PDSA change of policy

Kittendreich

I agree that you were probably seen by Vets Now and were charged as an emergency case. We were £180 to be told he had Kennel cough, an antibiotic injection and told to go and buy some benylin - just because it was a Sunday and we were on holiday! That was VetsNow using a PDSA clinic. So please do check who was charging you before blaming the PDSA.

PDSA are a charity and many people use there services without giving sufficient donations (either through thinking free treatment is an 'entitlement' or because they just don't realise how expensive vet treatment is) - they need to ration their service somehow... However - I think it is a strange choice to choose to ration care only to Pedigree dogs (you can get one of those free on Gumtree or pay over a thousand for a specific cross-breed). Perhaps limiting free care to one animal (so everyone eligible can benefit from pet ownership) with increasing payments for each subsequent animal would be better. As a working person eligible for nothing it is annoying to see how much better off people who don't work can be (if everything is taken into account). We'd love another dog, but couldn't afford insurance & vet treatment so we have to do without - if we were on benefits we could get free treatment & get another dog - seems the wrong way round to me...

donnap83

I don't agree with the new policy.

My mum has 2 pedigree poodles aged 13 years. 10 years ago she was diagnosed with MS, and her health has rapidly declined ever since. She is in recipt of benefits, but 60% of her money goes on paying for carers. The rest of the money is spent on the usual...

...So now that the PDSA is introducing this policy, should something happen to one of her dogs, what is she to do? She can cover one, but what if the other gets ill??

My mum was in perfect health when she got the dogs, but circumstances change. As she has little mobility she spends a great deal of time stuck at home, so she needs those dogs for company. I wonder how many people will suggest that she get rid of them?

Cyril

I don't agree with this at all.

Its not the animals fault if the owners do not meet certain criteria and why refuse an animal treatment because they are pedigree. They don't know that.

I do agree that it must be maddening when chavs on benefits present expensive dogs but then PDSA should ask for a contribution in a sliding scale or something.

Frugalista

So, presumably, all those half-wits who spent a fortune on designer cross breeds, will now drop the mind-numbingly stupid names (cavi-poo, shitz-poo, sprocker, labradoodle, etc, etc) and get free treatment??

rising_from_the_ashes

Fire_Fox wrote: »

The PDSA is already not helping people and animals that are struggling, because the system revolves around benefits which don't prove that you are actually in trouble financially.

Kittendreich wrote: »

As a working person eligible for nothing it is annoying to see how much better off people who don't work can be (if everything is taken into account). We'd love another dog, but couldn't afford insurance & vet treatment so we have to do without - if we were on benefits we could get free treatment & get another dog - seems the wrong way round to me...

Exactly, I totally agree!

Does anyone really think the system is right when people on benefits can afford to keep 8 cats and 4 dogs! (and hard working people can't).

Like Kittendreich, I'd love more pets but I couldn't afford to look after them properly (ie insurance, treatment when needed, good quality food etc).

How is it right that people on benefits can afford to so many pets, have holidays, get free dentist treatment, free insulation, housing, council tax & goodness knows what other benefits - when people who work their butts off for minimum wage get no help whatsoever!:mad:

Cyril wrote: »

Its not the animals fault if the owners do not meet certain criteria

Neither is it my animals fault!

So why should they be excluded from treatment?

Fire_Fox

donnap83 wrote: »

I don't agree with the new policy.

My mum has 2 pedigree poodles aged 13 years. 10 years ago she was diagnosed with MS, and her health has rapidly declined ever since. She is in recipt of benefits, but 60% of her money goes on paying for carers. The rest of the money is spent on the usual...

...So now that the PDSA is introducing this policy, should something happen to one of her dogs, what is she to do? She can cover one, but what if the other gets ill??

My mum was in perfect health when she got the dogs, but circumstances change. As she has little mobility she spends a great deal of time stuck at home, so she needs those dogs for company. I wonder how many people will suggest that she get rid of them?

If your mother can cover one and the PDSA continues to cover the other, I am not sure what the problem is? :huh: Neither of her pedigrees would get treatment if the PDSA goes bankrupt; rescues really are closing their doors due to the recession. According to the OP your mother has this period of registration plus one more before she has to worry about the second dog, enough time to go over her finances with a fine tooth comb and make sure she is getting every penny/ service she is entitled to from the state. I have read of other animal charities helping out with veterinary costs for older people on a very low income, you might also try charities that focus on the needs of older or housebound people.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Benefit claimants getting treatment for 8 cats? Not likely, they're limited to three anyway - and another could only be added if the PDSA actually witnessed the demise of the previous animal AND they waited 6 months.


One of my mob might be a pedigree. She was an informal rescue. If another animal needing a home (which would be a damn good one) turned up on my doorstep, I'd take it in whether it were a pedigree or not. If you don't have papers, nothing is a pedigree, anyway, so it seems unlikely that they could really enforce this.

I wonder if this is a veiled way of excluding potential breeding? So only one Staffy/Malamute/Papillion being covered means that the owners have to bear the financial costs of each puppy, rather than rely on them being covered by the PDSA?

Difficult, as this could end up with more animals suffering and dying in the short term, but in the long term, possibly fewer. But no consolation for the person qualifying for assistance whose pet is refused treatment because it looks a bit posh.


I don't know what my opinion is on this one.

vax2002

The PDSA have one of the highest paid boards of directors of any UK charity, they have repeatedly refused to disclose the saleries of the directors other than in general expenditure terms.

Runningbackwards_2

donnap83 wrote: »

I don't agree with the new policy.

My mum has 2 pedigree poodles aged 13 years. 10 years ago she was diagnosed with MS, and her health has rapidly declined ever since. She is in recipt of benefits, but 60% of her money goes on paying for carers. The rest of the money is spent on the usual...

...So now that the PDSA is introducing this policy, should something happen to one of her dogs, what is she to do? She can cover one, but what if the other gets ill??

My mum was in perfect health when she got the dogs, but circumstances change. As she has little mobility she spends a great deal of time stuck at home, so she needs those dogs for company. I wonder how many people will suggest that she get rid of them?

The above type of person is so deserving of help from the PDSA, yet they will in future not be covered :mad: Peoples circumstances can change drastically, and especially for someone with a long term illness/disability savings quickly run out, and as the above post shows, benefits can be swallowed paying for essential care. If this posters mother had 3 cross breeds they would be covered, but not 2 pedigrees - it just makes no sense. I can see animals being put to sleep as potentially owners will not be able to afford the veterinary care, even with the best will and budgeting in the world, especially for long term illnesses

All you folks who are ranting about other people being able to "afford" more animals than you - be thankful that you are able to work, and are not afflicted by some life altering disease such as MS.

rising_from_the_ashes

Runningbackwards wrote: »

All you folks who are ranting about other people being able to "afford" more animals than you - be thankful that you are able to work, and are not afflicted by some life altering disease such as MS.

Do not make assumptions about people!

There are many conditions that people suffer from that can be just as bad to deal with on a daily basis.

I suffer from 2 auto-immune diseases which are incurable and which I will have to live with for the rest of my life (and yes, one can be fatal).

I take a huge amount of medication each day and really struggle to continue to work full time - I basically get up, go to work, come home and go to bed.

I've already been told to "retire" (at under 40 years of age) by one of my consultants. However, as a single person - how would you propose I do this and continue to keep a roof over my head, pay the bills and feed myself?

The system is not right when people on benefits get all these "freebies" when others on minimum wage - or really struggling with
illness - get absolutely no help whatsoever.