Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Pets

Join our community on the Pet forum to discuss anything related to pets.

Original poster

Cost of vet treatment petition for animal NHS

290 replies

Speakeasy · 19/04/2023 17:55

Everyone is suffering from the cost of living crisis and it is hitting pet owners too, especially with the cost of vet treatment rising rapidly. There are two petitions running asking for an Animal NHS, one on the UK government site and one of the Welsh government site. People in Wales can sign both but everyone else can only sign the UK one.

Please consider signing and sharing the petitions because it might just help people to keep the pets they consider to be their family.

The UK petition is at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/635352
and reads:

Create an Animal NHS for pensioners, those on low incomes, and for emergenciesIntroduce an Animal NHS for the animals of pensioners, those on means tested benefits and for animals who present with emergencies. Creating a national service to meet the needs of these animals would allow veterinary charities to help a new range of clients who are struggling to make ends meet.
More details
No animal owner could be unaware of soaring veterinary costs. One of the most common reasons that the SHG sees for animal welfare prosecutions that is failure to seek veterinary advice, either at all, or quickly enough, even if the animal is booked in for when the next pay cheque arrives.
A recent survey found that nearly all UK vets that responded have seen animals during the last 12 months that should have been presented earlier. Financial problems were given as the main reason in 91% of cases.
We can and must do better.

The Welsh petition is at https://petitions.senedd.wales/petitions/245403
and reads:

Create an Animal NHSIntroduce an Animal NHS, if only for the animals of pensioners, those on means tested benefits and for animals who present with emergencies.
If private vets could access general government funding it would allow the veterinary charities to help a new range of clients who are struggling to make ends meet.
More details
No animal owner could be unaware of soaring veterinary costs. One of the most prolific reasons for animal welfare prosecutions that come into The SHG is failure to seek veterinary advice, either at all, or quickly enough, even when the animal is booked in for when the next pay cheque arrives. Nearly all vets have seen animals during the last 12 months that should have been presented earlier.
www.vettimes.co.uk/news/report-shows-growing-number-of-clients-delaying-treatment-for-their-pets/
Financial problems were given as the main reason in 91% of cases.
Times are hard and there are many calls on government finances but the proven benefits of animal companionship means that an Animal NHS would pay for itself many times over, if only by reducing demands on the courts and legal aid.
Wales can and must do better.

Petition: Create an Animal NHS for pensioners, those on low incomes, and for emergencies

Introduce an Animal NHS for the animals of pensioners, those on means tested benefits and for animals who present with emergencies. Creating a national service to meet the needs of these animals would allow veterinary charities to help a new range of c...

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/635352

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
MariaRemindsMeOfAWestSideStory · 30/04/2023 18:56

If you can’t afford the cost of looking after a pet, then you shouldn’t have a pet. Being a pet owner comes with responsibilities, not the entitlement of expecting the state to take care of your pet.

Polkadotties · 30/04/2023 18:59

Absolutely not! If you can’t afford a pet then you don’t get them.

Roundandnour · 30/04/2023 19:26

@JarByTheDoor absolutely agree with everything you said.

On the basis of this thread I asked my cat why he’s broken. he’s not doing his job of keeping me out of mh services. Shame they cannot laugh, but at least their facial expressions give it away.

If their care was neglected or they were abused I would be bloody thankful someone was looking out for them. I wouldn’t be whinging that some protection agency has removed them.

Original poster
Speakeasy · 01/05/2023 12:16

JarByTheDoor · 30/04/2023 16:48

Despite the claims made by people here it is well accepted that animals help people who are unwell.

You're being disingenuous. What claims? Nobody has disputed that in some circumstances, pet ownership can be helpful for aspects of maintaining health — they can help with loneliness, lower stress, incentivise gentle exercise, and so on.

But you said that an animal NHS would be:

Far cheaper than funding mental health professionals and mopping up the mess when families implode. Pets help people far more than anything else the government provides.

The only way to make sense of your argument here is that you think that a national programme to make taxpayers fund free vet care, for the pets people chose to have, would somehow help those with serious mental illness (i.e. the main group in need of mental health professionals) far more than actual healthcare would, and also that an animal NHS would remove the need for big chunks of social services.

