Should I take vets to court??

DrScotsman

trudij wrote: »

But didnt she also say that the emergency vet wasnt her vet???? so why is she after getting MORE compensation from hers?

The next day I went to my vets only to be told that the emergency vet should not have attempted to charge us anything as THEY cover the costs which means my cat died for nothing. They have since sent us a letter confirming that this is their error and the cat shiould never have died. they have offered £236 which is £136 for what we paid and £100 FOR A NEW CAT.

I think we're taking the bolded "they" to mean different things here. I assumed it was the E.V., am I wrong?

DrScotsman

cyberbob wrote: »

No there were other choices. Ask the vet to pay in instalments which most vets will happily do. There's always choices

OP may still not have been able to afford a reasonable instalment level (e.g. not £1 a month)

Claire_Bear wrote: »

I'd say she shouldn't have got the kitten in the first place if she was living right on the edge of her finances and didn't have enough cash spare in case something like this happened.....

The E.V. should take his victims as he finds them. In other words I'm applying the eggshell skull principle to the OP's finances.

Ruby_Moon

DrScotsman wrote: »

I think cakeordeath explained this better than I did. The OP/OP's husband had called the emergency vet not knowing it would cost over £350. When they found out the price there was no time whatsoever for any of those options to be considered, the kitten's life was in danger. So there were only two choices: pay for the operation or pay for it to be put to sleep. They couldn't afford it thus reducing it to one choice (unless you also think the OP was lying and simply didn't care about the kitten's life )

Are you blinkered somehow? Can you not see that the OP was the one who put her own cat in danger?
She allowed the cat enough time on its own so it could pull its stitches out. (She should have had the cat under supervision)
She had left the cat so long it had begun to destroy its own insides. (Again, no supervision)
Upon finding the cat had taken out some intestines, the OP failed to even try anything to stop the cat doing more damage. (She could have wrapped damn duct tape round the cats body to stop it)
The Vet acted on instruction. (The OP said "Put her to sleep")
The OP now thinks somone other than herself is to blame and she wants cash!!
Cash is what it boils down to. If she were given a £1000 cat, she would say "No thanks, I want cash."
:mad:

trudij

oooh - dont know DrScotsman..... could be either of them - I read it as her own vet - you read it as the ev - (you say tomato and I say tomato!!!)
lets face it - only the OP knows what they mean (bit of a groundhog day for me - usually its only me that knows what i mean!!) there !!!

Mind you - if you can come up with half the money for the op at the time, I dont know any vet who would turn down doing an op on a sick animal and let the owner pay the rest in installments. (but thats a whole different conversation)

pelirocco

Ruby_Moon wrote: »

How the hell can you blame someone else for your own stupidity and neglect!? It wasn't the vet who allowed her to pull her stitches out.
Think yourself lucky that you haven't been charged with animal neglect and cruelty! :eek::mad::mad:

How the hell doyou work that one out , another keyboard warrior:rolleyes:

DrScotsman

Ruby_Moon wrote: »

Are you blinkered somehow? Can you not see that the OP was the one who put her own cat in danger?
She allowed the cat enough time on its own so it could pull its stitches out. (She should have had the cat under supervision)
She had left the cat so long it had begun to destroy its own insides. (Again, no supervision)
Upon finding the cat had taken out some intestines, the OP failed to even try anything to stop the cat doing more damage. (She could have wrapped damn duct tape round the cats body to stop it)
The Vet acted on instruction. (The OP said "Put her to sleep")
The OP now thinks somone other than herself is to blame and she wants cash!!

Sorry, if I slit my wrists and then go to a doctor who then chops my arm off, is the doctor absolved of responsibility because it was my fault I slit my wrists?

Cash is what it boils down to. If she were given a £1000 cat, she would say "No thanks, I want cash."
:mad:

Dis-tress. Even if she was then presented with the cat's identical twin that wouldn't magically have made all of the distress that she had over the cat's death go away. She would still be due compensation for distress.

trudij

DrScotsman wrote: »

Sorry, if I slit my wrists and then go to a doctor who then chops my arm off, is the doctor absolved of responsibility because it was my fault I slit my wrists?

Actually - if you slit your wrists and we dint have the NHS, and the doctor said "it will cost you £4000 to sew both your wrists back up, or £300 if I lop it off" and you chose to have you arm lopped off (and fed ot dogs on a BARF diet or something ) yes - of course the doctor would be absolved of all responsibility !!!

Ruby_Moon

DrScotsman wrote: »

Sorry, if I slit my wrists and then go to a doctor who then chops my arm off, is the doctor absolved of responsibility because it was my fault I slit my wrists?


Dis-tress. Even if she was then presented with the cat's identical twin that wouldn't magically have made all of the distress that she had over the cat's death go away. She would still be due compensation for distress.

What is having your arm cut off got to do with anything? They are not the same situations at all.
The distress was caused by her own neglect. You can't go around blame other people for that and expecting them to cough up cash.
How else was she distressed? Distressed by the bill? The amount of money to pay? Not a good enough reason to claim compensation and she told the vet to put her cat to sleep.
She could have taken the cat elsewhere. She could have got a 2nd opinion. She could have paid the bill. Lots of options. She choose the one to end the cats life. Her choice, noone elses.
She caused her own distress by her own neglect.

captainprincess

trudij wrote: »

You did ask if we thought you were being greedy, with comments like you put you have to be prepared for some of us to say yes.... !!!

for what my tuppenceworth is worth - I think you are as well. If Im honest,this whole thread to me reads as a mickey take in quite a sick way, I dont think I believe this is real.

It could well be that you just havent come over very well in it (and god knows, I do that all the time!!) Im sure that the damage that your kitten did to itself was horiffic (it certainally sounds it!) but sometimes there are complications (like infection) after surgery that you really cant forsee. I really dont see that you can blame the vets - and that is what you are doing by getting compensation. They have been more than fair in their offer to you-but you want to drag this whole episode out by chasing for more??!!!! Sorry - no.

I totally agree with trudij, she is always right (some might disagree with that!)
This whole thing is sounding ridiculous!
First of all have the kitten insured if you can't afford treatment, and second of all I'm sure the vet did everything in their means to help the kitten.

Ruby_Moon

captainprincess wrote: »

I totally agree with trudij, she is always right (some might disagree with that!)
This whole thing is sounding ridiculous!
First of all have the kitten insured if you can't afford treatment, and second of all I'm sure the vet didn't everything in their means to help the kitten.

Must admit, I don't think its real either.