Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Discussions and Dog Talk Forums > Dog Health Care


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-01-2010, 09:40 PM
theresa92841's Avatar
theresa92841 theresa92841 is offline
Gigi Monster & Evil Puppy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 127
Default

I think a vet is well within his/her rights to refuse treatment . . . even putting the animal to sleep. I would not begrudge them for doing that one bit. Because for me, in the end, my pets are 100% my responsibility and nobody elses. So the shame of me not being able to pay and have my animal in distress is 100% my moral obligation and has nothing to do with the vet.

I would be upset. But at myself.
__________________
Theresa and Gigi and Anisette and Le Beau Ouiseaux Rouge and Enchanté
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-01-2010, 09:54 PM
Xandra's Avatar
Xandra Xandra is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theresa92841 View Post
I think a vet is well within his/her rights to refuse treatment . . . even putting the animal to sleep. I would not begrudge them for doing that one bit. Because for me, in the end, my pets are 100% my responsibility and nobody elses. So the shame of me not being able to pay and have my animal in distress is 100% my moral obligation and has nothing to do with the vet.

I would be upset. But at myself.
Right, I completely agree that it wasn't really the vet's OBLIGATION. BUT...

If you were a vet, could you know a dog was suffering a terrible death, and just go "oh well, it's the owners fault!" rather than begrudge the poor animal a couple hours and a few bucks?

There is a human element to this and a dog element.

The human element deals with who is at fault, money, who is responsible, blah blah blah. But when it comes down to it, at the point the animal was suffering, the person who could relieve that suffering was the vet... not as a favor to the owners... who cares about the owners? But simply because they care about the dog.

If you are driving along and you see a squirrel at the side of the road that has been hit and has a broken back, you would stop and put it out of its misery if you could stomach it, right? Not because it's your responsibility per se, but because you can.

I don't think people MUST feel compassion for animals. But a vet is supposed to, no? Kind of a weird vet that doesn't.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-01-2010, 10:56 PM
Crowsfeet's Avatar
Crowsfeet Crowsfeet is offline
facetious.
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 578
Default

Very weird, and hm, maybe a little inhumane.

Situations happen where people lose money. People have voiced multiple times on this forum that they would rather lose their home than their dogs. Being a veterinarian should be one of the most empathetic lines of occupation you could possibly have - caring for and trying to read into the health and ailments of a species that isn't even your own.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-01-2010, 11:07 PM
BabyDane's Avatar
BabyDane BabyDane is offline
Big Dog
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 103
Default

And to be honest....to help a dog in an emergency situation wouldn't really cost that much. I mean cost to the vet, for supplies and such.

An emergency vet bill that is $1500 or something like that is mostly just paying for the vet's time and energy. Even if it were surgery to fix something like GVD, the cost of supplies and anethesia is minimal...under $100 probably. X-ray film is expensive in comparison though.

So in actuality its just mostly up to the vet if they want to put in the energy and time, even if there is the possibility that they might not get paid for their time.
__________________


"Unnatural diets predispose animals to unnatural outcomes"
Dr. Tom Lonsdale

http://www.dogfoodchat.com/forum/

ProperCarnivoreNutrition
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-02-2010, 02:13 PM
theresa92841's Avatar
theresa92841 theresa92841 is offline
Gigi Monster & Evil Puppy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xandra View Post
Right, I completely agree that it wasn't really the vet's OBLIGATION. BUT...

If you were a vet, could you know a dog was suffering a terrible death, and just go "oh well, it's the owners fault!" rather than begrudge the poor animal a couple hours and a few bucks?

There is a human element to this and a dog element.

The human element deals with who is at fault, money, who is responsible, blah blah blah. But when it comes down to it, at the point the animal was suffering, the person who could relieve that suffering was the vet... not as a favor to the owners... who cares about the owners? But simply because they care about the dog.

If you are driving along and you see a squirrel at the side of the road that has been hit and has a broken back, you would stop and put it out of its misery if you could stomach it, right? Not because it's your responsibility per se, but because you can.

I don't think people MUST feel compassion for animals. But a vet is supposed to, no? Kind of a weird vet that doesn't.
I don't equate compassion to a vet having to perform medical intervention for no cost. I don't see the problem in being a vet and caring about animals but also having to maintain a business attitude. I don't see it as a compass on whether a vet is compassionate or not. I can care about something and choose to not do something for other overarching reasons.

