Should I take vets to court??

tandraig

this thread is making me want to scream! there are such a lot of holier than thous on here!!!
firstly - the one that goes - if you cant lay your hands on a couple of hundred (or thousand) quid for emergency vets bills or havent yet arranged or can afford private pet insurance - you SHOULDNT own a pet. BS!!!!!!!!!!! what about all those pensioners with their beloved pets? the only company some of them have? and who go without food to feed their pets? they should be deprived of their company should they?
or families who for no fault of their own find themselves without a wage earner and a couple of family pets? oh yes take them off them! how dare they have pets when they cant afford them! (that was sarcasm for the benefit of some denser posters).
or people who have a little bit put by for emergencies and take on a pet, had the nous to have it neutered - then were rocked by a financial emergency and EVs who should have known better. (and i find it particularly repugnant they were PDSA btw - a charity dedicated to animal welfare? hmmm makes me rethink my direct debit for them. I thought my money was going to help fund owners like this).
Pet ownership shouldnt just be for the well off - even POOR people can often give a good quality of life to pets...........so this snobbishness really really annoys me.

MrsE_2

tandraig wrote: »

this thread is making me want to scream! there are such a lot of holier than thous on here!!!
firstly - the one that goes - if you cant lay your hands on a couple of hundred (or thousand) quid for emergency vets bills or havent yet arranged or can afford private pet insurance - you SHOULDNT own a pet. BS!!!!!!!!!!! what about all those pensioners with their beloved pets? the only company some of them have? and who go without food to feed their pets? they should be deprived of their company should they?
or families who for no fault of their own find themselves without a wage earner and a couple of family pets? oh yes take them off them! how dare they have pets when they cant afford them! (that was sarcasm for the benefit of some denser posters).
or people who have a little bit put by for emergencies and take on a pet, had the nous to have it neutered - then were rocked by a financial emergency and EVs who should have known better. (and i find it particularly repugnant they were PDSA btw - a charity dedicated to animal welfare? hmmm makes me rethink my direct debit for them. I thought my money was going to help fund owners like this).
Pet ownership shouldnt just be for the well off - even POOR people can often give a good quality of life to pets...........so this snobbishness really really annoys me.

I don't think people are being horrible about the lack of money.

Its that for the sake of less than £200 they choose to put a family pet down. Money that they could have paid in 30 days.

And now fighting with the vet for compo, its like blood money. I even find death payouts on pet insurance odd, why would you want compo for your pets death, its not like your partner dying & your family needs financial help to cope with the loss of a wage.

tandraig

mrsE - while i get the point, the OP has already said she gave her OH all the money she had including the grocery money! and for the vet to put the kitten down for a difference of £50!!! I find that really repugnant! I cannot imagine my fave vet doing that - or even the money grubbing ****s who took over when she retired. and for a charity vet to do it!!! words fail me.
I understand being in the position where you just CANNOT lay your hands on even an extra tenner. been there often enough in the past.
the OP did her best given her circumstances and i think she should not be lambasted for that.
I can understand she doesnt want another kitten - and that if she takes on a puppy she will be faced with additional expenses which will not be covered by the vets offer of compensation. such as spaying and vaccinations for the first year.
I suggest that she suggest to the vet that they take on the expense of this for the pups first year - and she doesnt go to court or take compensation.

MrsTinks

I'm sorry is this relevant to this thread?

welshmoneylover

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked!

To the OP, I'm sorry you lost your pet because of £, sometimes we make these snap decisions then regret them bitterly later on.

I really hope you can move forward from this x

Fire_Fox

tandraig wrote: »

this thread is making me want to scream! there are such a lot of holier than thous on here!!!
firstly - the one that goes - if you cant lay your hands on a couple of hundred (or thousand) quid for emergency vets bills or havent yet arranged or can afford private pet insurance - you SHOULDNT own a pet. BS!!!!!!!!!!! what about all those pensioners with their beloved pets? the only company some of them have? and who go without food to feed their pets? they should be deprived of their company should they? or families who for no fault of their own find themselves without a wage earner and a couple of family pets? oh yes take them off them! how dare they have pets when they cant afford them! (that was sarcasm for the benefit of some denser posters).

or people who have a little bit put by for emergencies and take on a pet, had the nous to have it neutered - then were rocked by a financial emergency and EVs who should have known better. (and i find it particularly repugnant they were PDSA btw - a charity dedicated to animal welfare? hmmm makes me rethink my direct debit for them. I thought my money was going to help fund owners like this).

Pet ownership shouldnt just be for the well off - even POOR people can often give a good quality of life to pets...........so this snobbishness really really annoys me.

