To think the vet practice is in it for the money?

[QuietTiger]

Long story short, our cat had to go to the Emergency Vet last night (Sunday). His usual vet uses an "out of hours emergency service" which covers most of the various vets practices out of hours in our city. When I initially rang up on the phone, I was told by the vet nurse that "The out of hours fee is £70 before examination and treatment". Not a problem for us, the situation was urgent enough that my cat needed to see a vet and we have the money available (although my DH did mutter something about fecking cat always costing money, bastard vets ripping people off... ).

Whilst I was waiting to see the vet, a lady was there with her dog who was very sick - she'd had an emergency spay last week, spent £500 at her own vet and the dog had an infection and was bleeding internally. She was quoted £205 for treatment, the vets were also planning on keeping the dog overnight. The vet wanted a £200 deposit for treatment. BUT, because the lady only had £100 until tuesday when she got paid (and she was distraught by this time, because it was literally life or death), the vet was refusing to treat the dog apart from making it comfortable. The lady asked if she could pay the remainder this morning when she collected the dog, the vet was adamant that she had to leave a £200 deposit. He offered the PTS option (but it still would have cost £160!)

AIBU to think that the vet was being money grabbing and only had finances in the forefront of his mind? I was particularly livid because the vet insisted on discussing this in the waiting room in front of me and 2 other people, instead of giving the lady the curtosey of discussing her financial afairs and dog treatment in private. I appreciate that the vets concern was that the owner wouldn't collect the dog or pay for the cost of treatment, but surely their job is to relieve suffering and give emergency treatment? If you didn't care about your pet, you wouldn't be taking it to an emergceny vet at 9pm on a Sunday night, surely?

QT

Clear and present, that made me cry, that poor cat. Who were the monsters doing it did you ever find out? I would put them up against a wall and shoot the lot of the little fuckers, and I am being serious.

Coats, I think its a nice touch when vets send on a card, has made me cry all over again at the time

and OT she may well have paid £100 and decided to never collect the dog

but as has been pointed out the hundered pound would have likely covered any actual treatment the dog would have received that night!

He would have just allieviated an animal's suffering.

I couldn't go to a vet who had such horribel ideas about animal welfare.

Yellow Snow because you say the vet should have risked his money - surprised your still reading my post to be honest as It was 3 pages back you said you were going to ignore me.

I didn't say I was going to ignore you, I said I wasn't going to address your original post any further, but then you chose to engage in debate and I referenced other posts. Funny, since I'm the one being accused of twisting things.

Meant to add that even though our vets tried to make me feel like a criminal for not agreeing to pay out for expensive exploratory procedures on a dog that was not showing any signs of pain or distress, at least their out of hours service only makes a £20 surcharge and they seem to do ok on it. They all drive very nice cars anyway. This vet is, my opinion, money grabbing and heartless.

Vets aren't allowed to hold onto animals until their bills are paid - and so can't rely on that argument.

OP, i do understand where you are coming from - it does sound as though the vet was harsh, but i bet they do get a similar situation almost daily, and have to be rigid.

theeildead2 - if you read the op post the vet was going to make the dog comfortable as he is obliged to do by his code of ethics as well as
treat any British Wildlife free of charge - He is not obliged to do treat the womans dog without payment

Yellow Snow - you still want to spend the Vets Money - but sorry I misconstrued your earlier post

Any clarification on your post about owners being irresponsible? You seem to have conflicted opinions on this and I am very interested on where you stand on it.

Others have already addressed the point about the so-called 'vets money'. Needless to say, I do not agree with your analysis of my POV on that either.

Vets are allowed to hold onto animals if bills are unpaid but it is strongly discouraged by the RCVS.

In any case it just adds to their costs

"And Midori - so what to be honest - your vet does what your vet does - he is self employed. As is the emergency vet - I can imagine an emergency vet is the type to be ''ripped'' off and is probably fed up of sob stories and unpaid bills"

I'm not talking about one individual vet though, I am talking about th eseveral that I have used. It is not common practice for vets to charge clients before they have even done the work. How many services expect payment before the service is provided?

Of course it is up to each individual vet how they do things, but this vet is offering an emergency service and has people over a barrel.