You think that providing vet care for millions of pets would be cheaper than providing psychiatric care for humans with mental illness, and social services for families in trouble. Maybe it would. But those people would still have mental illness, and those families would still have problems.

What message are you sending to people like me, people with serious mental illness who sometimes need the help of mental health professionals, when you tell us we don't actually need healthcare for those illnesses? When you tell us that money would be better spent on other people's pets than on us?

In terms of when the RSPCA gives people the choice of killing their animal, signing it over so that the RSPCA can either kill it or get the police to seize it and then prosecute to make sure that someone waiting until next pay day because the vet won't treat it until then will never be allowed to own another animal?

That is the context of the comment that you have extrapolated to mean that animals would cure everything under the sun.

OP posts:
Original poster
Speakeasy · 01/05/2023 12:19

Roundandnour · 30/04/2023 19:26

@JarByTheDoor absolutely agree with everything you said.

On the basis of this thread I asked my cat why he’s broken. he’s not doing his job of keeping me out of mh services. Shame they cannot laugh, but at least their facial expressions give it away.

If their care was neglected or they were abused I would be bloody thankful someone was looking out for them. I wouldn’t be whinging that some protection agency has removed them.

Wouldn't you be even more grateful if that prosecution . . . errr I mean protection agency was to remember the objects in their charter and promote kindness by helping you instead of snatching your pets and prosecuting?

A few pounds or the help of some volunteers as opposed to expensive lawyers, keeping the animal until the courts give the go-ahead to sell it and then, if you had really been too ill to know what you were doing, the additional costs to the NHS as you blamed yourself, maybe couldn't work?

OP posts:
JarByTheDoor · 01/05/2023 13:55

Speakeasy · 01/05/2023 12:16

In terms of when the RSPCA gives people the choice of killing their animal, signing it over so that the RSPCA can either kill it or get the police to seize it and then prosecute to make sure that someone waiting until next pay day because the vet won't treat it until then will never be allowed to own another animal?

That is the context of the comment that you have extrapolated to mean that animals would cure everything under the sun.

Show quote history

Mate, just concede that you can't replace mental health services with puppies already.

Roundandnour · 01/05/2023 14:45

Speakeasy · 01/05/2023 12:16

In terms of when the RSPCA gives people the choice of killing their animal, signing it over so that the RSPCA can either kill it or get the police to seize it and then prosecute to make sure that someone waiting until next pay day because the vet won't treat it until then will never be allowed to own another animal?

That is the context of the comment that you have extrapolated to mean that animals would cure everything under the sun.

Show quote history

Have you seen some of the abuse some pets are put through? And you think the adults should be shown kindness and supported to keep their pets, or get future pets to torture/abuse once they are off the radar? Doesn’t the animal deserve to be happy and not live in fear? Doesn’t the animal deserve responsible owners who will seek out help before waiting for payday?

There are already many charities that will help fund treatment if the household is a low income one. Did you not read the list of some charities I posted who do this already? Many vets will also accept to be paid in instalments.

Anyone who says let’s use leftover money to find this, or owning a pet will solve mh issues clearly doesn’t have a clue about mh.

JarByTheDoor · 01/05/2023 19:43

Speakeasy · 01/05/2023 12:16

In terms of when the RSPCA gives people the choice of killing their animal, signing it over so that the RSPCA can either kill it or get the police to seize it and then prosecute to make sure that someone waiting until next pay day because the vet won't treat it until then will never be allowed to own another animal?

That is the context of the comment that you have extrapolated to mean that animals would cure everything under the sun.

Show quote history

Besides which, you're telling porkies. Here's the context:

Maireas · 23/04/2023 18:46
No, OP. We should not be encouraging as many people as possible to get pets to combat loneliness. We should be supporting and helping isolated and/or elderly people in other ways, not encouraging them to have extra and unnecessary expense.

Speakeasy (23/04/2023 19:00)
We should not be dictating to people how to live their lives. If they want to keep their pets when they get old or ill why should we force them to give them up?

