Vets - are their bills too large?

[Dalua]

I suppose we lay-folk might be in a better position to keep these things in proportion in our minds, as we are not exposed to such suffering on a daily basis?
There is, for once in this debate, perhaps a parallel with assesment of quality of life in adult humans: a lady of 95, unable to go out alone and in chronic, moderately severe untreatable osteoarthritic pain might yet consider herself to have an acceptable quality of life, enjoying trips out with children, grandchildren and so on. Had she been asked when she was 50 whether she'd consider that a reasonable way to live, she might well have thought otherwise.
What do I mean? Well, I suppose that a vet's view of the animal's quality of life based on a consultation or two might differ from that of the owner to the extent that the vet thinks the owner is in breach of the AWA, yet the owner doesn't. I guess in such a case the vet needs to persuade the owner that the animal's suffering is of a kind that is indeed putting him in breach of the AWA.

I wonder whether vets need to be doing a lot more reporting of cases of owners suspected by them of causing unneccessary suffering under the AWA, so that the courts can give us a steer on what is considered unneccessary suffering, and what, given that that the cost of veterinary treatment may be disproportionally high compared to owners' financial resource, are considered reasonable measures for the avoidance or reduction of such sufferering.

Perhaps the answer lies in a good deal more humane destruction, whether budget-priced and professionally or DIY.

 

[Apache]

I don't think any vet want to report their clients for causing unnecessary suffering. That could well have the opposite effect and discourage people taking their animal for attention.

I gave the 4 examples because they are common, all very 'fixable' yet by the owners actions the animal is not receiving the treatment it requires. I would be a sorry world if in these cases we just disposed of the dog and bought a new one. The old lady with the arthritis is a fair comparison, but chances are she would be taking painkillers!

 

[Dalua]

I don't think any vet want to report their clients for causing unnecessary suffering. That could well have the opposite effect and discourage people taking their animal for attention.

I'm sure most vets wouldn't want to report owners - no-one wants to be a coppers' nark, but the Act can't work unless someone gives it something to work on. You maintain that vets are the best arbiters of what the Act means, and grassing more people up would be a good way to test that hypothesis. I suspect that the result would be a more-finely sythesised appreciation of unneccessary suffering, rather like that the decision-making processes mandated for incapacitous humans, where decision-making is informed by both professionals and relatives and/or carers. For example, is seems likely that most dog-owners wouldn't be happy if their animal were clearly suffering exessively, so their opinion on the dog's behaviour at home and in its general routine might be as important as the findings from a vet's exam in the surgery.

And your second point is also very valid - I'm sure animal welfare (and vet welfare) would be affected if as a profession you all started reporting more folk.

However, I hope it must become clear that insurance is not a panacea here. It does not make veterinary treatment free, in many cases not even 'at the point of use': it is just another way of paying for it, and that in a way that is likely in the long run to increase uptake, the level of technology used and therefore also the associated costs to both the insured and non-insured animal owners.

As my example of the labourer's terrier seems to show, one should not blame the man for not having insurance, or for not spending £500 on fixing his fixable dog. The fact that vets and other better-off folk might feel the decision-making was wrong or somehow bad form should perhaps rather consider the position of the fellow who has for want of fund had to shoot his own dog, or have it otherwise destroyed.

I gave the 4 examples because they are common, all very 'fixable' yet by the owners actions the animal is not receiving the treatment it requires. I would be a sorry world if in these cases we just disposed of the dog and bought a new one.

I agree it would be a sorry world, but the reality is that for many the world is quite a sorry place. If your goal is less animal suffering, then humane destructions are likely to increase. The difficulty is in working out what level of suffering is acceptable, I suppose, returning us to...

The old lady with the arthritis is a fair comparison, but chances are she would be taking painkillers!

She might well be, but she might just has likely not be bothering as they often don't work very well in OA. But you have a point - simple analgesics for canines shouldn't be too expensive, I'd have thought.
Not wholesale, anyhow!

I think I'm thinking too much about this. I don't even keep any animals.

 

[Buchan]

"I note, however (as I'm sure you did) that it doesn't specify that you exert yourself towards these worthy goals pro bono. To be fair, it doesn't mention charging for your services either, but assuming you and yours have to eat and keep warm, let us assume taking money for the service is implicitly permitted."

Pro-bono work isn't mentioned in the oath, but is is implicit in the Code of Professional Conduct. Our first priority is to relieve pain and suffering. If the person bringing in the animal can't pay, we still have to see it. Stray's should be covered by RSPCA but it can be hard work to get paid. Wildlife is seen FOC during the day. Thankfully the debt accumulated by this work is relatively small, but it still smarts doing something for nothing!

