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

Purplejenster2

It is your responsibility to pay. If you had put the dog in kennels you would have to pay for any veterinary care that is required, that is not included in the cost of the dogs stay. So, how can you expect anyone to pay your bills when they are doing you a favour? Maybe you should have assessed you financial situation before having another baby. Just a thought!

Also, if you were not 'affluent' at the time and were receiving housing or council tax benefit then you may have been eligible for PDSA Vet Care. This is where the PDSA will cover vet bills for a minimal annual fee and all they ask in return is for a donation at the time of treatment. So, no matter how little you have, all homes have the opportunity to have a pet.

cefynbach

sorry but I disagree if the in-laws where only looking after the dogs and were not going to pay the vets bill then they should have spoken to you first before going to the vets. I have had dogs nearly all my life and never took them to a vets for minor ailments.

MsChievousness

When I left home my parents offered to look after my cat as he had been destructive in the past and it probably wouldn't be a good idea to take him somewhere new for him to destroy. As gutted as I was to leave him behind I knew he'd be well looked after and he was very happy there. If my parents thought he was ill they would tell me and, if needed, I would take him to the vet myself as I could not possibly expect them to take on this extra responsibility and I would, of course, pay for any treatment myself. After all, he was my cat regardless of where he was staying.

You say your parents in law offered to look after the dog as you were struggling. Does that mean that they also pay for his upkeep, his food, toys, etc? If so, you can't possibly expect them to pay for any vets bills as well. Perhaps they feel a real responsibility to keep your dog well while she lives with them as she isn't really theirs? They would want to ensure that the dog stays in perfect health. I know if I was looking after someone else's pet, I wouldn't want them to get ill while they were with me! In some ways it shows just how thoughtful and caring they are. Some people don't look after their pets at all!

You also say "at the time" you weren't as affluent as your parents in law. Does this mean that your money situation is better now than it was? If this is the case, perhaps you should look at this as the perfect opportunity to take your dog home and then you no longer have to worry about the dog going to the vet without your knowledge. If, however, your money situation is better but you still have no intention of bringing the dog home and your parents in law enjoy having the dog around them, why don't you see if they would like to keep the dog permanently? Your dog deserves to be happy too!

If you decide to keep the dog where she is then yes, the dog is yours and you should be paying for any treatment. You can always ask to be contacted if the dog is unwell and before any vet appointment is made.

dawsar

It's your dog, therefore your responsibility. If you can't afford it, then you need to rehome it properly instead of dumping it on family members. If they think it needs the vet, then you need to pay the bill.

heth

I have to say if it's your dog then it's your responsibility - but wouldn't you be better rehoming the dog properly, rather than just having someone look after it for you? Dogs & babies DON'T mix - get another dog when your children are older.

bobbyposh

I disagree with all the other posts that I have read. Your in-laws have the benefit of the dog so they should pay for it. Presumably they buy the food for it and enjoy walking it etc. If they weren't prepared to pay they shouldn't have offered in the first place.

davyarcher

I really cannot believe that I am reading this !
Everyone is concerned by the cost of the vet's bill !!

Why has no other person on here spotted the frighteningly obvious ?

Here we have a young couple with an obviously very young child, and a new baby arriving.

The only thing the parents are worried about is the cost of the dog bills.
I can assume that the dog will be coming home soon.
Are these parents so thick and stupid that they will allow a dog near their very young children ?

However sweet and cuddly the dog is, it is actually still a semi-wild animal.
Just like all other dogs, however groomed and pampered, it will carry fleas and bacteria that are not good for children's health.

However, that will be the least of their problems.
A new addition to the family is going to make the dog jealous.

A jealous semi-wild animal is going to get angry.

How are the parents going to feel when the dog tears off the face of the baby in a jealous rage ?

Claws the baby's eyes out when chewing the baby's face off ?
Takes just a few seconds.

How are these parents later going to explain to the 12 year old blind child with the ghastly sewn up face that they were just too
stupid and ignorant to have easily prevented such a tragedy.

These child / dog "accidents" are happening and reported in the newspapers with sickening regularity, yet so-called responsible
parents still keep a dog or two in the house with their young children.

The best thing these parent could ever do, is right now, immediately, tell the in-laws to give the dog away to a rescue home, and also give the rescue home some money to take it away.

megababe18

pennypinchUK wrote: »

Isn't this just something you talk to your in-laws about? Something along the lines of "We really appreciate you looking after the dog, as you know we're strapped for cash at the moment. The vets bills are bigger than when we had him/her and we're struggling to pay those. We obviously want what's best for the dog, but perhaps you could chat with us before taking the dog to the vets, just so we agree it's necessary to take him/her".

I really don't see the dilemma.

If this solution doesn't work, perhaps you should talk to your in-laws and say that you're thinking of giving the dog away. There is a chance they would be attached enough to the dog to offer to keep it - in which case you still get time with it but are absolved of financial responsibility, or if they are fine with you giving it away, then look in to that (if you can't afford to pay the bills for an animal that you are responsible for).

blue_angel

davyarcher wrote: »

Why has no other person on here spotted the frighteningly obvious ?

Here we have a young couple with an obviously very young child, and a new baby arriving.

The only thing the parents are worried about is the cost of the dog bills.
I can assume that the dog will be coming home soon.
Are these parents so thick and stupid that they will allow a dog near their very young children ?

However sweet and cuddly the dog is, it is actually still a semi-wild animal. Just like all other dogs, however groomed and pampered, it will carry fleas and bacteria that are not good for children's health.

However, that will be the least of their problems. A new addition to the family is going to make the dog jealous. A jealous semi-wild animal is going to get angry.

The best thing these parent could ever do, is right now, immediately, tell the in-laws to give the dog away to a rescue home, and also give the rescue home some money to take it away.

I can't believe I've just read this. I totally agree that no baby or child should be left alone with a dog, and that new parents need to introduce the new baby to their canine friend carefully, and perhaps seek advice & training. But to suggest that all new parents should get rid of their pet is just ridiculous.

tallgirld

The solution is simple. Tell them to STOP taking the dog to the vet!!