Aside from which, in the eyes of the law, vets have to provide treatment for an animal, regardless of whether the owner can pay, they have a duty of care.

Vets have to provide immediate first aid and pain relief midori1999. They do not have to go any further than that

If clients cannot pay then they can be referred to a charity

I had to have my cat PTS 5 weeks ago after some bastard neighbour of mine (or one of their visitors) ran her over and left her in agony and dying in a pool of blood with fatal head injuries just yards from my door (we live in a no through road so couldn't have been anyone else).

Unbeknownst to me my usual vet - who recently became part of a chain - doesn't supply a local emergency service any more. I was expected to drive 40 mins to one of their other surgeries in the chain. However, a neighbour called their vet for me and I was able to go to them instead (15 mins away) - on a Sunday night. The vet who saw me couldn't have been more professional and compassionate and that - or the lack of it - is what the OP has been trying to get across in her posts. The vet I saw was honest, but sympathetic and told me that the only charge he'd make (remember he'd never seen me before in his life) was the crematorium costs, "as that is beyond our control". When I questionned this to ensure I'd understood properly - as I was in such a state - he confirmed that they "don't charge otherwise in these sorts of situations as it wouldn't be humane" (direct quote). This was despite him being called out on a Sunday night and opening up just for us .... we were there probably 40 mins. And, when I offered to pay there and then, he waved me away and said he'd send me the bill.

Well ...... guess which vet is going to get my business in future ? In the middle of an awful situation that vet's kindness shone through - and when I did get his bill, I drove straight down to pay it without delay.

The way I see it vets are the only people who can help seriously ill or injured animals safely in most cases. Whilst they too still have to live, there should surely be an element of compassion in there on some occasions - such as the one described - because these qualified people in effect have a duty of care due to their particular skills. The way that man treated that woman was utterly appalling and it was completely unnecessary .... anyone who's intent on ripping someone else off doesn't offer a 50% down payment. I really hope the lady concerned has shared her story with other pet owners she knows and that the whole episode comes back to bite him in the bum through the business he might now potentially lose. On the other hand, I've been recommending that hitherto unknown vet to lots of people and hopefully, his business will increase as a result of his compassion. A case of what goes around comes around.

As for insurance, like many others here, I've paid out hugely more in premiums than I've ever been able to claim and have over the years had a number of long drawn out claims which were never sorted to my satisfaction, plus exclusions being added at the drop of a hat. So ..... now I don't insure my cats, and gamble that the money saved in lieu will cover potential expenses instead. I fully accept that if one of my animals needs treatment I'll have to take the hit - and always have done even if I cut back elsewhere. I don't see what's irresponsible about that at all.

I clarified earlier -initially don't have pets you can't afford and yes circumstances change but don't blame vets if you cannot pay - if you cant/wont get insurance make sure you have a reasonable level of savings to pay. I no long er have a horse as I know I can't afford it - I have an emergency credit card that we use for - emergencies of the pet, auto and child kind. Its not perfect but at least I can cover most eventualities.

I don't know about people in real poverty - PDSA is pretty good but again I think a community based insurance scheme would be the best as I have said about 5 times

having pets is a privilege not a right - and again don't blame vets if you can't pay

And other may has addressed the point but also lots of people have said who are you/op etc to decide what financial risks the vet takes

Good point catmother why would anyone who didn't care about an animal and wasn't intending to go back to collect it pay out £100? Clearly she was intending going back and settling the bill. Clearly that £100 would have covered the cost, ie out of pocket expenses, of the vet. Clearly he was open anyway otherwise the OP wouldn't have been there so his overheads were already being incurred whether or not he treated this animal. So just exactly what would he (or anyone else on his behalf for that matter) have been "spending"? All he was being asked to do was take a very small risk that he might not make a profit.

And Middori they do not have to treat any animal except British wildlife

OP - on a practical level, have you spoken to your normal vets about this?
They may not be interested, but maybe they don't know that this has gone on.
The couple of times I've had to go to the vets out of hours, I haven't had the presence of mind to take my purse, let alone stock up on cash just in case.
Luckily, my vet is happy to wait for an insurance claim to come through before we pay.

