I feel that I was taken advantage of by my vet 16 October 2020 at 8:12PM in Pets & Pet Care 36 replies 2K views

Undervalued

sheramber said:

What exactly were her injuries?

I am not sure how that helps with the OP's question.

Even if the total amount is a fair and reasonable charge for the work done, the point at issue is whether the OP had agreed to a "blank cheque"?  Especially as they were asked for almost three times the original estimate, I would have to ask why give an estimate at all?

nora_nora

I'm wondering how the vet in question would view the situation? I'm afraid I'm also in the does the money really matter camp. You can argue the toss over wether the vet should have asked first but it does come over that there seems to be more concern over the money than the dog. I'd just be thankful my dog was still alive. I wouldn't care about the money. If it was beyond treatable then yes i might consider euthenasia but this doesn't sound life of death. You need to be prepared for these eventualities when you have a dog. An owner that would be happy to say 'no I'm not paying that much please put my dog to sleep' either isn't prepared for the sometimes big bills owning a dog can cause or sounds pretty emotionally detached from their dog. I'd even sell my possessions if i had to but it doesn't sound like money was an object here as the OP admits they just paid it with question. Yes perhaps the vet should have asked first but if you're honestly not prepared for unforeseen big spends like this in emergency situations when you get a dog then either use the PDSA or charity funded vets or perhaps just buy a goldfish instead in future. 

KxMx

Unfortunately as you have found out big bills do not only come from major procedures/treatment as many seem to think. 

I frequently post on this board with my experience when I come across that opinion , £3k just to diagnose my late cat, sadly it was terminal so I opted not to treat. Still had a big bill though! And she was insured thankfully. 

Undervalued

nora_nora said:

I'm wondering how the vet in question would view the situation? I'm afraid I'm also in the does the money really matter camp. You can argue the toss over wether the vet should have asked first but it does come over that there seems to be more concern over the money than the dog. I'd just be thankful my dog was still alive. I wouldn't care about the money. If it was beyond treatable then yes i might consider euthenasia but this doesn't sound life of death. You need to be prepared for these eventualities when you have a dog. An owner that would be happy to say 'no I'm not paying that much please put my dog to sleep' either isn't prepared for the sometimes big bills owning a dog can cause or sounds pretty emotionally detached from their dog. I'd even sell my possessions if i had to but it doesn't sound like money was an object here as the OP admits they just paid it with question. Yes perhaps the vet should have asked first but if you're honestly not prepared for unforeseen big spends like this in emergency situations when you get a dog then either use the PDSA or charity funded vets or perhaps just buy a goldfish instead in future. 

That is entirely your privilege but where do you draw the line?

Yes, I entirely agree that any responsible owner should budget sensibly and where appropriate have good insurance. However even the best insurance has limits and there can be situations where treatment urgently needs to go ahead before the insurers will confirm that they will cover the cost.

It is not unknown for specialist vet bills to run well into five figures following major trauma. Are you saying that anybody who can't afford this should be excluded from owning a pet?

There are also varying opinions on the ethics of how much unpleasant treatment should be imposed on an animal that cannot understand what is happening, even if it has a good chance of being successful. Vets opinions are widely divided on this issue. Even the highest profile referral vet frequently says "just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done". Many people, including quite a number in his own profession, feel he sometimes goes too far, even if they admire the technical and pioneering skills.

The OP said, right back at the beginning.....

i don't have pet insurance as Iv always been in the mind set of I would put a dog down if it needs big vet care as I don't believe big operations is fair to put them through.

Now I know some of the keyboard warriors will (and already have) jumped on this but it is not by any means an unique view and it is certainly one an owner is legally entitled to take.

Even if you take the view that the OP "should" have happily agreed to pay the total cost, whatever it may be, they certainly should have been told clearly what they were agreeing to and not been presented with a fait accompli.

nora_nora

Undervalued said:

nora_nora said:

I'm wondering how the vet in question would view the situation? I'm afraid I'm also in the does the money really matter camp. You can argue the toss over wether the vet should have asked first but it does come over that there seems to be more concern over the money than the dog. I'd just be thankful my dog was still alive. I wouldn't care about the money. If it was beyond treatable then yes i might consider euthenasia but this doesn't sound life of death. You need to be prepared for these eventualities when you have a dog. An owner that would be happy to say 'no I'm not paying that much please put my dog to sleep' either isn't prepared for the sometimes big bills owning a dog can cause or sounds pretty emotionally detached from their dog. I'd even sell my possessions if i had to but it doesn't sound like money was an object here as the OP admits they just paid it with question. Yes perhaps the vet should have asked first but if you're honestly not prepared for unforeseen big spends like this in emergency situations when you get a dog then either use the PDSA or charity funded vets or perhaps just buy a goldfish instead in future. 

That is entirely your privilege but where do you draw the line?

