My dog had cardiac arrest in small cage at vets after 14 hours

Undervalued

telboy82 wrote: »

gettingtheresometimes Thank you or the helpful and kind reply I will have a very good look or this and hope I can find it, when I go to the vets tomorrow morning id like to request a copy of cctv from cage room he was in from the time he was put there just after 4pm until I returned the next morning, from what I can find and have been told im entitled to this, has anybody here ever requested cctv from a vets before and been successful at getting it? because I am hoping to get this footage of him in his cage and possibly when he went out in there yard to toilet, im also hoping to get a copy of all the log information during his stay to see all that put on there, I will have the autopsy because i dont want to regret not having it, it could give me closure or information that may help prove otherwise, I think I need the all 3 to take this further but I have a feeling the footage is going to be very important if there are cameras in there, the log will be important, I will get all the information together and hopefully know if im wrong or right, once ive got all the facts and that footage il find peace even if im wrong I will accept it.

No you are not unless you personally are in it. Even then you would only be "entitled" to that bit.

Like others who have responded, I am sorry for your loss. However you are not helping yourself with these very lengthy and somewhat incoherent rambles on here.

If, in the cold light of day you really genuinely believe you have a case you are going to need to start by having a autopsy carried out by a recognised expert to establish exactly why the dog died. Then you will need an expert opinion as to whether anything your vet did contributed to the dog's death. Or, if the vet failed to do something they should reasonably have done that may have saved the dog. All of that will have to be, initially at least, at your own expense. Can you afford that?

Medicine is seldom black and white. No two vets / doctors will have exactly the same opinion. Even if the vets did the wrong thing (or failed to do the right thing) that does not, in itself, mean they they were negligent. Nobody is perfect, people are allowed to get things wrong providing they tried their best.

Finally, remember the old proverb....

Before setting out for revenge, first dig two graves!

LusciousLuce

OP, I think you need to separate out your issues.

You originally claimed you believed your dog died of cardiac arrest due to the stress of a small cage. As you've been advised repeatedly, you would need a post mortem. The longer you leave it, the less chance you have of this revealing anything. PMs are expensive (and yes you'd have to pay, not the vet practice) and don't always show anything definite.
As for kennel space, I'm not sure there are any requirements vet practices have to adhere to, but I could be wrong. Find out if the practice is an RCVS approved practice. If they are they will have had their premises inspected by the governing body.
You also might want to put a simple enquiry in writing to the practice owner regarding the kennel space. Ask the size of the kennel, how often this is used to hold extra large dogs, and how long your dog was in there for. Keep it brief and to the point, keeping all emotion out of it and do not say why you're asking these questions.
However, I don't think the cage size sounds inappropriate honestly, and I can't see how you'd ever prove this was the cause of or contributed to the cause of death. The priority was administering emergency treatment (fluids and whatever meds he had) and the practice did that. Dogs can actually become more stressed in a large space, with the potential to injure themselves.

You've also questioned the abilities and experience of the professional staff. You keep referring to the nurse who saw your dog in the initial consult. Are you quite sure she was a nurse and not a veterinary surgeon? Ignore the grammar and spelling mistakes in the clinical notes. That's normal. Staff type fast so they can spend more time caring for your pets! Initial histories are often brief. So what if they didn't examine him in front of you? Don't you think that as soon as he was admitted they would be doing that 'in the back'? Reading between the lines, I'd not be surprised if they were keen to get him away from you to see if his behaviour improved; anxious dogs often behave better away from their owners, and that is something they would have experienced with other dogs.
As for not taking you through to the kennel area, this would rarely be allowed. Clinical areas are full of hazards that no practice would want to risk exposing you to. You taking your dog to his kennel wouldn't have made him any calmer because the separation anxiety would still kick in as soon as you left. And he most likely wouldn't be going into a kennel straight away - they'd be taking bloods and performing that physical examination you were annoyed they didn't do in front of you.

