Vets - are their bills too large?

[Highlander]

Ok, as we mainly talking small animals, and I am just back in from a Large Animal Caesarian, let's have a Walt Disney moment and take it to 101 (ok Dalmations are not working dogs).

One thing we have found on some of the public media sites, are that some of the most vocal, are clients that are being chased for outstanding debts. The classic comment being "they only care about their money".

Anyway off to get a shower and then a bacon buttie.

Morning to you all!


HL

 

[unlacedgecko]

There is no reason you cannot inject your own dog - we have many diabetic dogs in the practice who's owners inject them once or twice daily.

Cool. Please can you PM me the location of your practice. I will be over at some point to pick up the vaccines and antibiotics which I would otherwise have to pay my vet to inject for me.

 

[unlacedgecko]

Ok, as we mainly talking small animals, and I am just back in from a Large Animal Caesarian, let's have a Walt Disney moment and take it to 101 (ok Dalmations are not working dogs).

One thing we have found on some of the public media sites, are that some of the most vocal, are clients that are being chased for outstanding debts. The classic comment being "they only care about their money".

Anyway off to get a shower and then a bacon buttie.

Morning to you all!


HL

I have no outstanding debts. 'Pay on time and pay in cash' is a mantra I have lived my life by. My animals get vet attention when I believe a third party would think they need it.

 

[Apache]

Cool. Please can you PM me the location of your practice. I will be over at some point to pick up the vaccines and antibiotics which I would otherwise have to pay my vet to inject for me.

You are more than welcome to. Obviously you'll have to have a consultation to decide what medications are appropriate. Our system builds on a small injection fee, but that is actually less than if I dispense the drug for you to inject - that way I have a label to produce.

You suggested you were not allowed to inject your own dog. What you are not allowed is a supply of prescription medicines to do as you please - obviously.

 

[unlacedgecko]

You are more than welcome to. Obviously you'll have to have a consultation to decide what medications are appropriate. Our system builds on a small injection fee, but that is actually less than if I dispense the drug for you to inject - that way I have a label to produce.

You suggested you were not allowed to inject your own dog. What you are not allowed is a supply of prescription medicines to do as you please - obviously.

Pleased you took that in the spirit it was intended.

Large pig units often have fridges full of vaccines and antibiotics. Obviously a vet will have been consulted to prescribe these medicines for the herd, but doesn't see each individual pig the medicines are applied to. Can something similar be done for a dog owner who has multiple dogs?

 

[Apache]

Can something similar be done for a dog owner who has multiple dogs?

Potentially. Trusted clients I will happily prescribe a few doggy painkillers. Given specific circumstances I have supplied antibiotics, but only if I know what they are going to do with them. We have one keeper who gets nothing like that any more for giving them away to his friends.

Legally the animals have to be 'under our care' which generally means we have physically seen a representative number of the herd/flock/pack within the last 6 months.

Vaccines are a tricky one. The animal must be healthy at the time of vaccination - you'd be amazed quite what we pick up at vaccine consultations that the owners have missed. Equally common in working and farm dogs. I think it would be (generally) detrimental to many dogs welfare if I just sold you the vaccine and you did them all yourself. Equally I am a strong believer in the benefits of vaccination so if the only way a particular dog is going to get vaccinated is by the owner then I have sold people vaccines for DIY use. This is based on specific sets of circumstances with trusted clients (usually savage farm collies and a lady with terriers who only does them for lepto, herself). We have a number of farmers who own horses who do their own vaccs.

My compromise is reasonable discounts if you spend a bit of money with me, and bring me appropriate things. If all I see is a dog on death's door once per year that should have seen a vet a week sooner you don't deserve cheap vaccines. If we are seeing you most weeks during the season, I wave at your car in passing then I will help you out as best I can. If you bring me 6 dogs to boost and kennel cough at once we can rattle through them - the dogs protected, they get a check-over and you save money (it's so much faster for me).

Does that answer your question??

 

[Trufflehunting]

Apache both your recent threads were of a late hour
Are you up with work, or dont you need a full 8 hours
I have a buddy who only needs 5 or 6 hours and he is raring to go
Not me

 

[Apache]

I don't need a lot of sleep. Left to my own devices I'd likely turn nocturnal.

It's the thing I hate about deer - they get up too bloody early!