Yes, I entirely agree that any responsible owner should budget sensibly and where appropriate have good insurance. However even the best insurance has limits and there can be situations where treatment urgently needs to go ahead before the insurers will confirm that they will cover the cost.

It is not unknown for specialist vet bills to run well into five figures following major trauma. Are you saying that anybody who can't afford this should be excluded from owning a pet?

There are also varying opinions on the ethics of how much unpleasant treatment should be imposed on an animal that cannot understand what is happening, even if it has a good chance of being successful. Vets opinions are widely divided on this issue. Even the highest profile referral vet frequently says "just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done". Many people, including quite a number in his own profession, feel he sometimes goes too far, even if they admire the technical and pioneering skills.

The OP said, right back at the beginning.....

i don't have pet insurance as Iv always been in the mind set of I would put a dog down if it needs big vet care as I don't believe big operations is fair to put them through.

Now I know some of the keyboard warriors will (and already have) jumped on this but it is not by any means an unique view and it is certainly one an owner is legally entitled to take.

Even if you take the view that the OP "should" have happily agreed to pay the total cost, whatever it may be, they certainly should have been told clearly what they were agreeing to and not been presented with a fait accompli.

I don't have insurance either, or a job. But i have been wise enough to save money every month specifically for any treatment my dog might need, which now has built up to a substantial sum. Yes the vet should have told them it may cost more, but are they seriously going to have the dog put to sleep for the amount it did turn out at?  I'm saying anyone owning a pet should be prepared that they are not just 'things' to play with and can sometimes incur large vet bills that you should be prepared for. If you cannot afford that there are PDSA vets like I've already said. Are you saying absolutely anybody should be able to have a pet even if it suffers because they can't afford to pay vet bills?

unforeseen

They said there was a LOT more work and they would do it in the morning. Like a lot of surgeries both in human and animal you do not know the extent of what needs to be done until you are well into and discover other problems that need to be rectified.
I doubt the vet was in a position to stop part way through and give you a running update on the cost. 

Aranyani

Lots of people claim that their unwillingness to spend money on vet care for a pet is because its 'not fair to put them through it'.  

Unfortunately, this is often complete BS, there are many many operations/treatments that cats and dogs might need that cost a fair amount of cash but are also highly effective and can give the animal many more years of a good quality of life with very minimal disruption/short term pain. 

Deciding not to put an elderly, frail and sick animal through cancer surgery that might only buy them a few weeks is a humane decision.  Deciding to kill your otherwise healthy young dog rather than pay for treatment for cuts and broken bones after a car accident (that was probably your fault anyway) is not. 

Undervalued

nora_nora said:

 If you cannot afford that there are PDSA vets like I've already said. Are you saying absolutely anybody should be able to have a pet even if it suffers because they can't afford to pay vet bills?

No I am not.
As I said any pet owner should budget responsibly and either have insurance or the means to cover the level of treatment that insurance would provide. However worst case scenarios can wildly exceed this and as I mentioned, five figure bills are not unheard of and this will continue to increase. Many people, who are otherwise excellent pet owners, simply cannot afford that level and I am not sure they should be excluded from pet ownership.

Aranyani

Undervalued said:

nora_nora said:

 If you cannot afford that there are PDSA vets like I've already said. Are you saying absolutely anybody should be able to have a pet even if it suffers because they can't afford to pay vet bills?

No I am not.
As I said any pet owner should budget responsibly and either have insurance or the means to cover the level of treatment that insurance would provide. However worst case scenarios can wildly exceed this and as I mentioned, five figure bills are not unheard of and this will continue to increase. Many people, who are otherwise excellent pet owners, simply cannot afford that level and I am not sure they should be excluded from pet ownership.

I agree that they shouldn't be excluded from pet ownership and that's partly why I think the pet insurance sector should be more tightly regulated as its actually very little help to those people currently, but there are other options for people who are on very low incomes such as PDSA, Blue Cross etc, and that is clearly not the OP's situation anyway. 

nora_nora

Aranyani said:

Undervalued said:

nora_nora said:

 If you cannot afford that there are PDSA vets like I've already said. Are you saying absolutely anybody should be able to have a pet even if it suffers because they can't afford to pay vet bills?

No I am not.
As I said any pet owner should budget responsibly and either have insurance or the means to cover the level of treatment that insurance would provide. However worst case scenarios can wildly exceed this and as I mentioned, five figure bills are not unheard of and this will continue to increase. Many people, who are otherwise excellent pet owners, simply cannot afford that level and I am not sure they should be excluded from pet ownership.

I agree that they shouldn't be excluded from pet ownership and that's partly why I think the pet insurance sector should be more tightly regulated as its actually very little help to those people currently, but there are other options for people who are on very low incomes such as PDSA, Blue Cross etc, and that is clearly not the OP's situation anyway. 

I've pointed that out twice & now you have a 3rd time but Undervalued doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that point.