Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's just as bad: how did the dog get hit by a car? Someone wasn't taking appropriate care of the dog.
Hold on now- accidents happen. Some can be prevented, not all. Sometimes dogs get out despite the owners best efforts to keep them in, and sometimes what seems like proper containment turns out not to be. The article dose not state how the accident happened, only that it occured. However I can see by your privious post about spay/neuter that you may not have read the article.
Rottnboys, I re-read the article after reading your post and I cannot find where it says the family waited two weeks to bring the dog in, just that the accident happened two weeks ago from when the article was written. I'm sure if they had delayed two weeks to bring him in the SPCA would be calling for charges to be pressed in regaurds to that as well. My guess is they brought him in and the vet stabilized him & then possibly gave the family some time to discuss what to do after explaining what the costs would be. I could be completely wrong on that, as the article is very limited, but to me that would make the most sence (in my personal experience). I can see this story leaning either way (irrisponsible pet owner vs. desperate loving family). I just feel the article is too limited to draw conclusions either way and wanted to bring up the other perspective.
I do know that if it was my dog, and I couldn't afford to pay my bill & the vet said he wouldn't release my dog & was just going to euth her rather than try to work with me, I would do the same thing this boy did. I would want to take her to any other vets in the area, heck any other vets in the state & surrounding states, to see if they would be willing to let me make payments for her treatment. Maybe there were no other vets in the area for this family to try, but if there was even one other clinic they could have transfered the dog to, I would have to say this vet was very wrong to do as he did. If it was the only vet clinic, then very tough call, but possibly the best one.
I read the article which stated that the family offered to pay the vet $3.50 a week to cover services and the vet refused. Strangely enough the vet was more willing to incur the cost of temporarily housing and putting down the dog. I wonder why vets can't be as flexible about payment as human doctors? Some payment is better than nothing. Nearly every people hospital has some program for the indigent.
Rottnboys, I re-read the article after reading your post and I cannot find where it says the family waited two weeks to bring the dog in,
Sheridan - I went back and re-read it too - you are right - it's not very clear what the timeline was.....my thoughts were written as if they waited 2 weeks....thanks for pointing that out.
I do know that more and more vet clinics are being 'expected' to treat any and all animals that are brought into their facilities and to me, that's an unfair expectation.
Human healthcare is almost guaranteed - with at least one hospital in each large area designated as the one who takes everyone - regardless of ability to pay for services and there are government funds in place to insure the facility is compensated somewhat for providing that level of care. That just isn't how it works with animal welfare - and I don't like it either - because when I happen upon an injured stray, I better have my wallet with me, when I try to seek emergency triage care to stabilize the dog, who doesn't belong to me, and could have an owner who can't pay, but didn't know the high winds blew their fence over and their dog was hit while running in fear after the fence went down. If every vet were to accept every seriously injured animal without concern over the financial burdeon - I suspect many vet clinics would go out of business.
You cannot walk into very many 'businesses' of any kind (and vet clinics are businesses) and expect to receive 'services/goods' with no ability to compensate the business for those services/goods.
I adore our vet clinic/vet/staff - but I know having their state of the art facility and well trained vets/staff is a costly undertaking - that is successful because of PAYING pet owners and a careful business plan that limits the charity cases they accept.
Human healthcare is almost guaranteed - with at least one hospital in each large area designated as the one who takes everyone - regardless of ability to pay for services and there are government funds in place to insure the facility is compensated somewhat for providing that level of care.
There are government services available ONLY IF the patient is too indigent to pay. Otherwise, the patient is presented with a bill, and if it's not paid, assets are attached, liens placed on homes and wages garnished. It's not that far removed from veterinary care.
There are government services available ONLY IF the patient is too indigent to pay. Otherwise, the patient is presented with a bill, and if it's not paid, assets are attached, liens placed on homes and wages garnished. It's not that far removed from veterinary care.
I really meant for my words to say that......the biggest difference in what we're talking about here is - the designated 'county hospital' can't refuse treatment to anyone based on their in-ability to pay......and the vet clinic can and does. I think we're on the same page.
We don't have "county hospitals" for our companion animals, at least not that I am aware of.
Un-owned animals can be taken to our city shelter - but even there, financial issues often dictate treatment....and severly injured animals are most often euthanized, because not only are there financial concerns, but also housing the injured animal for the lengthy recovery periods needed.
On one of my dog boards, a family's 15 year old dog ran out onto ice and fell in, and couldn't get out. The owner's wife couldn't lift her to rescue her and had to call her dh frantically.
When they called the vet to bring her in as an emergency, they were told they would not treat the dog as the owner still had an outstanding balance. The long and short of it is that the owner did NOT have an outstanding balance - it was a mistake at the vet's office. The vet did end up treating the dog, but it was too much for such an elderly dog and she was put down.