 

[billh]

There are dog owners who will use vast amounts of money to keep dogs alive when it may be best not to.
There are the opposite.
There are stalkers who will take every opportunity to shoot or sell trophies. These trophies are the best animals for breeding yet no consideration is given to them whatsoever except as a fund raiser.
Lets not forget that does and hinds don't get much consideration either.
Let us now bring this thread to a conclusion before it becomes yet another cull item

 

[Apache]

There are stalkers who will take every opportunity to shoot or sell trophies. These trophies are the best animals for breeding yet no consideration is given to them whatsoever except as a fund raiser.

Not sure I'd even agree with that. The young spiker may be carrying far superior genes just not have had the chance to express them. All you can say (really) about a beast with big handlebars is he managed to avoid getting shot!

 

[billh]

I was just trying to bring some of the reality lacking in this thread to the surface.

Maybe another thread to discuss how to cull for good breeding without gene therapy is required rather than going further off thread in this one.

Apache I'll leave that one to you.

 

[Jimbo 30 06]

The costs vary a lot across the country. Had a pleasant surprise about 3 years ago, my Weimaraner got bit by an adder while stalking in Dumfries, I had :-

A call out charge - vet returned to surgery during his farm visits
Anti histamine injection
Anti inflammatory injection
Antibiotic injection
Steroid injection
Bitch kept in for 6 hours for observations
2 week anti histamine tablets
2 week antibiotic tablets
1 week anti inflammatory tablets

The invoice / receipt was 2 pages long
The bill, just under £47.00
and no the point is not in the wrong place.

Back home, Wigan took my other dog to the vets as it just seemed off, not quite itself

Normal consultation hours
Nothing found or abnormal
A "tonic / pickup" injection

The bill, just under £50.00 WTF

Wingy

Hi Wingy thats what this thread is about. You got good service from 1st vet £47-00 you got nothing in comparison from 2nd but paid £50-00 yet the 1st vet made a proffit. During my working life I met up with several vets doing construction projects on their homes all lived in properties £850k + all had Rangerovers. I wonder if srvet has one also paying £900-00 for his service. As for the quote Plumbers and Electricians are also the same making making massive amounts none I have met do.

Jimbo

 

[Tom270]

Just moved vets to local one. Dog has just had GA and x rays followed by GA and cruciate ligament repair meds and aftercare. Just paid the bill, it was about half that I was expecting.
Still not cheap, but in a practice only the vet earns income, everything else costs the practice, transport buildings staff phones computers people on call equipment etc etc, for one I am a satisfied customer

 

[kes]

I had a senior dog, much loved for many more years than was expected from the breed but he was wasting away and could hardly get up. Time to do the right thing. Called the vets who insisted that they would decide whether the dog was likely to suffer if he remained alive, not me. I'm not a vet but a civil engineer with an MSc and read extensively.
They agreed my 'diagnosis' and put him down. Two vets, one a trainee. Insulting arrogance and a £160 bill. I would never shoot my own dog but I have and will do it for others and not just dogs. The charges are unreasonable and unrealistic and, like car insurance, lead on to potential abuse. I admire professionalism, arrogance appalls me and overcharging (since there are no agreed rates) is inevitable. There are some great vets but I dont know a poor one.

 

[Apache]

Is that £160 just for euthanasia, or does that include disposal?

 

[bewsher500]

I will wade in on this just for a laugh.

My father ran a small and large animal practice for 35 years..long before the advent or common practice of insuring animals.
He was the race course vet, his colleagues did the Greyhound track, he did his own night work, lambing, calving, RTA's you name it.

Animals came and went, those that were deemed to be beyond help were put down, owners wept, bills were paid....some of them (you would be surprised how many well heeled farmers struggle to find £150...but they have £2m in tractors and machinery sitting outside!!!

Professionalism at its finest across the board in all members of his staff

I grew up with animals but have only recently become an owner rather than a "sitter"

Having had a 15 year break from actually needing to go to a vet I was utterly appalled at the level of sales involved in the Veterinary "industry" I have recently re-introduced myself into.

Flea and Worm plan - £10 a month (for products you can buy over the counter and administer yourself for £15-20 twice a YEAR!)
Insurance - huge premium with IMO a very large excess
Food - recommended "oh, and we sell it too".....[shock]
toys, beds, training aids, leads, shampoo (£10!!! for dog shampoo)

I had the misfortune to break my puppies canine (grabbed my lace just before I kicked the ball!)
Vet suggested they operate under general to remove the stump...in case it became infected...

This is before they realise i did not purchase the insurance
I questioned both the professional and financial decision to put a 12 week old puppy through a general and open up the gum to more infection to remove a stump that was due to fall out with a month or two!?!?