You're never going to get anywhere by questioning the medication administered, no matter how much time you spend googling it. If you want to prove negligence against the vet (and it is against a named vet or nurse that the case would be made) through the RCVS, there's quite a lengthy process to go through. (Honestly it does seem to be designed to minimise the number of findings against the profession). Have a read of the RCVS website, but they would have to firstly accept on initial evidence that there is a case to be made, and mostly the RCVS will say there isn't.

You'll need the clinical history (sounds like you have it). Highly unlikely there was CCTV. Put any questions of fact (such as the one I suggested above) in writing to the practice owner. And for goodness sake, learn how to punctuate!

However, like others who have posted on here, I do not think anything the practice did or didn't do contributed to his death. You are very shocked and upset (completely understandable - it really is) but you're reacting out of emotion with this urge to find someone to blame. If you really, truly believe the vets caused the death of your dog, or neglected his welfare, you first need to question and answer - in a brutally honest way - if there's anything more YOU could have done for him. I'm not saying that to be harsh, but that question will get asked by others so you need to come to terms with anything you did (delay in taking him to the vets, using a charity vets when you say you're not unemployed, when was his last check up etc. etc.)

The Blue Cross offer bereavement counselling. You might find some benefit from trying it out.

gettingready

OP- you have been using a charity vet for 15 years as you said yourself.
You do realise their fees are much lower than regular vets, right?

You mentioned your dog was a bulldog, not a cheap breed of dog.
That breed is known for various health problems and that is why people normally get insurance and use regular vets.

You lost a dog - really sorry about that.

BUT - you are out for revenge on vets that offer reduced fees and help to people who could not otherwise afford a vet? Compensation? So if they pay out, they have less money to help people who really need their help for their pets?

Sorry but it looks less and less like mourning a lost dog and more and more like something completely different.

she couldnt even spell

- frankly, neither can you so stop clutching at straws

Pop_Up_Pirate

telboy82 wrote: »

If i try to sue them or take them to court its not about money because I wont be entitled to much at all, this is about making a point that you have to give these the care set out in the guidelines and laws about animal welfare, my dog suffered no doubt about it because his welfare wasnt priority when its supposed to be, me getting them investigated and raising a case will make this vet think twice about keeping animals in the wrong cages for the wrong reasons, then i will feel closure, I will take it to court and prove myself negligence was at play, I made calls and told the events that happened rcvs and solicitors and they agree it wasnt right the way he and us were treated by them and they should of let us take him to his holding as we requested, this refusal alone is misconduct and negligence, just refusing me that right alone put them in the wrong

Your dog was sedated. The vet put him in a cage suitable. So when the dog is laying down, that cage was fine.
You're upset and seems like you're trying to blame someone for the death of the dog whereas in reality the dog was ill, has a genetic predisposition to heart problems, and likely died because of that illness, and not because he was in a cage being "frightened to death". That's just emotion talking.

At the beginning, when you first arrived, if you were uncomfortable with the way the vets treated you, tutting and dragging your dog, then surely you should have gone elsewhere?

sheramber

We only have your side of what happened. The vet may well be able to justify the treatment your dog received.

Nobody here can say if there is a case to answer .

We can only give you the advice that you need actual evidence to back up your claims not just your opinion.

You say you know how to take somebody to court having done so successfully before so do not need anonymous people on a forum to tell you how.

elsien

gettingready wrote: »

OP- you have been using a charity vet for 15 years as you said yourself.
You do realise their fees are much lower than regular vets, right?

Without getting into the ins and outs of the OPs case, which has already been extensively covered, I do have to disagree with the fact it is a charity should make a difference to what happens next.

If, for the sake of argument, my dog died because of vetinary negligence, I absolutely think they should be held to account, regardless of status. To make sure it doesn't happen again to someone else. For me, in that situation, them being a charitywouldn't come into it. If they acknowledged mistakes and took action, fair enough, but if you have to sue to get anyhing changed then that's what I'd do if all other routes had been exhausted. Charity or not.

lincroft1710

elsien wrote: »

If, for the sake of argument, my dog died because of vetinary negligence, I absolutely think they should be held to account, regardless of status. To make sure it doesn't happen again to someone else. For me, in that situation, them being a charitywouldn't come into it. If they acknowledged mistakes and took action, fair enough, but if you have to sue to get anyhing changed then that's what I'd do if all other routes had been exhausted. Charity or not.