 

[bobjs]

well i have just had problems with my wee dog cozzy, and having had a large bill i had to read this thread.

well here goes.

called in at 0800 on the phone to see the vet,

was in the vets at 0815,

cozzy was seen at around 0820/25,

A 20 minute examination and 2 injections later we were told he has cozzy has suffered vestibulitis he was not sure if it was peripheral or central, but he will need 24 hour care for the first night and then we can see how he gets on,

other things done for him as well as the 24 hr care, drip fitted to keep him hydrated, blood tests, and 1 more steroid injection, and some food late on on tuesday night that they gave us to bring home as he had not eaten any of it.

Cozzy was with them the rest of monday including the transfer from that vet to their care centre about 6 miles away,he was with them until late tuesday night when we were asked if we would like to look after him now as he was showing some signs of recovery (all be it slow).

total bill inc VAT was £289.65.

not bad to say i have my dog back even if his recovery is slow, and he may not fully recover ?, i have 2 girls and a wife who are very happy he's back, even if he has to be put down if the recovery is not to cozzy's benefit.

expensive.............i don't think so.

love and respect for your pet has no price tag,after all what they give you is unconditional.

bob.

 

[gixer1]

A dog is a privilege, not a right. If you are going to have a dog you should have the means to pay for its treatment when sick or pay for insurance. I really lack sympathy for people who have perfectly 'fixable' dogs but are unable to pay for the treatment because they have not taken into account the costs that may be incurred. I'd like it to be the same as cars - if you want a dog you legally have to get in microchipped, vaccinated, treated for parasites and insured.

I completely agree with the above, as you may have seen I recently had to have a very expensive procedure on my lab and i was very surprised at the amount of people who said "at that cost i'd have just put it down" - this kind of annoys me when that same person may have a shotgun/rifle/motorcycle etc. that is worth thousands yet they'd put the dog down for the same value...I believe if you take on a dog you are responsible to pay out to have whatever you can to keep the dog fit and well, I can understand people not paying if it is a treatment prolonging life when the outcome is still the same such as chemo for a dog that may only last 6 months but a surgery where the dog will be fine afterwords I believe you should have to get this done.

You take the responsibility on - you pay for it...

Regards,
Gixer

 

[mbartlett]

Any body owning a pet should have insurance, but the first question a vet asks is whether you have insurance and then prices it accordingly doing a lot of unnecessarily tests normally!!

 

[unlacedgecko]

I completely agree with the above, as you may have seen I recently had to have a very expensive procedure on my lab and i was very surprised at the amount of people who said "at that cost i'd have just put it down" - this kind of annoys me when that same person may have a shotgun/rifle/motorcycle etc. that is worth thousands yet they'd put the dog down for the same value...I believe if you take on a dog you are responsible to pay out to have whatever you can to keep the dog fit and well, I can understand people not paying if it is a treatment prolonging life when the outcome is still the same such as chemo for a dog that may only last 6 months but a surgery where the dog will be fine afterwords I believe you should have to get this done.

You take the responsibility on - you pay for it...

Regards,
Gixer

I disagree. While you may well have made the decision that the cost of the treatment was worth it in your case (a decision for which I commend you. You have even more of my admiration for meeting the entire cost yourself), not everyone will come to the same conclusion given the same circumstances.

I agree with you, and truly believe that anybody who takes on the responsibility for an animal should fully meet that responsibility. However, it is morally wrong of you to attempt to dictate how that responsibility is met.

If a person has a dog which is suffering, as long as that suffering is ended, then their moral responsibility is fulfilled, regardless of how they choose to end that suffering (provided it meets the criteria of humanness and legality, obviously).

You may disagree with somebody's decision to kill an animal when you would have treated it, but it is their animal and it is their decision. I believe it is not your place to tell them that their decision is 'wrong'.

Attempting to regulate ownership of things (be it dogs or firearms), and dictate to people what them must do with those things is something I very strongly resist, provided that there is no threat to public safety/no animal's welfare is compromised.

 

[private fraser]

"Are their bills too large?"

The daughter of our last vet was studying medicine and complaining a bit about the volume and scope.

Alan (vet/dad) informed that her that she only had one species to worry about, that she would make lots of money when she started to practice and be in for a good pension if working in the nhs.

Three good points

 

[willie_gunn]

Any body owning a pet should have insurance, but the first question a vet asks is whether you have insurance and then prices it accordingly doing a lot of unnecessarily tests normally!!

