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

cjb02

still your dog, still you bill.

fruugal

Your dog = your responsibility.

You should have pet insurance anyway. You should also have some groundrules as to what happens when the dog appears to be unwell. You could ask if they want to take over your dog and have it become their dog? As they offered to look after it, they might actually want it to live with them more permanently.

Don't look a gifthorse in the mouth. You sound very ungrateful indeed.

custard_monkey

heth wrote: »

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.

Oooh this really makes me mad!!! Get another dog when your kids are older?? Then when that one doesn't fit in with your plans for whatever reason you can just get rid of it too??!
Dogs are not ACCESSORIES for you to aquire and give up based on nothing but whimsy. It was your choice to take on the dog in the first place and when you did that you took on a responsibilty to care for it for the rest of it's life not just while it suits you. I'm not so naive as to think there is never a reason that a dog may need to be rehomed or in the absolute extreme even destroyed, but on the basis of your post this is not one of them.

This situation is no different to if someone had had a second child and then suggested they were going to give their first up for adoption claiming that they no longer had enough time, energy or money to devote to two children.

Sensible_sue

I have a similar arrangement with a friends dogs that I care for. Our arrangement works well and the dogs are fit and happy. Should this arrangement stop for any reason I would continue caring for them along with paying the bills as I consider them to be my dogs.
Perhaps you/ your wife need to make it quite clear what you feel is acceptable vet visits and what you are prepared to pay for, do you pay for the food? do you consider the pet as yours or theirs?

Fitzmichael

For a start, it's your wife's parents, a mean pair apparently, so what does she think.
It's your dog, so pay for it. If you can't afford it, get rid of it. What do you (or anyone who's not blind) want a dog for anyway? Can you afford everything you would like for your baby? So why are you giving your baby's money to your dog?
It makes me sick how so many people prefer to spend money on animals than on hungry children.

Fitzmichael

custard_monkey wrote: »

Oooh this really makes me mad!!! Get another dog when your kids are older?? Then when that one doesn't fit in with your plans for whatever reason you can just get rid of it too??!
Dogs are not ACCESSORIES for you to aquire and give up based on nothing but whimsy. It was your choice to take on the dog in the first place and when you did that you took on a responsibilty to care for it for the rest of it's life not just while it suits you. I'm not so naive as to think there is never a reason that a dog may need to be rehomed or in the absolute extreme even destroyed, but on the basis of your post this is not one of them.

This situation is no different to if someone had had a second child and then suggested they were going to give their first up for adoption claiming that they no longer had enough time, energy or money to devote to two children.

No! Babies are very different to dogs, and we should be able to treat people like you as we do dangerous dogs, and have you put down.

Fitzmichael

I pity those children whose parents don't love them so much that they choose to be with them whenever possible, and instead prefer to give their attention to an animal.

Sooler

bobbyposh wrote: »

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.

It may be a burden rather than a benefit and the presumption may be wrong

franki77

Some people enjoy having a dog, some don't. neither is wrong or right - all the semi feral wild animals(!) don't need to be put done, nor is a dog needing to be re-homed when a woman becomes pregnant. I believe that the OP should talk to her parents in law, and either let them keep the dog, if they wanted, or take it home, or rehome it. Unfortunately the right time for the OP to talk to the parents-in-law was before they had taken the dog - also, were they used to animals - had they had their own pets? I agree that the OP should have paid the first vet's bill, but after that she should have been consulted before dog gets taken to the vet. Also pet insurance is a very good idea, but if you are going to claim on every bill over £50 or whatever excess you have, you are going to see it reflected in the insurance premiums

I'm totally with blue-angel, but think that davyarcher's post must have been a joke? Obviously one must be sensible with children and animals,children need to be taught to respect animals, and a well-trained and happy dog is a joy to own. but I've grown up with my parents' dogs and now my own, and I've never caught any nasty diseases, or had my face ripped off by any "semi-feral animals", and in all honesty can't think of any of my family and friends who have either!

I'm now going off for one of these - :coffee: and will continue reading the forum later.

portlandboy

If the in-laws took on your dog because you couldn't afford to keep it then they ought to expect to pay for the bills. Why else did they take the dog from you?
If they expect you to pay then they ought to ask for your consent before they go to the vet, you then have the oportunity to say no. If you are really on a low income and can't afford the bills, why not register the dog with a PDSA vet? Then they would have to take the dog to that vet each time and there would be no bill to pay (only a donation, if you can afford one).