My dog bled to death 2 hours after leaving veterinary practice

earthstorm

hachette wrote: »

Maybe our pets would live longer.
Maybe the vets would take more care.

I say this again, I have paid £80 for Maxie's blood test to ensure everything is OK before his biopsy. Well his blood result was not OK it was ignored and he died. So what was all that was about. Why doing blood test in the first place if you are not going to investigate before you undertake life risking surgery?

The Pre-op blood test offered is to make sure is heart/liver/kidneys work fine before the operation (well that the ones our vets undertake)

the vet has been investigated and found not at fault by their governing body, which any court would take this on board and you will be onto nothing but a huge legal bill as if you lose you will also have to pay the vets legal costs.

so yes if everyone sued vets everytime a pet died then vets would go out of business

hachette

earthstorm wrote: »

The Pre-op blood test offered is to make sure is heart/liver/kidneys work fine before the operation (well that the ones our vets undertake)

the vet has been investigated and found not at fault by their governing body, which any court would take this on board and you will be onto nothing but a huge legal bill as if you lose you will also have to pay the vets legal costs.

so yes if everyone sued vets everytime a pet died then vets would go out of business

Do they negligently kill off that many animal companions to go out of the business if people stood up to them?

I do not think you get it what this case is about.

earthstorm

hachette wrote: »

Do they negligently kill off that many animal companions to go out of the business if people stood up to them?

I do not think you get it what this case is about.

but the RCVS has proved that have not killed your pet and they done nothing wrong. It is the RCVS investigation reports that any judge would look at as as a judge is not a vet they can only go off with what the professional body says.

If we all shouted after our pets dies shorty after being to the vets that they dies because of the vet and then sued the vet, then these vets practices would have to defent though their insurance legal service and then eventually they would be refused insurance, so will be out of business, so no vets or less vets would see more people neglect their animals as no vets to take them too, so more animals suffer.

think this way

you take legal action against the vet, the vet will enlist a solicitor provided by their practice insurance company that will of been arranged through the RCVS, so the solicitor will be linked to the RCVS, who have ruled the Vet is not to blame.

hachette

earthstorm wrote: »

but the RCVS has proved that have not killed your pet and they done nothing wrong. It is the RCVS investigation reports that any judge would look at as as a judge is not a vet they can only go off with what the professional body says.

If we all shouted after our pets dies shorty after being to the vets that they dies because of the vet and then sued the vet, then these vets practices would have to defent though their insurance legal service and then eventually they would be refused insurance, so will be out of business, so no vets or less vets would see more people neglect their animals as no vets to take them too, so more animals suffer.

think this way

you take legal action against the vet, the vet will enlist a solicitor provided by their practice insurance company that will of been arranged through the RCVS, so the solicitor will be linked to the RCVS, who have ruled the Vet is not to blame.

RCVS said that they could not treat this as professional misconduct so could not take it further. It was not their place to say if negligence has or has not happened as such matters if disputed are for the court to decide. Read my earlier qoutes from their letter.

hachette

earthstorm wrote: »

the vet practice would have presented in the RCVS investigation copies of your pets full medical records and then a report from the Vet and the team present during the last operation and then using the principle/guidelines the RCVS set out and vets must adhere too, then concluded their investigation and found no fault on the vets part.
This is what a judge would look at and not what others will say as anyone you bring in will only be able to advise on the info you give them. you could ask another vet 'what would you have done in this situation' but as they were not present at the time its just hearsay as they wont know if anything else come up during the operation.

I have all his medical records all the reports from other staff blood test results post- mortem report, everything they have got I have got.

bod1467

Such court actions are based on the balance of probabilities. If the professional body for the profession has ruled that the vet's conduct has been correct, then to a Judge this will carry very heavy weight. You would need to have a cast-iron, irrefutable case to sway the Judge to your side.

We all appreciate that you are upset. But we also appreciate that your chances of winning such legal action are quite low, and the financial risk of undertaking such action is very high. We are trying to protect you from yourself.

hachette

bod1467 wrote: »

Such court actions are based on the balance of probabilities. If the professional body for the profession has ruled that the vet's conduct has been correct, then to a Judge this will carry very heavy weight. You would need to have a cast-iron, irrefutable case to sway the Judge to your side.

We all appreciate that you are upset. But we also appreciate that your chances of winning such legal action are quite low, and the financial risk of undertaking such action is very high. We are trying to protect you from yourself.

This is guideline by Idexx Laboratories (this is machine used for my dog's blood test)how to deal with abnormal platelets result.
Quote "Unrecognized falsely decreased platelet counts can have devastating consequences for patient care... It is for that reason that every low platelet count detected by any hematology analyzer must be verified by a blood film microscopic examination. It should take less then 30 seconds total time to determine if the low platelet count is true". So my dog died because she did not bother to do that? By the way the word must was actually written in bold letters.

bod1467

hachette wrote: »

This is guideline....

Note the bold part - if it truly is a guideline, then it is a recommendation and not mandatory.

As I said, none of us dispute you probably have a case. But a professional body's opinion will ALWAYS carry more weight in proceedings than even a well-informed layperson.

We can only give you our best advice. Whether you heed that is up to you.

Slowhand

hachette wrote: »

This is guideline by Idexx Laboratories (this is machine used for my dog's blood test)how to deal with abnormal platelets result.
Quote "Unrecognized falsely decreased platelet counts can have devastating consequences for patient care... It is for that reason that every low platelet count detected by any hematology analyzer must be verified by a blood film microscopic examination. It should take less then 30 seconds total time to determine if the low platelet count is true". So my dog died because she did not bother to do that? By the way the word must was actually written in bold letters.

A heavily edited quotation I suggest.

hachette

Slowhand wrote: »

A heavily edited quotation I suggest.

This is what is missing from my quote where the dots are ... " including costly ancillary diagnostics, as well as potentially unnecessary medications and treatments." Hardly heavily edited.

I have taken this quote from the Idexx Laboratories instruction manual how to operate the machine and how to deal with abnormal blood results. I called it guidelines myself .