In their case, it was an error that could have turned into a tragedy (had the dog been able to be saved, but treatment was erroneously refused), had they not prevailed upon the clinic to more carefully check their records, but who is sound enough of mind to be that persistant in such a time of great need?
And let's say you had an owner with an outstanding balance - I could see refusing routine or ordinary treatment, but an emergency that is life or death like this?
If I could no longer be a true professional about my practice, I would rather not have clients come to me in the first place. Maybe this is how things are today; I practiced in another time and a different profession, and am likely behind the times on "modern" practices.
And I'll also say that had that teenager been me, that is pretty much what I would have done too. Not to be a hero, but to hope against hope that the outcome could be better than death for my pup. I wouldn't have thought twice about it.
Hold on now- accidents happen. Some can be prevented, not all. Sometimes dogs get out despite the owners best efforts to keep them in, and sometimes what seems like proper containment turns out not to be. The article dose not state how the accident happened, only that it occured. However I can see by your privious post about spay/neuter that you may not have read the article.
Rottnboys, I re-read the article after reading your post and I cannot find where it says the family waited two weeks to bring the dog in, just that the accident happened two weeks ago from when the article was written. I'm sure if they had delayed two weeks to bring him in the SPCA would be calling for charges to be pressed in regaurds to that as well. My guess is they brought him in and the vet stabilized him & then possibly gave the family some time to discuss what to do after explaining what the costs would be. I could be completely wrong on that, as the article is very limited, but to me that would make the most sence (in my personal experience). I can see this story leaning either way (irrisponsible pet owner vs. desperate loving family). I just feel the article is too limited to draw conclusions either way and wanted to bring up the other perspective.
I do know that if it was my dog, and I couldn't afford to pay my bill & the vet said he wouldn't release my dog & was just going to euth her rather than try to work with me, I would do the same thing this boy did. I would want to take her to any other vets in the area, heck any other vets in the state & surrounding states, to see if they would be willing to let me make payments for her treatment. Maybe there were no other vets in the area for this family to try, but if there was even one other clinic they could have transfered the dog to, I would have to say this vet was very wrong to do as he did. If it was the only vet clinic, then very tough call, but possibly the best one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarsugar
And I'll also say that had that teenager been me, that is pretty much what I would have done too. Not to be a hero, but to hope against hope that the outcome could be better than death for my pup. I wouldn't have thought twice about it.
Whether this family could afford a pet or not is not the issue to me. The issue here I find is the cold-hearted attitude of the Vet. Just who is he that he was going to make the decision to euthanize the pup? Many people who use to have good jobs and no financial problems own pets so does this mean they should surrender their pets because they lost their income? I'm glad they raised the money for the pup to have surgery and I sure hope they take it to another Vet for this to be done.
Sheridan - I went back and re-read it too - you are right - it's not very clear what the timeline was.....my thoughts were written as if they waited 2 weeks....thanks for pointing that out.
I do know that more and more vet clinics are being 'expected' to treat any and all animals that are brought into their facilities and to me, that's an unfair expectation.
Human healthcare is almost guaranteed - with at least one hospital in each large area designated as the one who takes everyone - regardless of ability to pay for services and there are government funds in place to insure the facility is compensated somewhat for providing that level of care. That just isn't how it works with animal welfare - and I don't like it either - because when I happen upon an injured stray, I better have my wallet with me, when I try to seek emergency triage care to stabilize the dog, who doesn't belong to me, and could have an owner who can't pay, but didn't know the high winds blew their fence over and their dog was hit while running in fear after the fence went down. If every vet were to accept every seriously injured animal without concern over the financial burdeon - I suspect many vet clinics would go out of business.
You cannot walk into very many 'businesses' of any kind (and vet clinics are businesses) and expect to receive 'services/goods' with no ability to compensate the business for those services/goods.
I adore our vet clinic/vet/staff - but I know having their state of the art facility and well trained vets/staff is a costly undertaking - that is successful because of PAYING pet owners and a careful business plan that limits the charity cases they accept.
I totally agree...and the difference in human/animal healthcare is hospitals are not privately-owned...if people expect every animal to be helped regardless of ability to pay then the vets should receive government funding or else they will go out of business. I agree that this situation is terrible, and I don't think the vet had any right to keep the dog, but if people hadn't stepped in to help financially the reality is this dog probably would still be suffering with a broken leg, in excruciating pain. If they can only pay $3.50 a week to the vet's, I just wonder how they are affording to feed/vaccinate/neuter and otherwise provide basic care for this dog. The dog deserves that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