So again, as the dog's owner it is me who should have compassion for the vet who needs to make a living and run a viable business and not expect that because a vet is in a healing business that s/he should override business concerns.
__________________
Theresa and Gigi and Anisette and Le Beau Ouiseaux Rouge and Enchanté
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-02-2010, 04:57 PM
tessa_s212
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The vets I work for would have PTS. They wouldn't allow it to suffer. If someone walks in the door with a distressed dog, we won't turn it away. (Because even if they don't pay, it is only $30 we are out.) If someone calls and says they have no money, we of course refuse treatment and suggest they try another vet, or if it is really that bad off, we might gently suggest to them they consider PTS and tell them they'll have to pay up front. We won't dispense meds, do surgeries, or tons of care.. but the least we can do is PTS.

ETA: I would not work for a vet that was sooo obsessed with making a profit that would refuse to at least PTS a dog that is suffering. Refusing treatment - if they can't pay, then so be it. Owner's fault, not the vets. BUT, that vet has a moral obligation to any animal that enters its doors, IMHO, especially if the animal has been seen there before. Not to treat it, but to at least end its suffering.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-02-2010, 06:13 PM
Criosphynx Criosphynx is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,242
Default

was there a reason they did not try another vet or an animal shelter to get the dog treated/euthanized?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-02-2010, 06:47 PM
iibao's Avatar
iibao iibao is offline
.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 451
Default

If I were a vet, at least I would put it down. Money can be talk about later.
Dogs have taught me there's more important things than money. Torture is just
wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-02-2010, 09:59 PM
~Tucker&Me~ ~Tucker&Me~ is offline
and Spy.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: B.C.
Posts: 4,940
Default

I pretty much agree with what has been said.

I mean yes, it is within the vets rights to refuse treatment. But morally, it is wrong to let that animal suffer when you could relieve them.

I think you can argue about who's responsibility it is, but in the end, it is the dog who pays.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryMan View Post
I think u need some angry school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renee750il View Post
That's what we do here. We're emotionally invested in each other and each other's dogs, the joys and the sorrows.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-02-2010, 10:32 PM
GlassOnion's Avatar
GlassOnion GlassOnion is offline
Thanks, and Gig 'em.
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tejas
Posts: 9,065
Default

Quote:
I can't even imagine a vet not treating an emergency. If it were my dog, I'd be contacting the AVMA.
Wouldn't do you a lick of good. A vet's only legal obligation is if they deem that the animal can't make it to another vet's office, at which point they only have to stabilize, not treat.

Quote:
But morally, it is wrong to let that animal suffer when you could relieve them.
We don't know the whole story. Maybe the vet offered to give pain medicine so the animal could be brought to another vet and the owner declined? Why didn't the owners bring the dog to another vet? Or euthanize it themselves with a gunshot instead of leaving it to suffer for hours? It sounds like the owners are as morally bankrupt as the hypothetical vet in this situation.

Quote:
Sure, it's perfectly within a vet's right to do that... but assuming you go into the profession because you want to relieve the suffering of animals, well, it just doesn't make sense.
Can't help too many animals if you're broke from giving out free services. A vet is there to relieve suffering, but they're also there to make money. It is a business after all. Average debt load for a vet is $100,000 in student loans. Debt load for owner of an average sized clinic ranges from $500,000 - $2,000,000 and beyond.

And the thing about the cost of the treatment only being $100 is bullshit, flat out. You may have taken the medical supplies into account but not the cost of the clinic and equipment that's required to utilize those supplies.




Everyone wants vets to do free work because 'they love animals' and they compare the cost of vet med to the 'cost' of human med (their co-pay) and gripe about it. If only they knew. And it's infuriating that they don't and then you get situations like this, where the vet has a legitimate reason to ask for payment upfront and people balk at it. Vets don't get subsidization, insurance companies (though this is changing), etc. to back them up and recooperate losses. I can't even imagine how bad it'll get if the US gets 'free' health care.
__________________
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, throughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming --- 'WOW, WHAT A RIDE!!!!' " - Author Unknown
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 AM.


©1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site