Lapland123 (23/04/2023 19:09)
Of course we shouldn’t dictate how people live their lives. But there’s no way anyone could justify taxpayers funding this luxury!

Speakeasy (23/04/2023 19:53)
Far cheaper than funding mental health professionals and mopping up the mess when families implode. Pets help people far more than anything else the government provides.

The context is that Lapland123 argues an animal NHS would require taxpayers to fund a luxury (owning pets). You not only argue that funding this animal NHS would be cheaper than funding mental health professionals (who, as has been pointed out, are primarily employed to provide care and treatment for those with serious psychiatric illnesses) and services for families going through difficult problems, you also imply that funding a pet NHS would be more helpful than those services, for those in need of that kind of help.

Nothing in that context there about evil RSPCA officers slitting Mr Pusskins' throat in front of a sobbing owner, nothing about suing or banning from ownership. You do know we can all go back and actually read the context, right?

Original poster
Speakeasy · 02/05/2023 18:14

JarByTheDoor · 01/05/2023 19:43

Besides which, you're telling porkies. Here's the context:

Maireas · 23/04/2023 18:46
No, OP. We should not be encouraging as many people as possible to get pets to combat loneliness. We should be supporting and helping isolated and/or elderly people in other ways, not encouraging them to have extra and unnecessary expense.

Speakeasy (23/04/2023 19:00)
We should not be dictating to people how to live their lives. If they want to keep their pets when they get old or ill why should we force them to give them up?

Lapland123 (23/04/2023 19:09)
Of course we shouldn’t dictate how people live their lives. But there’s no way anyone could justify taxpayers funding this luxury!

Speakeasy (23/04/2023 19:53)
Far cheaper than funding mental health professionals and mopping up the mess when families implode. Pets help people far more than anything else the government provides.

The context is that Lapland123 argues an animal NHS would require taxpayers to fund a luxury (owning pets). You not only argue that funding this animal NHS would be cheaper than funding mental health professionals (who, as has been pointed out, are primarily employed to provide care and treatment for those with serious psychiatric illnesses) and services for families going through difficult problems, you also imply that funding a pet NHS would be more helpful than those services, for those in need of that kind of help.

Nothing in that context there about evil RSPCA officers slitting Mr Pusskins' throat in front of a sobbing owner, nothing about suing or banning from ownership. You do know we can all go back and actually read the context, right?

Show quote history

As said, you have to read the comments in the context of the discussion, not take them on their own. But since people seem to think that animals have no input into health and well being here are some quotes and links. The people who need their animals are often vulnerable and need help - not persecution and prosecution, and when uncaring organisations with their own agendas snatch those animals away and leave the NHS and other organisations to pick up the pieces it most certainly has a detrimental effect on the NHS and s social services that could have been avoided with a little kindness.

No, before someone comes along and tries to claim that I have suggested we give animals to people to torture, the suggestion is that people who care for their animals but need help from time to time to allow them to continue to do so should be helped, along with those whose financial situation has left them in need of help to pay vet costs.

“Pet owners are less likely to die,” said Harvard Medical School clinical assistant professor Beth Frates, citing the American Heart Association’s finding that owning a furry (or scaly, or hairy) companion reduces a person’s mortality rate by 24 percent."
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2023/04/health-benefits-of-owning-pets

"One of the most significant benefits of having pets in the workplace is their ability to reduce stress levels in employees. Work-related stress is a prevalent issue in the modern workforce, and it can have a significant impact on employee well-being. Stress can lead to a host of physical and mental health problems, including anxiety, depression, and cardiovascular disease."
https://www.corporatewellnessmagazine.com/article/the-power-of-pets-how-animal-companionship-can-enhance-employee-well-being

"For nearly 70% of U.S. households pets are part of the family and have a significant influence on our mental health. Eighty-Seven percent of pet owners have experienced mental health improvements resulting from pet ownership, and research has shown the benefits for the long-term management of mental health conditions."
https://habri.org/blog/mental-health-month-2023/

"Pets should be considered a main rather than a marginal source of support in the management of long-term mental health problems, and this has implications for the planning and delivery of mental health services."
https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-016-1111-3

