Gobsmacked by RCVS reply

hachette

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

I just thought I'd share this story:

15 years ago I re homed a little Yorkie who had been a breeding girl on a puppy farm. She had been examined by a vet prior to me taking her and was diagnosed with a hernia. I took her home and subsequently took her to my vet. The hernia was misdiagnosed - she was in fact riddled with cancer. Now had she been diagnosed earlier and properly, her cancer may well have been treatable. As it was, it wasn't worth pursuing, so, with my vet, focused on making her last weeks as comfortable as possible. I had her for 12 weeks. She had had a horrendous life before she came to me, but I take comfort from the fact that the last few weeks of her life were spent surrounded by love and in comfort. She died in my arms. My vets bills in those 12 weeks totalled over £2000 but it was worth it for what I was able to give her in her last days.

That is a very sad story but you know what, if it did happen to my dog I would have felt just like you. It cannot be easy to diagnose a dog while symptoms can point to all other illnesses. My dog had 14 platelets count just 14, that was very clear on his blood test even a child could have seen that. If operated on there was no chance of his blood clotting. I think that is a bit different. What was she thinking of by doing the surgery with that blood result?

hachette

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

Nobody is saying it is OK for vets to be negligent, but everybody makes mistakes. There is a distinct difference between the 2.

So if it is not OK for them to be negligent and nobody will stand up to them then what? Let them carry on? Why beacuse they are vets? Vets are allowed to make mistakes but the rest of us are not? I don' see the difference between the 2.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

hachette wrote: »

That is a very sad story but you know what, if it did happen to my dog I would have felt just like you. It cannot be easy to diagnose a dog while symptoms can point to all other illnesses. My dog had 14 platelets count just 14, that was very clear on his blood test even a child could have seen that. If operated on there was no chance of his blood clotting. I think that is a bit different. What was she thinking of by doing the surgery with that blood result?

Ok, I'll bite. You seem to be implying that what happened to your dog is somehow worse than what happened to mine, and countless others.

How dare you?

I have done nothing but try to give you the benefit of my knowledge and experience, but you seem to think you know better because you have read a chapter of a book. And then, you make a comment like that. Quite frankly, I find that type of behaviour abhorrent.

However, I choose not to expend my time and energy on people who are unable to treat others with the respect they have afforded you.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

hachette wrote: »

So if it is not OK for them to be negligent and nobody will stand up to them then what? Let them carry on? Why beacuse they are vets? Vets are allowed to make mistakes but the rest of us are not? I don' see the difference between the 2.

As per my previous comment, I will not enter into a argument with a person who cannot afford respect to the views of others.

peachyprice

hachette wrote: »

my dog was not ill beyoned any help. He was a happy little dog and I took him to the vet as he had a small lump on his side. He went for a biopsy. Returned in critiacal condition because what vet did to him without me knowing it and died 2 hours later.

hachette wrote: »

My dog had 14 platelets count just 14, that was very clear on his blood test even a child could have seen that. If operated on there was no chance of his blood clotting. I think that is a bit different. What was she thinking of by doing the surgery with that blood result?

So your dog was not a well dog then. He obviously had something very wrong with him to have such a low platelet count in the first place.

hachette

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

Ok, I'll bite. You seem to be implying that what happened to your dog is somehow worse than what happened to mine, and countless others.

How dare you?

I have done nothing but try to give you the benefit of my knowledge and experience, but you seem to think you know better because you have read a chapter of a book. And then, you make a comment like that. Quite frankly, I find that type of behaviour abhorrent.

However, I choose not to expend my time and energy on people who are unable to treat others with the respect they have afforded you.

Sorry if I have offended you I just merely pointed out that it is easy to misdignose dog illness by the vet just by the symptoms ( you said it yourself), after all they cannot talk and tell us what hurts. On the other hand if you got a clear picture what is wrong by obtaining blood works and you do not act upon it that is more of not being up to your job. I did not mean to make you feel that what happened to your dog was not as devostating.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

peachyprice wrote: »

So your dog was not a well dog then. He obviously had something very wrong with him to have such a low platelet count in the first place.

Which may well have been the root of the problem that required the biopsy in the first place. But I am not a veterinary expert.

pops5588

Hachette, I understand that you feel you are on some kind of crusade to "improve" vet practice, but can we pretend a hypothetical scenario for a second?

Let's say you get your case to court. Let's say you win. Let's say that the entire veterinary practice has to change because they have become highly accountable for human error.

If I took my cat or my rabbits to the vet and they were ill and in need of attention, what would happen to them if my vet refused to operate at risk of them dying? What would my animals do? The second a precedent like this is set, you may feel you have justice for your dog but you could potentially be putting hundreds if not thousands of other people's animals at risk.

This is completely aside from the fact, however, that you have been told by many people that your case will not get this far. You cannot possibly hope to get the answer that you want out of this. And I'm not saying this to be horrible. Even though I don't know you I say this out of pure concern for the fact that when your crusade is over, win or lose, your dog is still gone. Nothing will ever change that.

hachette

peachyprice wrote: »

So your dog was not a well dog then. He obviously had something very wrong with him to have such a low platelet count in the first place.

Treatable with tablets.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

hachette wrote: »

Sorry if I have offended you I just merely pointed out that it is easy to misdignose dog illness by the vet just by the symptoms ( you said it yourself), after all they cannot talk and tell us what hurts. On the other hand if you got a clear picture what is wrong by obtaining blood works and you do not act upon it that is more of not being up to your job. I did not mean to make you feel that what happened to your dog was not as devostating.

I am more offended by the fact that you think you know better because you have read a chapter of a book. I have read a great many books on dogs and also have extensive knowledge of all things 'doggie' but I do not profess to know more than my vet, who has a wealth of education, knowledge and experience that I do not possess.