IMO the insurance industry has a lot to answer for, mainly the fleet of new BMW's and Range Rovers the vets now drive

When you can decide to do a complete hip and knee replacement on a rescue lurcher because it won't cost you the owner more than the excess you lose all sight of what is best for the dog.
The vet who is in for a several thousand pound fee and the opportunity to practice something for their CV is never going to say no!!

Don't get me wrong, we all have to make a living
But when that living requires a judgement based on a living thing whether it be human or animal I am afraid ethics need to be applied

I no longer see the same level of ethics in the Veterinary "industry" (it is no longer a profession)

There are obviously exceptions ....

 

[timbrayford]

We don't have dog health insurance, from what I have seen of the various terms & conditions it always seems to exclude the old dog stuff that usually gives you the big bills. Funnily enough I get the impression that our vets charge us rather less than if an insurance company was footing the bill.

atb Tim

 

[Shadrach2986]

My dog has a crumbling disc which is protruding into his spine, putting him off his back legs. At the moment it aint that bad, but he is on tablets for the rest of his life, when he first went off his legs he was with our friends as we were abroad on holiday, when we got back we had a fairly big bill, but after ringing the vets and telling them I have no insurance, the very kindly nearly halved the bill. It goes to show, they do put it up for people with insurance.

 

[Buchan]

It's unfair for me to comment on individual cases that are described on this and other threads on vet's fees, but I feel I have to, partly to support the other vets on this forum.
Insurance has made a huge difference to many practices, with some it's the difference between profit and loss. It's not quite the same as a very wealthy, money no object, paying client, but in many cases it amounts to that.
We are trained in a very similar way to doctors and have access in varied forms to the same techniques and facilities. We also like to know what is really wrong, rather than a best fit of the symptoms. Add to that the increased drive from the clients for "is there anything else you can do" and it's not surprising that we use that fund of money to reach a diagnosis.
It's not malicious or grasping, just human nature really.

Real case example. Older farm dog, very sick, uterine infection. Only options are spay or euthanasia, owner wants spay. Good client, so agreed to cut a few corners to keep bill down. Scanner was out anyway, so I ran it over her to find she was actually aborting pups. Rang owner - same options, so carried on. We'd just bought a new blood gas analyser that gives a good indicator on how risky an critically ill patient is and my nurses were keen to try it. And as we took blood and the main biochemistry machine was due for it's service, I said run a full profile as well. Turns out the dog was diabetic, hence the abortion, new phone call and dog put down.

Was all that over-treatment or just a very good diagnostic work up?

 

[Selous]

Insurance makes no difference to the treatment I offer or the cost. I provide an estimate and it is up to the client if they wish to proceed. If the costs exceed the estimate then we will still amend the account to mitigate the difference as far as we are able to do so regardless of insurance status. The decision to go for surgery depends on the clinical need not to fill a blank space on my CV. For every 10 cases presented to me for hip replacement, only three will end up having surgery because it is not the best option for the dog in 7/10 cases. Some owners can be very difficult to talk out of surgery even if the dog isn't lame. The reality is that owners generally want the best treatment and not a second rate option. We offer a range of treatments and invariably find the decision by most owners is primarily dependant on long term prognosis.

 

[bewsher500]

Some owners can be very difficult to talk out of surgery even if the dog isn't lame.

Sadly this is the other side to the Insurance element

Not a perfect analogy but the insurance sentiment is the same.
How many people would go to a main dealer for the repairs to a 7 year old car unless the other party's insurance was paying?

 

[JTO]

Sadly this is the other side to the Insurance element

Not a perfect analogy but the insurance sentiment is the same.
How many people would go to a main dealer for the repairs to a 7 year old car unless the other party's insurance was paying?

+1

 

[wildfowler.250]

Just saw the thread title.. I calculated what I was earning when I tallied up all my hours from the last two weeks on call and it was less than £5 per hour,(and some of my new grad friends are earning less than me). Makes you wonder if you would be better working in M&S..

Generally I feel vets offer a very good service, they stock a wide variety of drugs, provide a wide range of diagnostic equipment and generally try and fit patients in as best as possible. Call a vets out of hours and you'll get seen straight away,(try going to A&E and getting seen as quickly).


We are lucky to not have to pay for medical treatment. As a result, veterinary care seems expensive.

 

[philip_70]

Call a vets out of hours and you need a big fat wallet ,took my lab to the vets at the wknd out of hours and they wanted another 100 pounds.no such thing as a poor vet, they hv big houses and the latest 4x4 if not two sitting in the drive.unfortunately you need these people to treat our much loved animals.