To be furious with the vet for charging £1000 for an unnecessary operation.

[tentosix]

My SIL just called in tears because their beloved dog will need to be put to sleep because it has widespread cancer.

No pet insurance, but she was happy to pay to cure her dog of a lump over it's eye which was weeping.

The vet did a biopsy and it was secondary cancer so they advised euthanasia.

SIL is distraught. She is taking a few days with the dog and arranged for next week so her DDs can say goodbye and she can process it.

So why did they do this operation to remove the lump? The dog is now in pain because of this raw wound so there is no way he can be comfortable in his last days. The vet must have suspected cancer, so why not a small biopsy and not put the dog through this as well as wasting this money.

The money isn't the issue as it would have been worth every penny if it had cured him. Now he is in pain.

I wish you’d posted this in the Doghouse OP you are going to get all and sundry on for a bunfight now 🤦‍♀️

@DogInATent

Why did they bring it round from the anesthetic with that prognosis?

There's a potential unreasonable here, but it's not what you think, and perhaps not what your sister would want to hear.

Because the surgery will have sent the lump off to be biopsied, which can take upto 10 days.

We were charged a couple of hundred quid for a more extensive in-depth and extra biopsy (that we didn't ask for or were even told about).
That pissed me off, to be honest.

Why do people leap to the conclusion that vets are ripping clients off with their charges? My vet has always been as clear as possible on the treatment and possible outcomes and how much it is likely to cost and advises of all options available, so I can make appropriate decisions.

Maybe because we don't see the cost of human medicine very often, we forget how expensive it all is. And biopsies and scans are more expensive to the vet than they are to doctors.

I suspect OP doesn't understand medicine and thus assuming the vet is behaving badly and lining their own pockets at the expense of the client and the patient. So unfair and annoying.

YABU.

We recently had something similar - our dog had a lump on his face. Vet said it was under a tooth and could be an ulcer, could be a lump but either way, tooth was rotten and needed to come out. Almost £1k later, he had several teeth out and the lump underneath was sent off to a lab.
Lab results came back after 8 days - unfortunately our lovely boy has cancer in his bone but there's no way anyone would have been able to tell us that before the op so I don't think it was a waste of money

Also, we don't have insurance. Never have. We've always had a 'vet' pot of savings and access to extra if we need it. Our dog is old now, and had we insured him we would have paid a lot more than he's ever cost us in his lifetime so I massively disagree with people kicking off that pets aren't insured.

My dog has had a couple lumps removed and then tested. The entire lump is moved and one time is was cancer but because they had already removed it she didn’t need any more surgery so I think they do it to ‘catch it’ so it doesn’t spread. But I completely get why you’d be upset over this it seems so unnecessary. I am so sorry that the dog needs to be put down

@FranklySonImTheGaffer, That sounds very similar to what we've just had with our boy. Lump on the gum which turned out to be right under the teeth, leading to part of the jawbone also having to be removed.

Maybe because we don't see the cost of human medicine very often, we forget how expensive it all is.

Exactly this. People are so used to medical care being free at the point of use that they don't see that vet fees need to cover staff salaries, rent, supplies, taxes, etc. We don't have pet insurance either because it's quite limited in the US, like not covering anything after certain age when the pet is most likely to need it.

Our dog is old now, and had we insured him we would have paid a lot more than he's ever cost us in his lifetime so I massively disagree with people kicking off that pets aren't insured.

I agree.
I have insurance as I can’t afford a large unexpected vets bill but if I could the I definitely wouldn’t have insurance as you usually end up paying more and for a lot of things they don’t pay out.

I will forever shout about the importance of continuous insurance.

Only because I has a similar experience. Our insurance for (12yo) cat lapsed in the August and whilst I looked around for a new policy, I got waylaid and of course come September or poor girl was taken poorly.

£600 for emergency treatments and then another £100 to have her PTS when the treatments didn't help.

I loved my girl and didn't begrudge a penny but for us it was so avoidable. All because I wanted a cheaper premium [which I didn't sort out in good enough time]

If you can afford to self insure for your pets it makes sense to do so financially. All insurance pays out less than it takes in overall to cover administrative costs and profits for the insurer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_ratio

The percentage paid in claims compared to premiums collected is also called the payout ratio. For some types of insurance, like life insurance, the payout ratio can be over 80%. For things like extended warranties on appliances, it's often under 50%. That's why retailers push them so hard.

Likewise, if you have no way of covering a large unexpected vet care expense, the insurance is a good idea.