  • "Doctors and therapists are recommending pets for improved health22%, more than 1-in-5, pet owners have had a pet recommended for their health by a doctor or therapist
  • 69% of pet owners would have a more favorable view of a doctor that discussed the health benefits of the human-animal bond with them, up from 65% in 2016 (+4%)
  • 89% of pet owners agree that doctors should recommend pets to patients for healthier living"
pet-owners-survey

"Assistance dogs help reduce mental health symptoms among Australian Defence Force veterans and emergency services personnel: A pilot study"

[ . . . ]

"For several decades assistance dogs have been used to partner with humans for various purposes, including the mitigation of mental health symptoms (van Houtert et al., 2018). More recently, assistance dogs have been used as an adjunct therapy for people with PTSD where the dogs are specifically trained to detect and ameliorate PTSD symptoms by performing various tasks as well as provide overall emotional support through companionship. Despite the increasing popularity of providing assistance dogs to veterans and ES professionals with PTSD, the empirical evidence supporting their effectiveness as an adjunct therapy for PTSD has been largely anecdotal (van Houtert et al., 2018). However, as summarised in a recent meta-analysis, there is a growing body of research internationally showing positive effectiveness of assistance dogs in reducing PTSD symptoms in these populations (Leighton et al., 2022)."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165178123001634?via%3Dihub

Deny it all you wish. There is a growing body of evidence showing the benefit of animals to health and mental health issues. Removing whatever someone is depending on is bound to have a detrimental effect and end up costing the NHS and social services more. Far more articles and research papers out there BTW.

The Power of Pets: How Animal Companionship Can Enhance Employee Well-being

Discover the power of pets in the workplace and how animal companionship can enhance employee well-being. Learn about the benefits of pet ownership, including stress reduction, improved physical health, increased social interaction, and enhanced job sa...

https://www.corporatewellnessmagazine.com/article/the-power-of-pets-how-animal-companionship-can-enhance-employee-well-being

OP posts:
JarByTheDoor · 02/05/2023 19:02

You're strawmanning, Speakeasy — that is, you're arguing against an imaginary opponent whose extreme views you just made up, because it's easier than arguing against what people are actually saying.

Nobody's denying those things. Your quotes and links are irrelevant, because nobody actually disagrees with you about the potential positive health effects of pet ownership.

Maybe come back when you can discuss this with your actual opponents, rather than the imaginary opponents in your head — when you can show us enough respect to stop misrepresenting our positions and to engage with what we're saying, rather than jinking about making false claims about context, and claiming people hold positions that they've never held. When you can do that, I'll talk. TTFN.

Original poster
Speakeasy · 03/05/2023 13:21

JarByTheDoor · 02/05/2023 19:02

You're strawmanning, Speakeasy — that is, you're arguing against an imaginary opponent whose extreme views you just made up, because it's easier than arguing against what people are actually saying.

Nobody's denying those things. Your quotes and links are irrelevant, because nobody actually disagrees with you about the potential positive health effects of pet ownership.

Maybe come back when you can discuss this with your actual opponents, rather than the imaginary opponents in your head — when you can show us enough respect to stop misrepresenting our positions and to engage with what we're saying, rather than jinking about making false claims about context, and claiming people hold positions that they've never held. When you can do that, I'll talk. TTFN.

If you are not denying the benefits of animal owning and contact with animals to human health and wellbeing then you can't deny that helping the people who benefit from their animals to keep those animals would reduce costs to the NHS and other social services. Thanks for agreeing with me.

OP posts:
FixTheBone · 03/05/2023 18:55

Speakeasy · 02/05/2023 18:14

As said, you have to read the comments in the context of the discussion, not take them on their own. But since people seem to think that animals have no input into health and well being here are some quotes and links. The people who need their animals are often vulnerable and need help - not persecution and prosecution, and when uncaring organisations with their own agendas snatch those animals away and leave the NHS and other organisations to pick up the pieces it most certainly has a detrimental effect on the NHS and s social services that could have been avoided with a little kindness.