It is impossible to ensure that something which happened and shouldn't have happened, won't happen again. It is possible to try and reduce the odds, but there is no way of guaranteeing it won't happen again.

At the moment there is no evidence of negligence. Suing someone is just seeking monetary recompense. Even if successful, it does not automatically lead to changes in procedures. Only the RCVS have any powers over a vet or veterinary practice, and it appears that negligence cases which have been brought before the RCVS rarely succeed.

telboy82

Ok sorry ive been away but one poster was right, within half a day of him dying I did come here worked up and upset blaming the vet, I apologize for this I should of waited I can understand how me coming here with such a subject and what I said would upset people, I promise that was never my intention, out of the shock and pain I needed people to talk, and hopefully find some find some guidance, I thank you all for your input and questions, some question are hard to answer so il try my best. Lets continue...

Also yes the dog get did ill my care, I believe throwing up his breakfast was what made him il, no underlying issues what so ever were found, he was in my care for around 6 1/2 hours and his condition didnt deteriorate in that time, he was very thirsty and lethargic but because of being sick and not having enough water in his body, he hadnt drunk after his breakfast yet and not since the evening before, just the small amounts I was letting him have after being sick, as I said before I was giving him water which he was happy to drink but I didnt want to give him too much until the vet saw him, I didnt rush him to an emergency vet before this because of the trust at our vets and he wasnt deteriorating while I was watching him and letting him drink small amounts of water, so in my mind he was stable and fine just thirsty and lethargic from being sick, but wanted him checked over to make sure.
But lets clear up about this money talk, I can raise and investigation with RVC and I intend to, this will cost me nothing, but from what I can find its very unlikely that will find any mis conduct at all as to be honest vets can literally get away with anything, and im sorry accidents happen isnt quite fair, If I did take the vets to court to claim all that im able to claim is what I paid or him, the cost of that treatment and his cremation, and any days holiday my wife has lost last week and this week if lucky, so in all it does not make sense to make a claim because if I lose and have to pay their fees it could cost me tens of thousands of pounds, has this scared me off? not yet, and this is exactly how and why nothing gets changed, I think the dogs welfare acts go back to 1966 and many people are trying to get it updated.

I believe which most likely can never be confirmed is that after he was sick bringing up his entire breakfast which also emptied his stomach of any remaining water in the food,cause a reaction called "Hypernatraemia", now this is caused by a water and sodium imbalance, this can be caused by a dog licking table salt which raise his levels of sodium which is dangerous and needs water fluids to correct the balance.
My dog i believe had a water im balance from being sick, this also happens when a dog has diarrhea and loses lots of water, they need the balance correcting, either by removing sodium from the animal or adding water, firstly by offering water orally if its the water they need, i they cant drink then water solution 5% dextrose or similar but its water.
So after telling the vet he had been sick his whole breakfast and and only had small amounts of water, and you can clearly see his thirsty and ive told them his thirsty, id assume even they would conclude the dog needs water regardless and should of been considered, thats what they treated him for last time, water loss.
So if there are any vets on here id like them to answer this, if you know a dog has no water and been sick all his meal would assume of your extensive costly training that my dog needed more water in his body or more salt? in fact I bet from that information alone even some the other readers here would say he needed water, just an assumption, also lets not forget that when administering IV fluids its important to get the correct fluid or you will not help matters just make them worse causing more serious injuries and pain and death, now before using these fluids you are supposed to carry out the standard blood tests and most importantly the Biochemistry Profile test that all vets carry out, this test is easy to and is vital it can pin point where to treat an animal most times and also tells you all the body chemical levels like Salt etc, this test would o said if my dog needed water or salt, it would of told them enough to sae my dog im sure.
Well the form says a "Biochemistry not available as blood machine unable to read sample when pcv too high".
Seriously they they are saying no reading because he had too many red blood sell, thats a joke right, there machine couldnt get a blood reading, that is a very important piece o equipment i cant understand how it cant get a reading. This test has a extremly high this is what is said about this simple basic test:

