very very sick cat :-((122 Posts)
Our year old cat started looking ill on Friday night .Just sitting still with glazed eyes and overnight she vomited bile.Saturday she drunk a little cat milk and water and licked at a roast chicken breast.She managed to walk to the litter tray to wee(once) but didn't poo all day.She stayed in a hunched position and her body kept spasming
Today she has just lain on her side all day eyes open and had 2 tiny drinks of water.No wees no poos and this evening she can't even walk as one of her back legs doesn't seem able to support her weight.If she makes it through the night we'll take her to the vet tomorrow (not open weekends and there is £150 call out for home visit which I literally haven't got, having just had a huge car repair bill.)
At first we thought she had been poisoned because she loves drinking out of the shower tray and DH used a new cleaner and didn't rinse.But I'm wondering now wheter her back leg is fractured.
Anyone get any ideas
Please do not get another cat.
what ridiculous posts!
It's like saying if you get made redundant get your kids rehomed - you can't afford them anymore.
And lonecat to equate leaving a cat with a broken off tail suffereing for weeks is in no way teh same as to not call a vet immediately to a cat clearly very close to death.
If the vet though I had crossed the legal threshold for cruelty, he gave no indication.Wouldn't he have a duty to report suspected animal abuse?
I am presuming you wouldn't leave your children in agony for a weekend regardless. Why was your cat not insured? It's about £52 per year so hardly a huge price and if you can't afford it you don't get a cat- it's really quite simple.
And don't assume the vet hasn't reported you, they don't have to tell you.
Stunned by this thread.
IAAPM, I'm sorry for your loss but I think you should not have started this thread.
Sorry, but why wasn't the cat insured? It's less that £4 a month to insure my 3 year old cat, it's pennies when you look at the cost of vets bills.
So, if you were short of cash you would let your kids suffer? That is what you did to that cat! And, yes, if you can't afford to give adequate care to a pet you should re-home it, that is what happens every day across the country and one of the reasons why there are shelters full of unwanted pets.
You sound horrid. I pity you.
Sorry, I am struggling to work out what you were thinking!
You reason only pets that can be clearly saved should be treated, and because you thought the cat looked like it might die before the weekend was over it deserved to die a painful death with attempt to treat it or put it out of it's misery!
Horrid, horrid person!
Whilst I think that we should give animals the best care we can, I think people in this country are ludicrously oversentimental about our pets. Our cat got bitten and infected the day my first son was born and I have to say the thought did cross my mind, after returning from hospital at midnight, to leave her until the morning. However, I took her to the emergency vet where she got a shot of long lasting antibiotics. It cost well over £150, though. The difference is that I have £150 and it really means very little to me. On the other hand, I can sympathise with those that don't. The OP took the cat to the vet first thing on Monday morning and came on here asking for advice ahead of that.
I also know people from the countryside where animals are considered primarily for work, rather than members of the family. I really don't think it is wrong to have a pet unless you can afford the best vet treatment available. After all, I see many threads in "Children's health" where people leave sick children several days as they cannot get a GP's appointment and don't want a long wait in A&E! I don't see many condemning them for not calling out a private GP, who would come out for £150 or less.
I do think some of the tone of the OP's posts are a little strange but everyone deals with things differently. The condemnation for her is way way over the top. Her cat may not get the best care available at any price but she certainly gave it reasonable care, and I think that is fair enough for an animal. Maybe she needed the £150 to feed her children, for instance.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
It is not always so easy. For instance, our cat just adopted us aged 7 (we found that out from an old chip it had). We could not have insured it due to age. If we had no money, should we not have adopted it and allowed it to remain feral?
I think pets are a wonderful thing for children (and adults) but sometimes they get ill and die, sadly. I know someone who paid £5,000 for an operation on a dog, probably life saving. No insurance would have paid for that. Should someone who could not fork that out therefore not be allowed a pet?
I think we have to be realistic. As long as pets are not mistreated or allowed to linger in pain, some will have pampered lives and others lives more ordinary..a bit like us people, really. Not every pet will be at the top of the chain. As long as they are loved during their lives and decent care taken of their needs, personally I think that is fair enough.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
If the operation was life-saving, the insurance may well have paid for it. I've been involved in both privately-funded and insurance-funded operations worth far more than that.
The point here is not how you treat your pets or what you can afford. It doesn't matter if your cats sleep on the floor or if they have their own sofas...if you have a pet, you need to be able to get it emergency care should your pet need it.
FWIW, the vets would have admitted and treated the OPs cat on Friday night, whether she could pay or not. It would have been illegal to turn her away.
This thread has made me so sad. Veterinary care is expensive, there is no denying that. But it's also difficult, and heartbreaking, and there are processes and options in place. No vet will turn away a very sick cat. Insurance is pretty cheap if you take it out with the right place. Most places will offer a payment plan even if they don't want too, it's preferable to not getting paid at all.
