurcher PTS at home ,i said can i just phone and pay as i dont want to see an invoice...he told me to pay what i can afford and take as long as i need to. i like to pay my bills and as i didnt have enough money to pay the whole bill, i used my credit card to pay.  when i spoke to the vet nurse she also told me i didnt have to pay it all at once.  personally i like to pay vets all of the bill and prefer to use anyway i can to pay....im sure this is because i have always paid promptly so i have a good relationship with my vet... i can understand a vet not offering a payment plan to a new client and feel that the vet did the right thing to offer to take over the dogs care...


----------



## Amymay (28 September 2021)

My vets are also pretty relaxed about payment, Splashirl.  I’ve _only _been with them for seven years, and no bill has ever been more than £200ish.  But since lockdown they actually seem to prefer clients to go home and phone payment through.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (28 September 2021)

Amymay said:



			My vets are also pretty relaxed about payment, Splashirl.  I’ve _only _been with them for seven years, and no bill has ever been more than £200ish.  But since lockdown they actually seem to prefer clients to go home and phone payment through.
		
Click to expand...


Yes ours do, too.   We have known them for about 40 yrs though.


----------