No, before someone comes along and tries to claim that I have suggested we give animals to people to torture, the suggestion is that people who care for their animals but need help from time to time to allow them to continue to do so should be helped, along with those whose financial situation has left them in need of help to pay vet costs.

“Pet owners are less likely to die,” said Harvard Medical School clinical assistant professor Beth Frates, citing the American Heart Association’s finding that owning a furry (or scaly, or hairy) companion reduces a person’s mortality rate by 24 percent."
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2023/04/health-benefits-of-owning-pets

"One of the most significant benefits of having pets in the workplace is their ability to reduce stress levels in employees. Work-related stress is a prevalent issue in the modern workforce, and it can have a significant impact on employee well-being. Stress can lead to a host of physical and mental health problems, including anxiety, depression, and cardiovascular disease."
https://www.corporatewellnessmagazine.com/article/the-power-of-pets-how-animal-companionship-can-enhance-employee-well-being

"For nearly 70% of U.S. households pets are part of the family and have a significant influence on our mental health. Eighty-Seven percent of pet owners have experienced mental health improvements resulting from pet ownership, and research has shown the benefits for the long-term management of mental health conditions."
https://habri.org/blog/mental-health-month-2023/

"Pets should be considered a main rather than a marginal source of support in the management of long-term mental health problems, and this has implications for the planning and delivery of mental health services."
https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-016-1111-3

  • "Doctors and therapists are recommending pets for improved health22%, more than 1-in-5, pet owners have had a pet recommended for their health by a doctor or therapist
  • 69% of pet owners would have a more favorable view of a doctor that discussed the health benefits of the human-animal bond with them, up from 65% in 2016 (+4%)
  • 89% of pet owners agree that doctors should recommend pets to patients for healthier living"
pet-owners-survey

"Assistance dogs help reduce mental health symptoms among Australian Defence Force veterans and emergency services personnel: A pilot study"

[ . . . ]

"For several decades assistance dogs have been used to partner with humans for various purposes, including the mitigation of mental health symptoms (van Houtert et al., 2018). More recently, assistance dogs have been used as an adjunct therapy for people with PTSD where the dogs are specifically trained to detect and ameliorate PTSD symptoms by performing various tasks as well as provide overall emotional support through companionship. Despite the increasing popularity of providing assistance dogs to veterans and ES professionals with PTSD, the empirical evidence supporting their effectiveness as an adjunct therapy for PTSD has been largely anecdotal (van Houtert et al., 2018). However, as summarised in a recent meta-analysis, there is a growing body of research internationally showing positive effectiveness of assistance dogs in reducing PTSD symptoms in these populations (Leighton et al., 2022)."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165178123001634?via%3Dihub

Deny it all you wish. There is a growing body of evidence showing the benefit of animals to health and mental health issues. Removing whatever someone is depending on is bound to have a detrimental effect and end up costing the NHS and social services more. Far more articles and research papers out there BTW.

Show quote history

I fucking hate pets.

But if reduces my chance of dying to below 100%, then I'll give it a shot.....

LucyBMummy · 15/05/2023 20:52

So who pays for the pet NHS? Taxes increase to supplement it, no thanks

janeinthewild · 18/05/2023 22:21

It's sad that not everyone can afford a pet, everyone deserves the opportunity. However, it is ultimately a privilege and if I were struggling with health issues, I wouldn't want NHS funding being put towards pets instead

Coco1379 · 21/03/2024 15:39

I think the PDSA and Blue Cross will treat animals for people on means tested benefits. But I find the supercilious ’Pets are a privilege, not a right’ really offensive. Presumably these are people who have plenty of money. We know we are privileged to have our pets, but not all of us can afford the extortionate fees. As someone who had to shield during Covid, I got really depressed. I had been longing for a cat so got one when people could move about again. I still had to be really careful about mixing and my little cat has been an absolute comfort. It would break my heart if I couldn’t afford to keep him. I have insurance but the one I started with wanted to put it up by £50 per month - and I hadn’t claimed! As usual when big money gets involved people are exploited - and with the big multiples cashing in, it isn’t all going to the vets.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page