My dog bled to death 2 hours after leaving veterinary practice

hachette

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.[/QUOTE]



Do you think that vet should find reading this blood result challenging? Plt stands for platelet. Is it possible to misread it.

http://postimg.org/image/4dsf64izx/

hachette

Well it is now just few days before I get the report from my forensic vet so I have been re-reading the statements given by the vets that have dealt with Maxie. I would like to quote part of the statement by the vet who carried out the surgery and the senior vet who gave go ahead (just like to mention that I don't think that the senior vet was informed of Maxie's blood results). How would you interpret those statements?
Vet doing the surgery quote "On application of the punch biopsy to the mass the mass deflated and a large volume of hemorrhagic fluid
welled up from the top of the punch biopsy. I was not anticipating the mass to be fluid filled so I applied pressure with gauze swabs while I examined the fluid, the fluid did not clot. After the initial volume of fluid had welled up out the wound I could not see evidence of active hemorrhage. Mrs .....(senior vet) entered at this point so I asked her opinion." and this is the senior vet statement quote "I next went to Max's surgery when Miss ... was taking a sample with the biopsy punch through skin incision. Blood was welling up inside the punch,and it appeared that the fast growth of the mass was due in part to hemorrage within the mass-the blood that welled up did not clot when swabbed-consistent with blood already lost to the circulation an hemorahaged within the mass prior to surgery."

Two very conflicting statements. Was my dog bleeding and blood not clotting or was it just fluid?? I did question that with RCVS and got very interesting answer to this. What would you make out of these two statements?

keyser666

Been away for a week and this is still going?

sodukoman

hachette wrote: »

If you that ignorant do not look at my thread. Make your self busy with other people problems.

I've manually from the early 70's on carried out more platelet counts in a NHS lab than most on here I guarantee you. The vet has used their judgement and I understand why they came to their conclusion. Get help.

imoneyop

sodukoman wrote: »

Please contact your GP and request to be referred to a mental health expert.

This - you really need to let it go for the sake of your mental health and that of your family.

It is sad that your dog died, but you're not going to get her back by throwing money away on a fruitless crusade.

If you're really that much of an animal lover why not get a rescue dog from one of the charities (or even just make a donation to them if you can't face another dog), rather than lining the pockets of forensic vets and solicitors.

Fosterdog

hachette wrote: »

Well it is now just few days before I get the report from my forensic vet so I have been re-reading the statements given by the vets that have dealt with Maxie. I would like to quote part of the statement by the vet who carried out the surgery and the senior vet who gave go ahead (just like to mention that I don't think that the senior vet was informed of Maxie's blood results). How would you interpret those statements?
Vet doing the surgery quote "On application of the punch biopsy to the mass the mass deflated and a large volume of hemorrhagic fluid
welled up from the top of the punch biopsy. I was not anticipating the mass to be fluid filled so I applied pressure with gauze swabs while I examined the fluid, the fluid did not clot. After the initial volume of fluid had welled up out the wound I could not see evidence of active hemorrhage. Mrs .....(senior vet) entered at this point so I asked her opinion." and this is the senior vet statement quote "I next went to Max's surgery when Miss ... was taking a sample with the biopsy punch through skin incision. Blood was welling up inside the punch,and it appeared that the fast growth of the mass was due in part to hemorrage within the mass-the blood that welled up did not clot when swabbed-consistent with blood already lost to the circulation an hemorahaged within the mass prior to surgery."

Two very conflicting statements. Was my dog bleeding and blood not clotting or was it just fluid?? I did question that with RCVS and got very interesting answer to this. What would you make out of these two statements?

I'm not a vet nor am I in the medical profession but both statements appear to me to be saying that the blood/fluid in the lump did not clot when it left the body because it hadn't been circulated for some time due to being in the lump. It doesn't say that the blood didn't clot for another reason that should have made them aware there would be more risk to your dog. It also says that once the lump was cleared, there were no signs of any further blood to indicate a problem.

OP you really do need to put this behind you, you are looking for blame where there is none.

WTFH

sodukoman wrote: »

I've manually from the early 70's on carried out more platelet counts in a NHS lab than most on here I guarantee you. The vet has used their judgement and I understand why they came to their conclusion. Get help.

This is not the answer hachette wants to hear. Prepare to be lambasted by pandering souls who like to get thanks for sycophancy.

peachyprice

Fosterdog wrote: »

I'm not a vet nor am I in the medical profession but both statements appear to me to be saying that the blood/fluid in the lump did not clot when it left the body because it hadn't been circulated for some time due to being in the lump. It doesn't say that the blood didn't clot for another reason that should have made them aware there would be more risk to your dog. It also says that once the lump was cleared, there were no signs of any further blood to indicate a problem.

Yes, this is how I read it. The blood/fluid within the mass did not clot because it was non-circulatory, not 'life' blood but blood that had accumulated within the mass.

This really doesn't bear any relevance to your 'claim' whatsoever, I can't understand why you would want to bring this information into play, it rather backs up the vets case. Once again you are not reading and/or understanding all the words in front of you.

Elle7

I rather fear that you are applying a type of bias when reading this - you don't fully understand the statements, because you are not a vet, so you are unconsciously 'fitting' the best possible meaning to the statements. In effect, you are tying yourself in circles, and giving yourself a lot of false hope and a lot of confusion.

Peachyprice and Fosterdog are right here. The vet and senior vet are referring to the fact that this blood and fluid had been in the lump for some time, and therefore was non-circulatory. It didn't clot for that reason, and it would not have been expected to clot.

When you get the forensic vets' statement, please ask him to talk you through it in detail, so that you fully understand it.

If you then want to persue this further, even with the guidance that you are extremely unlikely to get anywhere, it will be your prerogative. You need to understand the documents, though, and make sure you could answer questions based on what they actually mean, and not your (unconsciously) biased interpretation.

hachette

sodukoman wrote: »

I've manually from the early 70's on carried out more platelet counts in a NHS lab than most on here I guarantee you. The vet has used their judgement and I understand why they came to their conclusion. Get help.

The problem is my vet did not carry manually further platelets count. I do not care how many platelets counts you have done my vet did not, did you ever did your judgment by looking at empty blood stained syringe used for a blood test sample?