That poor, poor cat. Please cut away the lilies before your kitten comes. It would take a lot less to kill a smaller cat, and they are highly toxic and smell very tempting. It causes huge kidney damage in a very small amount of time, and you'll go through the same horrible cycle again.
Personally, I feel that if people cared as much as they claim in this thread, there would be a lot more charity funded emergency animal care. And I did not notice one reply to the OP on Sunday evening offering to settle an emergency vet bill (easy to verify truth thereof) despite many posters on here clearly having plenty of spare money. It is easy to condemn, less easy to help.
When you say that vets would have admitted and treated the OP's cat, what would have happened then? She would have been billed for possibly £100s or even £1,000s. And if she were unable to pay, bang goes her credit record.
Fortunately I can pay for my cat but I did think that there were organisations which offered free emergency treatment. Am I wrong?
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Argos does pet insurance for older animals ,I got it when my dog was 12 as did a friend when his was 13. I would not have condemned her if she had the cat PTS humanely, it was the callous disregard for an animal in pain and then the assumption that she'll get a replacement but still not insure it. No one is forced to have a pet.
Larry- I think if someone posted on here that they had left their child dying and in pain all weekend there would be a national uproar and a prison sentence. It isn't being sentimental to keep an animal pain free when that animal is your responsibility, it is kind, and it is humane. I once lived alone with no telephone, I was young and broke. one night late, my cat came home and started vomiting. I syringed him fluids through the night, and woke a neighbour at 7 a.m to borrow some money and to help me get him to the vet. He died. I have no way of knowing if he would have died anyway, but it is likely that even that short delay cost him his life as he would have been put on a drip had I got him to a vet sooner. I now never leave an animal for any length of time when ill as it is too big a risk to take, I naively thought that first thing in the morning would be fine. Even in that situation I would not have left him all weekend suffering, I would have begged a vet for credit, borrowed money, anything, and I still feel guilty two decades on, that my cat might have been saved if I had acted sooner.
Fair enough Larry, she shouldn't have the cat then!!!!! Pets are optional.
larry the Thread was started at about 22.30 on Sunday and had only 3 responses,probably because of the time of night , all the other responses were on Monday when she was taking it to the vet. Perhaps if she'd asked for advice on Friday when it was vomiting or Saturday when it was glazed and spasming she would have had more sympathy or advice re getting treatment ,indeed I'm sure one of the vets that has since posted could have told her about the legalities of emergency vets ! Also I'm sure on Saturday someone would have offered to pay .
This thread has made me BEYOND angry.
OP - I am speechless and utterly disgusted at you.You cat was CLEARLY ill, yet you failed to get it medical treatment.
Bluntly, I went through this EXACT senario with my dear darling boy 3 weeks ago. He was also poisoned by Lilies. Difference is, he saw a good vet, who got him on to fluids, sent him home on the Friday and was able to make him comfortable. By Saturday, he was going downhill, so he went to the emergency vet at 8pm. By Sunday, we had to make the heart rending decision to Put him to sleep. I could have waited until Monday, it would have been "cheaper" to PTS as I wouldn't have had to pay the emergency fee. But you know what, his welfare came first and at 10pm Sunday we let him go - so that he didn't suffer.
A vet will give first aid and prevent suffering, regardless of if you can pay or not. You didn't give a shit about your cat, you gave a shit about money.
The outcome might well have been the same, but the cat need not have suffered as she did. Shame on you.
Breathtaking, just breathtaking. If you can't afford possible vet fees then don't have a pet. My dogs and cats are not insured but they sure as hell don't suffer. I love them all to bits and would do the best for them - we had 2 brother cats, the first died from liver failure after an attempt to treat, but we had him pts as it didn't work and he was suffering. A year later his brother came down with exactly the same symptoms, he went to the vet who said it was 99.99% likely to be the same so we didn't try treatment and had him pts. We were devastated, but at least felt we had done the right thing for them. I am not hugely sentimental and am realistic about how far to go, but to do what you have done, leave an animal in obvious pain for at least 24 hours is appalling.
The very least you could have done is repay that animal's trust in you by having it put out of its' suffering as quickly as possible. Please don't get another kitten unless you are prepared to insure it, or put the money aside. Actually, given your apparent indifference to animals it's probably best not to.
iamapushymum - I am afraid that your cat did suffer, and you did do the wrong thing by not taking them to the vet. You could, and should have rung the vet, explained the symptoms, and told them your financial situation, and I am sure they would have done something to help your cat. You could have rung the RSPCA. You just watched this cat suffer.
*Please, please, please do NOT get the kitten unless you are prepared to pay for pet insurance.
Whatever rights or wrongs of original situation, I am astounded that you are getting another kitten next week. Truly. Astounded. You couldn't afford £150 for the last one so why on earth are you getting another one? Most insurance excesses are around £100.
Join the discussion
Please login first.