Ew I sort of see what you mean. If you can't afford insurance, or treatment for a sick pet if it's not insured, then you shouldn't have one. But this in no way excuses the behavior of the emergency vet.

I don´t know - in this example I agree the vet could have been more discrete and obviously lots of people on here have had negative experiences. However I have had a couple of different vets here and on the whole they have been lovely. They often only charge one consultation fee when they could charge two (two cats) or waive the fee and just charge me for their shots or whatever else.

Our cats have terrible peridontitis(?) and they had some expensive antibody-boosting medicine (i forget the name) left over from a previous animal´s treatment. In theory they said they were trying to charge 100? per vial because it was so expensive but they gave it to us free because they were so keen for us to try it and see if it helped.

My boss also makes me accompany her to the vet at least twice a year with various cats/ pigeons she has found injured and the vet has always taken them in/pts if necessary free of charge. Though i think boss did insist on paying a couple of times.

So I have always rather thought the opposite - wondering how they actually make a decent living!

fgs EW, where has it been said that she couldn't pay, period? She couldn't pay right there and then was all! She asked for 24 hours to get the rest of the money and offered 50% down payment on the spot! Ready cash can't be magicked out of thin air! I notice that you say you can cover most eventualities, well I hope to goodness you are never in the situation that this poor woman obviously was and, if you ever are, that you are dealt with with a darned sight more compassion and understanding!

thelibster - why the hell should the vet take the risk ???? Because it wouldn't just be once it would be again and again - which is the reason they have probably put this policy in place.

I have been in loads of crap situations and before I start to sound like yellow snow - you dont know me so dont make assumptions. And as I said before I can honestly say I would have lent the woman or given the woman the money myself there and then. But I am not a vet confronted with this day in day out.

I've found this all very interesting

My DH did out of hours this weekend and has now got several in-patients.

One is a regular client - goes on regular bill
One paid a fiver - all the cash she had
One refused to pay anything because it wasn't his dog - except it is
Two brought in by the RSPCA

He worked from 7.30 am Saturday through until this morning. He was hardly ever in the house. His last call out was after midnight and he was up again at 3 and 5 to check on drips. He had to pay nurses to come in to assist twice.

Yes some vets can appear money grabbing but by far the majority are genuine caring people

Are most vets really confronted with this "day in day out". The sort of irresponsible person who has pets but who doesn't really care for them probably wouldn't bother going to a vet at all, and certainly not with £100 in ready cash .... I could understand the vet's reticence if the poor woman had no money on her at all, but with a sizeable wedge I'd say she was a pretty good bet .... and, as loads have said previously, there are all sorts of service where business owners have to take a punt on their customer's being honest and paying up - many without any sort of deposit at all. Restaurant owners come to mind for one .... I'm sure most have experienced people doing runners but most are yet to insist on payment up front before you eat. Presumably they recognise that to do so would probably drive a good percentage of their customers away.

Whilst it would have been a kind thing for the OP, or someone else in the waiting room to have lent this woman some money, the chances of them also actually having a significant amount of cash on them are remote and not everyone has credit cards (or one with available credit on it). My main concern recently was getting to the vet as soon as possible in the vain hope my cat could be saved - not making a detour to the cashpoint. Whereas it would have been compassionate for the vet to take a small risk (with a 50% deposit) on this woman who was promising to pay the next day, and who was standing there right in front of him with more cash in hand than (I'd guess) most people usually carry about with them.

EW not making assumptions:
"I have an emergency credit card that we use for - emergencies of the pet, auto and child kind. Its not perfect but at least I can cover most eventualities."

And I said I hoped that you were never in a situation like this. What on earth are you accusing me of "assuming"?

well the vet above had one who paid a £5 - one who refused to pay as it wasn't his dog and 2 from the rspca - so yep think it may happen alot

Are most vets really confronted with this "day in day out".

Yes

you assumed that I had never been in a situation like that - I have - major reason I work for a cats charity is as a student I had to have my ''childhood' cat put down - it was very borderline and if I had had more money would have paid for exploratory surgery . I still feel guilty now - but I did not blame the vet