My dog bled to death 2 hours after leaving veterinary practice

Valli

OP

rather than pursue a legal case in which the odds are actually stacked against you (in which case you would probably end up paying ALL the costs of the case) why not divert your money and energy into supporting other animals in memory of Maxie.

Perhaps you could consider supporting one of the many animal charities that work with rescue dogs, perhaps you could offer some practical help to a local dog charity, as a couple of thoughts.

This would honour Maxie's memory in a positive way.

hachette

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

Surely ignorance is not knowing so basically a mistake or are you saying the vet did this on purpose?

Is it unreasonable for me to assume that veterinary surgeon should know how to read blood results? Would you say that she exercised a reasonable degree of care and skill? She has taken huge risk with my dog's life. We all have to pay for our mistakes in one way or the other. Why should vets be exempt? If you had your car just serviced and the next day brakes failed and you crashed it would you be still happy to pay for that service?

earthstorm

hachette wrote: »

She has taken huge risk with my dog's life.

All operations carry a risk, this is why you have to sign a consent form.

she could of misread results ( which is a mistake) it is nothing else.

your car thing does not make any sense as brakes can fail at any time.

Country_Cousin

earthstorm wrote: »

All operations carry a risk, this is why you have to sign a consent form.

she could of misread results ( which is a mistake) it is nothing else.

your car thing does not make any sense as brakes can fail at any time.

When you sign a consent form for surgery you are signing that you are aware of the reported risks and complications. You are not signing that you are happy for your surgeon to be negligent and make mistakes.

This is a general comment by the way - just putting the inaccuracy in your posting right. It is not particularly a comment on Maxie's situation.

Yes she could have misread the results and that is indeed a mistake but would also be classed as negligence in medical practice.

earthstorm

Country_Cousin wrote: »

When you sign a consent form for surgery you are signing that you are aware of the reported risks and complications. You are not signing that you are happy for your surgeon to be negligent and make mistakes.

This is a general comment by the way - just putting the inaccuracy in your posting right. It is not particularly a comment on Maxie's situation.

Yes she could have misread the results and that is indeed a mistake but would also be classed as negligence in medical practice.

Have you read the whole thread, the OP had had many reports from various sources and as non are giving the answer she wants, she continues to ask for more reports. The OP even stated that the vet reported the machine was faulty and just dismissed this as a lie by the vet. How does the OP know that was never an issue with the machine, but either way it was a mistake which does happen even in human hospitals.

Country_Cousin

earthstorm wrote: »

Have you read the whole thread, the OP had had many reports from various sources and as non are giving the answer she wants, she continues to ask for more reports. The OP even stated that the vet reported the machine was faulty and just dismissed this as a lie by the vet. How does the OP know that was never an issue with the machine, but either way it was a mistake which does happen even in human hospitals.

I have read most of the thread but what I clearly said was that my comment was a more general comment about a consent form that you sign when you have surgery.

I note what you say about a mistake that can even "happen in human hospitals", but consent forms are certainly not there to sign away your rights should a mistake happen and that is the point that I was making.

earthstorm

Country_Cousin wrote: »

I have read most of the thread but what I clearly said was that my comment was a more general comment about a consent form that you sign when you have surgery.

I note what you say about a mistake that can even "happen in human hospitals", but consent forms are certainly not there to sign away your rights should a mistake happen and that is the point that I was making.

But blood clotting/not clotting would be a reported risk or complication that a consent form would cover as most operations do rely on the patients blood to clot, so a reported risk or complication would be if the blood does not clot

callum9999

earthstorm wrote: »

But blood clotting/not clotting would be a reported risk or complication that a consent form would cover as most operations do rely on the patients blood to clot, so a reported risk or complication would be if the blood does not clot

Hardly. If what the OP has said is true then the vet got a report stating that the platelet levels were dangerously low and as such, the blood was incredibly unlikely to clot.

As someone else said, that doesn't necessarily mean the surgery can't go ahead - but it looks like a clear-cut case of negligence to me. You just don't put a bandage over a cut in something that is bleeding and doesn't have the ability to stop it, then send them home.

However, I also agree with virtually everyone on here saying there is no legal case. Although I say it looks clear-cut, that is based solely on the OPs description of the events - something no judge would ever take as reliable evidence. And although I doubt they are lying, the OP could quite easily make a mistake themselves - or as others have suggested, are reading the situation how they want it to be (which again, is self-conscious and not deliberate - which also means a denial of doing so is futile as you wouldn't be aware you were doing it).

Nor do I think the RCVS are wrong in not assessing this as gross misconduct. I find it hard to believe that many vets who go through such a rigorous training scheme (that doesn't ever stop - it's not a case of go to university then you're done) would deliberately do something like this.

And finally, although the OP is being stubborn over this, I really don't think the snotty attitude is necessary. Yes, most normal people would have gotten over this long ago but the OP clearly hasn't. While suffering from grief you're hardly the most rational person in the world - so moaning at the OP about how irrational they are obviously won't achieve anything.

earthstorm

what if the blood had clotted while at the vets, so the vet allowed Maxie home, but the transporting home has somehow reopened the wound etc. This also happens. Therefore just a mistake of unusual occurrence

hachette

earthstorm wrote: »

Have you read the whole thread, the OP had had many reports from various sources and as non are giving the answer she wants, she continues to ask for more reports. The OP even stated that the vet reported the machine was faulty and just dismissed this as a lie by the vet. How does the OP know that was never an issue with the machine, but either way it was a mistake which does happen even in human hospitals.

As I said before I haven't got any other reports. The vet did not say that the machine was faulty. When the vet said she put it down to error in the machine what that means is : machine blood results are very accurate however when it comes to platelets when you got very low count sometimes is due to the fact that they have clumped ( called machine error.) So if 20 platelets got clumped together the machine will only count 1 clamp as a 1 platelet rather then 20 platelets giving the false low count result. That is why in such cases you must do blood smear test to determine if the low reading is due to platelets clamping or if it is truly low. She did not do that but assumed that the low count was due to platelets clumping. Well Maxie's was real low count.