Money Moral Dilemma: Should we have to pay the vet bills?

madron575

No they have no right in taking your dog to the Vets without your permission :mad: Sounds to me they don't like you much and this is their way at getting at you. Tell your mouse of a husband to have a word with his parents.

cbrown7

Cut your losses and pay to have the dog put down!

gaily

cbrown7 wrote: »

Cut your losses and pay to have the dog put down!

OOOch - drastic or what!!!

kingpete

There is, of course, a really simple answer:
Take the dog back so you're in control of vet bills. Get the in-laws to take one of the kids, medical care for them is free!

Frugaldom

Yes, owners are ultimately responsible for pet-associated costs - if they can't afford/cope with a dog then it should be rehomed.

Talent

Pay up or look after it yourself.... simples.

awehla

If they are just looking after the dog and haven't adopted it from you permanently then you should pay the bills but maybe have a word and say he doesn't need to go to the vet that much.

Maybe you should think of having the dog permanently re-homed if you can't look after him. It's sad but sometimes these things happen.

Frosti

cbrown7 wrote: »

Cut your losses and pay to have the dog put down!

C Brown is not a dog-lover, methinks!

I've been on the other end of this many times, as I've often looked after friends' dogs while they were on holiday, or in cases where the owner had to go into hospital or needed a carer for their pet for short-ish periods (eg. working away from home for up to six months).
The owners usually pay me a nominal sum to cover food, and trust me to know when their pet needs veterinary help. I've dealt with everything from renewing annual vaccinations to diagnosing cancer, and am lucky enough to have a vet with a 24/7 service, who also charges me lower rates simply because the number of animals I care for brings the vet plenty of business. Sometimes they don't charge at all (eg. for a pensioner-owner in hospital). I keep receipts, 'phone the owners if something goes wrong and there's a choice of treatments, and expect to be reimbursed for agreed expenses.

As the OP's in-laws are obviously not experienced dog owners who can differentiate between minor ailments and early symptoms of a serious problem, I would ask them to 'phone when they're worried, then between you decide whether to watch and wait or go to the vet at once.
Who should pay? That depends who "owns" the dog - if the OP intends to take back the dog when baby's a bit older and life has settled down, then OP is responsible for all the dog's expenses. If the dog has effectively been re-homed with the in-laws, then they should pay.

Like so many problems, this misunderstanding has come about through lack of communication. OP, you need to have an honest chat with your partner's parents.

nitrofunction

. . . nowadays.

People don't want to take responsibility for themselves or their lives.

I daresay you've got a house full of kids as well that you can't afford?

Never mind, get a hand-out from the government!

Is that your attitude?

The bottom line is, if you can't afford pets (or kids for that matter!), don't indulge!

Tiglet

Frosti wrote: »

As the OP's in-laws are obviously not experienced dog owners who can differentiate between minor ailments and early symptoms of a serious problem, I would ask them to 'phone when they're worried, then between you decide whether to watch and wait or go to the vet at once.

<snip>

Like so many problems, this misunderstanding has come about through lack of communication. OP, you need to have an honest chat with your partner's parents.

I think this about sums it up. Also, the in-laws should have had as good idea that you are not as wealthy as they are, and should have the decency to ask before spending your money.

To the people talking about the cost of looking after a pet, this is not an issue because we are not talking about genuinely necessary treatment but the cost of reimbursing the in-laws for their needless worries.