I have said much the same thing on the 'DMP and pets' thread BUT there is a difference in my mind between taking on a pet you cannot afford, and already having pets and your circumstances changing. If you are willing and able to cut back on winter heating in order to pay for pet insurance then you CAN afford the pet. Long-term fostering is an alternative for those who genuinely cannot afford a pet, the rescue will pay for everything.

However in this case the OP's family elected to take on a kitten which only six months old when it was PTS, so they will only have had the kitten about four months. They could have gone to a rescue or indeed onto Gumtree and got an adult cat that was already vaccinated and neutered then used the money saved to pay for insurance. They could have waited a couple of months, used the money saved to pay for a years insurance up front. They could have got any number of smaller, cheaper pets such as rodents.

They also elected not to get insurance, which in most areas is really not that expensive. £500 say in the bank is not enough for many veterinary emergencies, and frankly a car breaking down is not some freak accident like your roof blowing off.

michaelvintner

When our cats were done (years ago, no longer have them) they had them cone things around their necks to stop them pulling out their stitches.

I still remember our little boy cat looking down at where his balls used to be and then staring back at us as if to say you b*stards.

MrsTinks

tandraig wrote: »

mrsE - while i get the point, the OP has already said she gave her OH all the money she had including the grocery money! and for the vet to put the kitten down for a difference of £50!!! I find that really repugnant! I cannot imagine my fave vet doing that - or even the money grubbing ****s who took over when she retired. and for a charity vet to do it!!! words fail me.
I understand being in the position where you just CANNOT lay your hands on even an extra tenner. been there often enough in the past.
the OP did her best given her circumstances and i think she should not be lambasted for that.
I can understand she doesnt want another kitten - and that if she takes on a puppy she will be faced with additional expenses which will not be covered by the vets offer of compensation. such as spaying and vaccinations for the first year.
I suggest that she suggest to the vet that they take on the expense of this for the pups first year - and she doesnt go to court or take compensation.

But she already stated in another post that the vet said they could pay over the next 30 days she DIDN'T have to find another tenner there and then - she had a month to raise that - or not as would have been the case when the case was reviewed (I grant you she wouldn't have known that).

The point the "holier than thou" people on here are saying is that pets are not a human right... they are a luxury and a priviledge. I don't think anyone is saying that people can't have changed circumstances, that pets aren't beneficial to elderly, infirm, disabled, depressed etc people - they certainly can be. But surely the animals welfare should come first?
Shouldn't it?
And if she couldn't afford £250 for an emergency procedure for the kitten... what would she do if faced with a £500+ bill for a dog with a severe stomach bug like I had months after adopting my dog - 2 over nights on drip and round the clock observation?
As it is then it's one thing that the kitten was sadly PTS - partially due to the owner not haveing insurance and partly due to miscommunication by the vet. But the compensation... as someone else said - the vet wasn't at fault for the cat ripping out her stitches which the OP says is what has traumatised her daughter so severely.

Personally no amount of money could compensate me for the loss of a beloved pet - and no other pet could replace it! If offered £100 I'd donate it to a charity and not be saying that I should have more money because I've been traumatised If the vet was guilty of misconduct then an official complaint should be logged with RCVS and they will investigate and if needed advise the vet.
If you feel it needs to be taken further than that then you need to bring a civil case against the vet. It would turn into a "he said - she said" argument...

Oh and remember that there is no need for name calling

usernameisvalid

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Cakeordeath said "potentially lethal" not lethal.

So "potentially" isnt such a big deal then is it? And if it isnt why make such a fuss and drag up that post to have a pop at a poster who as far as i can see is just giving her opinion as asked for by the OP?

The chocolate was potentially lethal, the cat ripping out the stitches was lethal( as it was put to sleep) - I really don't get the comparison at all here

Apricot

Im sorry for your loss OP but I have to say I agree with the majority of posters on here. Not having insurance for your pet is completely irresponsible, I have known people who have had vets bills for thousands of pounds due to accidents or illness so no amount of contingency is going to be enough in every circumstance.

The vet offered you a payment plan for the rest of the money which you say you wouldn't have been able to get but honestly I would sell everything I own in order to keep my cats healthy. The compensation culture in this country is really going to far - many professions are practically handcuffed in their day to day work for fear of being sued. At the end of the day you were offered to choices and you took the cheaper option, that was your decision. The vet made a mistake but if they hadn't had admitted it to you would you still have considered suing them?

Pets are a privilege and not a right, if you do get another pet PLEASE get it insured and always have enough contingency put by to pay the excess. If you cannot guarantee this then don't acquire another animal until you can.