I’d argue that your SIL is being the unreasonable one. She’s keeping the poor dog alive for an unnecessary week when he’s in pain. Yes she wants to come to terms with it and spend time with him while she has a chance but it just doesn’t work like that when the animal is suffering

I've said the money isn't the issue. Having a quick anaesthetic to have a needle biopsy performed would have been much less invasive and painful and he could have lived his last weeks comfortably, instead of this nasty sore wound. If it had been benign or a primary cancer then there would have been some point in operating once they had the result.

She has said she may let him go sooner. The thing is her DH (my BIL) died recently and the dog was his. He chose not to insure as he had money put aside for vet bills, and this dog is the only thing SIL has left as DDs are at uni. It was the dog that gave her a reason to get up in the morning.

Sorry if this sounds harsh because it’s a horrible situation but the dog isn’t in pain because the vet carried out the procedure (presumably because they thought it could save his life) but because your SIL can’t/won’t say goodbye yet and is acting against the vets advice!

Did they not phone in the op while the dog was still asleep to advise this? My dog went for an operation years ago to remove a cancerous cyst, after a scan. When they actually started the operation they realised it was a lot more widespread and phoned us to ask about putting her to sleep there and then. It was really upsetting as we weren't prepared for that news, but the kindest thing for our dog.

Why do people leap to the conclusion that vets are ripping clients off with their charges

Because comparing to another country with excellent vet services, they are outrageously priced here.

You're saying now that the money isn't an issue, but your thread title is 'To be furious with the vet for charging £1000 for an unnecessary operation', which sort of implies that the money is the problem.

There is no such thing as a 'quick anaesthetic'..

A GA is a GA is a GA... it takes prep, time to go under, time to do the op, time to recover.

The time it takes to do the op itself is neither here nor there in this case, removing a small lump by the eye takes time but we aren't talking an epic 12 hour surgery. Its the going under and the recovery that are hard for the dog.

It is not recommended to take a needle biopsy in some sites and in some tumours - because it might trigger a cancer to spread which if it hasnt already is definitely not what you want, it may be hard to get a clear sample from the area of the lump you need to take it from. Meddling with lumps can cause them to open up, ulcer, all manner of revolting painful things.

So with a small lump near the eye its better to take the whole thing out, test the excised lump, find out what it is.

If as in this case, its already spread - thats unfortunate.

If it HADN'T spread, if this was a primary cancer, or benign.. then you've saved the dog a second GA and op (and the client money).

Unfortunately vets do not have the ability to do a biopsy by the power of telepathy...

My dog has had a variety of lumps needing to be assessed. Some they could safely biopsy by doing a needle aspiration, others they required surgery under GA. And others they said they would prefer to do neither.

Most vets are honest people who want the best for the animals they care for. If they did that then they must feel that it was necessary

@UtterlyUnimaginativeUsername

You're saying now that the money isn't an issue, but your thread title is 'To be furious with the vet for charging £1000 for an unnecessary operation', which sort of implies that the money is the problem.

I also say in the OP immediately that the money wasn't the issue. I didn't quite know how to word the title without going into a whole paragraph!

@WiddlinDiddlin So you mean to say they've never heard of Midazolam? It's a very quick acting drug, causing waking sedation. It's used in humans successfully to minor procedures.

I agree with @Staffy1 that vet bills in this country are inflated. £30 for a few antibiotic tablets which are a few pennies according to the BNF.

The vet can only do what your sil agrees to. She would have been given options, she must have agreed to the procedure, she was free to refuse or seek a second opinion if she had wished to do so.

OP- part of the problem is that in the UK we have no idea how much healthcare costs because we have the nhs. There is no nhs for pets and people question the amount. I know I have spent £150 on a bereaved guinea pig who developed a skin condition because of the stress of loosing a hutch mate. The drugs needed cost a lot but she was young and otherwise healthy so we really had no choice because she was in agony.

We also have a moggy who adopted us and is not insured. We love her to bits but she was pretty elderly when she came to us and has already had several happy years. When it comes to it we will have to make the choice to let her go. I grew up with animals and vets have become more expensive and some of this is driven by insurance. I question whether it is sometimee right to put an animal through complex treatment, although I understand why people do. Most employed vets earn very little although partners and get chains make a tidy profit.

No im sure vets have never heard of benzodiazepines and are just inventing what they do as they go along...

Out of curiosity, those people who think vets fees are perfectly reasonable, how much do you think it just cost me, earlier this week for a geriatric blood test to check my cats general health?
She is 16.