Not being able to afford potentially huge vet bills

System

Money_maker wrote: »

So ensure they take out adequate insurance. I've seen one of those pleas for funding (crowdfunding is it on FB) where someones cat has had an accident, they have no insurance yet expect strangers to foot the bill for their pet. They were a young couple, shied away from the suggestion of getting a credit card/loan and actually paying for their pet themselves.


Not all that different to the family whose house burnt down. Whilst it is a horrendous position to be in, they're having a whip round for funds because they didn't want to pay to insure their home.


The moral of the tale is, don't worry if you don't have insurance. You can just get someone else to pay for you.

...and it's amazing how many people donate. I was quite shocked to see one pop up on one of the cavalier groups I use. Spin a sorry enough story and enough people will chip in.

sheramber

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I'm sure the OP now wishes they had taken out adequate insurance, but we have to deal with things as they are, not how we would like them to be. They don't want to run up a credit card bill of £1000s . I can understand that. I wouldn't want to either. They may have a mortgage to pay, children to feed etc.

They made a mistake by not taking out adequate insurance. Everyone makes mistakes. They should not be castigated for having done so, but helped to find a viable solution, which one or two people have done.

Most people have not helped one bit.


I personally would not spend £1000s on my pet unless it was actually going to make them better and they were quite young. I have two cats, coming up to twenty years old. If they have anything wrong with them now, they will have palliative care only and if that is not
working, they will be euthanised. Even the vet agrees they are too old to have invasive surgery, or even a general anaesthetic.

I agree with you but this is not relevant in this case.

Firstly, the OP does not know what is wrong and whether or not the dog can be made better. Until then that decision can't be made.

Secondly, this is a 6 year old dog not an old one so again the statement is not relevant in this case.

My 13 year old will have the medical treatment he needs to have quality of life but not anything that involves drastic surgery on distress to him and take away the quality of life he has.

Red-Squirrel_2

sheramber wrote: »

I agree with you but this is not relevant in this case.

Firstly, the OP does not know what is wrong and whether or not the dog can be made better. Until then that decision can't be made.

Secondly, this is a 6 year old dog not an old one so again the statement is not relevant in this case.

My 13 year old will have the medical treatment he needs to have quality of life but not anything that involves drastic surgery on distress to him and take away the quality of life he has.

Absolutely. My dog is now 13 and will not have any more surgery, whatever may happen. When he was only 8 though he had very expensive surgery to fix his problem and restore his quality of life.

Neither decision was based on money, they were based on what was right for the dog. That operation at 8 went on a credit card and I don’t begrudge it for a second.

Red-Squirrel_2

Judi wrote: »

...and it's amazing how many people donate. I was quite shocked to see one pop up on one of the cavalier groups I use. Spin a sorry enough story and enough people will chip in.

Animal lovers hate to see a pet suffer for the irresponsible behaviour of their owners I suppose.

seven-day-weekend

sheramber wrote: »

Which is better
1) life in a shelter

2) being PTS because there is no home for you

30 BEING PTS because your owner can't or won't pay for necessary vet treatment?

The dog won't know why they are being PTS (Or even that they ARE being PTS). It's still better to have a loving home for a while than spend life in a shelter.

Red-Squirrel_2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

They don't want to run up a credit card bill of £1000s . I can understand that.

'I don't want to' is not really a good excuse when you're an adult.

I know they don't want to pay for their dog's vet care, they still should.

seven-day-weekend

No, it's not that they do not want to pay for the dog's care. It is the debt it will cause that they do not want.

There is a difference!
.

Red-Squirrel_2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

No, it's not that they do not want to pay for the dog's care. It is the debt it will cause that they do not want.

There is a difference!
.

No real difference, when taking on the debt is likely to be the only way to get the treatment.

Nobody wants debt, but sometimes you have to take it on. Whether its to get a degree, or buy a house, or so you don't have to kill your young dog that could potentially have successful treatment.

Nick_C

OP. Sounds like your dog is seriously ill and may not make it anyway.

I'm sorry.

But be realistic. You have three dogs, you are in debt, have a mortgage, and interest rates are on the rise.

We sometimes have to make tough decisions in life, and be led by our heads, not our hearts.

Don't let people guilt you into massively increasing your debts when it is not necessary.

You should plan to reduce your debts, not increase them.

fibonarchie

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Nobody wants debt, but sometimes you have to take it on. Whether its to get a degree, or buy a house, or so you don't have to kill your young dog that could potentially have successful treatment.

I think this has become the mentality these days, sadly.
Totally irresponsible, - our parents and grandparents wouldn't have dreamed of taking such a cavalier attitude. No-one has a right to spend someone else's money, which when you think about it, is what debt is.