Description: The serum chemistry profile is one of the most important initial tests that is commonly performed. A blood sample is collected from the patient. The blood is then separated into a cell layer and serum layer by spinning the sample at high speeds in a machine called a centrifuge. The serum layer is drawn off and a variety of compounds are then measured. These measurements aid in assessing the function of various organs and body systems.
Diagnostic Value: Very high. Sometimes a specific diagnosis may be made on the basis of a blood chemistry profile alone. More often than not, however, the profile provides information on a variety of body organs and systems, giving the doctor an indication of where a problem might be located. The profile can be extremely helpful in determining which of the many other diagnostic tests might be beneficial.
Risks to Patient: Virtually none, provided that the blood is collected under sterile conditions by a trained professional.
Relative Cost: Relatively low when a group of test are run as one panel.


So anyway ok the machine doesnt work so she had to make a decision on fluids to use, not try a bowl of water first, going back over everything that she clearly didnt listen tome she made the clever decision to put him on fluids anyway.
He is given fluids to correct his imbalance they are two 1litre bags are " Aqupharm no1" which is sodium chloride "NaCl high rate" its safe to say he wasnt getting his water and that sodium overload was of caused him much pain even death.

Lets talk about pain, so to sedate my dog they used a opium based painkiller called "Vetergesic" my dog has never had this, this wasnt to relieve pain it was to sedate him, why not use a mild sedative, this drug is very strong look it up vets having been causing animal deaths all over the country with this drug, its opium based and very addictive from the first use, most dogs ive read about get one injection and hit the deck struggling to breath and move some get put down not long after some takes weeks to recover and never quite the same, my dog had 6 injections at east on his form I just need to get the total doses, also these opium type drugs should not be mixed so after having all this one type of opioid drug a fair amount of it why inject him with a different type of opioid drug "Methadome" at 2am and leave him until he was found dead at 6am, mixing these drugs together would of been fighting each other in his body causing all kinds of reactions in his body.
They also gave him "ranitidine" this isnt even a drug approved for animals its called zantac, its for treating ulcers and stops the stops the stomach producing acid. Problem is no acid in the stomach means he can absorb drugs from his stomach and why give him this anyway. I could say more about these drugs but its easy to lok up and I could be forever explaining why I think these drugs shouldnt of been used, especially the IV fluids. I dont know what the post mortem report will have on it, its inconclusive but at least its done, and know they couldnt find anything wrong with him, Its obvious he didnt get the care he needed through negligence and mis conduct and was clearly misdiagnosed and his welfare suffered because of this, so thats all I can write or now I may not reply straight away it may even take a few day until ive got the autopsy report in hand and all the correct doses, hopefully they will tell me this when I ask tomorrow, so I think even when ive got all his information about his treatment and doses together there will be a long letter to the vets and RVC, making a complaint first, up until that time il keep seeking advice, if there is a case which im feeling there is then they need to be pursued as we are no longer living in 1966 and no animal deserves to be treated like it is.

Kim_kim

I'm no doctor but I would not restrict anyone's water unless advised to by a doctor or vet.
Why did you restrict the water?
The dog shouldn't have been kept thirsty by you.

telboy82

because I was worried about possible bloat after him being sick, I didnt restrict the dogs water, i used to not put any down during or straight after his meals for about an hour each day if a big dog drinks water just after its meals it can get bloat, thats why id restrict his water, other than that he drunk plenty through out the day. And that is advised to do on this breed and others. so taking his water away at meal times for and hour just over is not a bad thing to do at all, ask any vet. It wasnt restricted it like your making it sound, you make it sound like i wasnt giving him any, he drunk quite a bit of water while with me but he didnt want to stop so i had to keep restricting him, 6 and 1/2 hours is a long time to watch a thirsty dog, should i of let him get bloat for sure by letting him gulp down water and air continuesly because of his brought on thirst from being sick, no, I should of handled it carefully like i did.