Pet ownership should be for the wealthy

[spottybaghottyhag]

Pre emptying this by saying we are low income, get topped up by UC and my pet is eligible for PDSA treatment

My ddog 13 has been eating less than usual and not keen to go out as much, but otherwise bright and seemingly well. Made an appointment with the above vet. Due to his age they wanted to do x-ray/scan under sedation. Was very shocked to discover he has a tumour in his stomach. Vet basically said (over the phone) that as they are a charity hospital they cannot do anything further, the options are either a referral to a specialist vet to ascertain if it's cancer, or PTS. She said the referral + tests would be circa £1k, which wouldn't obviously include any actual treatment or surgical options.
Personally I don't want to explore other options regardless, he's 13, had a great life and I don't think major surgery or chemo on any elderly animal is fair. We are making sure he's still comfortable and will PTS when we feel he's not.

Onto the AIBU: it really made me feel that you should only get a pet if you can afford expensive vet bills. The PDSA are very limited in what they do (very understandably) and you cannot rely on them as a complete veterinary service. Insurance doesn't always pay out. Someone asked me will I get another dog when ddog goes and my answer was we cannot afford it. She felt I was being very unreasonable. Am I?

Not as much as I'm cringing for you, believe me.

As a vet's daughter and lifelong animal lover, I am sure you are absolutely right. Vet fees nowadays are sky-high, so you need to be able to afford pet insurance. You are also right to decide against chemo etc for your dog. Personally I would never put an animal through cancer treatment. It's bad enough for a human, who understands why they're going through it. I think giving an animal chemo or radiotherapy is purely selfish for the owner.

I agree. Really unpleasant, unkind posts from this poster.

Nope you friend is a fool..pets a very expensive luxury..my partner bought me a pure bred cocker spaniel nearly 10 years ago..we had cats they got poisoned i was devastated and he said I'm not going through that again so ge bought me the pup for my birthday..I didn't want a dog but fell in love with Izzy but she's cost me a fortune..I had pet insurance but never covered any of her bills..I've paid thousands out..one vets asked me if I was going to let her have pups as she was such a good breed..I said not a chance..I didn't get her for that..changed vets after that..she has a problem with her uterus that nearly killed her..cost me a fortune,then vets said she had cancer cause she had a lump had major OP for that wasn't cancer but she's getting on now bless her..costs 80 euros to have her groomed every 4 months..nope won't be getting another dog...

And the budgie one is even ruder. She clicked "support" on my post after telling me I lack intelligence. It's pathetic. They really have no shame, openly bullying the disabled.

I wonder if mn are aware that posters are weaponising the "support" button now in the same way they were with the laughing emoji...

Ah, I had a support react too that made no sense.
How immature to use it like that.

It can’t be policed but I think responsible pet owners should have insurance
Dcat when 4 months old had an accident which cost over £6k within the next year had another £4k plus of health care needed - some relating to the accident - we call him the £10k cat - not his fault and if we hadn’t been well insured he would’ve been PTS

It is pointless for me to be paying upwards of £150pm insurance for an elderly dog when I would not put her through expensive tests and treatments anyway. Not due to the cost but because of her dignity and quality of life.

It's the vet treatment that's extortionate. Definitely don't know how people afford dogs. Ours is costing so much

It's not just about having money to afford an elderly pet, what about unexpected illness? I just read a gofundme for someone who's young dog got ill, vet needed to admit it, owner said she can't afford to pay anything, so she had to sign the dog over to the vet for him to continue treatment, said he couldn't put a young, otherwise healthy dog to sleep. The comments are going mad, telling the owner to report the vet for theft. The woman is now trying to raise £3k in the hope she can 'buy' the dog back.

Sorry, but I don't believe that.

Why? Vet practices will sometimes treat a dog an owner cannot afford to treat only if they surrender ownership. Often this is because they have doubts about the suitability of the home. The animal is normally rehomed amongst members of staff or their families. It's rare, but it does happen. What normally happens is that the owner checks the animal in for treatment and then simply doesn't answer calls when it is time to pick their pet up. Then the animal is left in limbo, living in a kennel at the surgery, with members of staff taking turns bringing it home at night, while every effort is made to find their owners and check all the legal boxes before, once again, a member of staff or their family takes it in. My DD was warned not to buy herself any pets in her job as she would soon be faced with a homeless patient.

Although I do think this is a scam. The vet hasn't stolen anything if she signed over ownership and I doubt they would be selling the dog back to her after she raised money from a gofundme appeal! I knew someone locally who signed over a horse she couldn't care for to a charity. She then decided that the person who had rehomed from the charity wasn't looking after the animal properly and asked for it back, despite the fact she still couldn't look after it. She was told to get stuffed and rightly so. Of course, she went round town telling everyone that the charity were a bunch of thieving crooks and the animal's new owner was a cruel and heartless woman. She caused a lot of distress just to massage her own ego.

@krustykittens
I have a vet in the family so I do know about animals being voluntarily surrendered to the practice, yes. It was more the way this post was worded that I was sceptical of.

Ah, I see, apologies!

A quick Google shows that vets can and do agree to treat an animal if an owner cannot afford/does not want the treatment. A transfer of ownership must be signed first and it is legally binding, so raising the money afterwards would not necessarily mean you can get it back. The people claiming the vet stole the animal clearly do not understand how things work. There are lots of questions relating to this on legal advice pages, so it must be that unusual.

Your second post there slightly confirmed what I was thinking...a way of cashing in...? But maybe things were lost in translation if the story has done the rounds of SM.

I think there's more to this one than meets the eye @spottybaghottyhag

But I do still long for the old days of independent vets.

I know of two that have opened near us recently, so hopefully, the tide is turning. Owners and vets are fed up. But tt is shocking how much it costs to get even a small practice up and running though - one owner told me he took out a £2 million loan! Vet medicine has advanced so much but the equipment to deliver things like lap spays is very, very expensive.

I can believe it.
Another one that comes up sometimes is someone surrendering a pet to a rescue because they can't afford the vet bills. The animal gets treated, and then they try and adopt it back. They also get told no, and accuse the rescue of theft.

It's sad for the newly qualified vets really, that they have little option but to go into one of the big multi vet practices, where conditions and pay aren't always fair to them. But that, I suppose, is a completely different thread.

It is very hard to build a relationship with a vet now in the multi vet practices and I do feel the pet loses out as much as the owner does. Our old vet knew our dogs so well that he could see when something wasn't right. Since he retired, we just don't have the same level of trust. It's not really about the vets, just the way the practices are now run. I do hope you're right and that the tide is turning...

No idea if it's genuine or not, that isn't my point. The takeaway for me is that a young, healthy animal can become suddenly ill with very high costs associated.

I think having no one on staff but young, newly qualified staff is also going to have a long term effect on animal care and on the vets. They leave school and find they have no one to guide them in the early years. One vet in DD's practice is still scared to do spays on her own without the supervision of a more experienced vet, six months after graduating. Her confidence is building but it takes time to get there. But experienced vets are not valued at these corporations. On top of that, there is a recruitment crisis and a desperate shortage of staff! Sorry for de railing the thread, OP!