Why should people be forced to have insurance?

I know a number of people with working dogs who choose not to take out insurance but instead to set aside funds to pay for any treatment. Personally I am coming round to this argument, and at the moment out of our four dogs only three are insured. If I work out how much we have paid to the insurance companies over the years it is eye-watering. Like any company, pet insurance companies are in the business to make a profit.

If there is something wrong with one of our dogs we will get it treated by the vet - having insurance or not having insurance has no bearing on how we treat our dogs.

willie_gunn

 

[billh]

When I started this thread I was gutted at loosing my best gun dog. She was bred by my wife and given to be as a present. I am still of the opinion that the two misdiagnoses were due to vets being too reliant on electronic gizmos and not the old fashioned vets skills with hands, ears and eyes.
This said I will not insure my dogs as the insurance only covers one instance of illness or injury and is expensive. Between us we have 6 Cockers, all can work and are liable to injuries. The repair bills we accept and have spent some £1800+ in the last 5 years on repairs. This is still less than the insurance costs we would have incurred.
I fully support vets and the work they do but let us all get back to reality because as the prices go up the level of use goes down and starts to become an animal welfare issue where some owners cannot afford treatment.
Incidentally how often do you see a sheep at the vets or a vet treating one. When I was young and working on a farm if a sheep was ill it went to the vets in a trailer.

 

[gixer1]

If a person has a dog which is suffering, as long as that suffering is ended, then their moral responsibility is fulfilled, regardless of how they choose to end that suffering (provided it meets the criteria of humanness and legality, obviously).

You may disagree with somebody's decision to kill an animal when you would have treated it, but it is their animal and it is their decision. I believe it is not your place to tell them that their decision is 'wrong'.

Attempting to regulate ownership of things (be it dogs or firearms), and dictate to people what them must do with those things is something I very strongly resist, provided that there is no threat to public safety/no animal's welfare is compromised.

Could we not argue that the animals health is compromised if it's been put down due to the potential cost of treatment?? ending suffering can sometimes require costly treatment but some choose to end the suffering by putting an animal down - even though it is a treatable illness but due to the cost they feel putting the animal to sleep is the thing to do. - this is the bit I disagree with as the putting to sleep is sometimes the best thing to do for the bank balance, not the animal - i'm not saying everyone has endless funds, but if you buy a pet - you need to be prepared to do whatever is in your power and this sometimes does not come before luxury's such as guns/cars etc.

Regards,

Gixer

 

[billh]

gixer1, go and look at the way hunt kennels work. It is ok for one animal maybe 2 but when you run several you have to be more realistic about the management of them.

 

[gixer1]

gixer1, go and look at the way hunt kennels work. It is ok for one animal maybe 2 but when you run several you have to be more realistic about the management of them.

Why? by more realistic do you mean spend less?

 

[willie_gunn]

Why? by more realistic do you mean spend less?

No, more that you can't afford to anthropomorphise animals the way that pet owners do, much the same as with farming.

 

[gixer1]

No, more that you can't afford to anthropomorphise animals the way that pet owners do, much the same as with farming.

It's not about anthropomorphism though - it's about the obligation you take on to look after the animal - at the end of the day what anyone does with thier animal is up to them, my point being my opinion is that you should do all you can if you have taken on the animal, somepeople wouldn't spend £500 to have a leg cast etc as it would be cheaper to put them to sleep and in my opinion that person shouldn't have bothered getting a dog if they weren't willing to cover the outlay.


and we have predominantly been talking about "pets" here not livestock although I do believe you still have the obligation in live stock when feasible - and that is the big question - what is the point you go to where you say "thats too much" - in my case it was a family pet (and part of the family) and i would have sold the shirt off my back if need be - but thats my choice and i dont expect everyone else to feel the same.

I have hadmy labs since they were born (10 years) and am in the fortunate position to have a few luxuries/toys such as guns/motorbikes/cars and therfore I feel if I am able to buy things like that I should be able to pay to look after the dogs I own when the surgery will make a significant difference to life. in my case the dog should live for years to come (not unusual to see a 15 year old lab) but this op was the difference between having or not having constant pain so it was a no brainer - i'm hacked off the insurance wouldn't cover it but thats the way things go.

Regards,

Gixer