should i pay vet?

The Witches Cat

Hi.
Just looking for people's thoughts on this.
Our cat started to show severe signs of sickness last Thursday. He was only 18 months old. Took him to the vet Friday morning and was told by the guy that he prob just had a cat flue or cold and that he would be fine. The vet injected fluids to rehydrate him and gave himinjections of antibiotics.

Friday night and Saturday morning he was getting worse and worse. Took him back to the same Vet practice but a different Vet and he agreed with everything the other Vet had said the previous day.
Again he gave cat more antibiotic injections and i was told he would be fine.

Saturday evening and the cat is in a very bad way and to be honest it was frightening to see him like that. The vet practice i had seen did not have an emergency vet on call so had to ring the emergency vet from another practice.
He told me to bring the cat to him straight away. Once he seen the cat he said he had been poisoned and he would need to keep him in and on a drip and try and flush any toxins out of his system. He also said the original vet should have kept him in and done this.
We left the cat with vet but got a call to say he had died about an hour later from his system shutting down.

The original vet does not yet know the cat has died and is expecting me up on Tuesday with payment of 250 euro.
Im at odds with myself over paying this.
I would appreciate anyones thoughts on this.
Thanks

Teyla Emmagan

Poor cat, I am very sorry to hear that.

DrPhilG

First off, I'm really sorry for your loss.

Secondly, I'm not one for the claim culture etc. Far from it.

But if this was one of my pets, not only would I not be paying, I would be all over them with a solicitor. Fair enough things can be missed, mistakes can be made. But for 2 of them to miss something that another vet diagnosed so quickly makes it sound very much like they didn't give it the care and attention that they should have. I would also be making a complaint to the Veterinary Council of Ireland, www.vci.ie.

This is not about getting a financial compensation. It's about punishing negligence. I work in a hospital myself and I know very well that no matter how badly someone has been wronged, nothing will make people sit up, take notice and actually ensure that it doesn't happen again is when litigation hits.

On a side note, if the poisoning was deliberate I hope the fecker responsible gets their comeuppance.

893bet

A solicitor....for a cat. Get a grip.


I would be reluctant to pay also but would. The services were used etc, regardless of the final outcome.

I would also be looking more for the source of the poison. Does your cat roam free a bit? If so then it might not be possible to find.

Wesser

I wouldn t pay but I wouldn't bother reporting them to the vetinary council. / getting a solicitor.

Most likely they did their best and made the best judgement call in the situation that they could.

Mooooo

All you can do is go in and make your case, it's possible the early signs were similar to an illness and only as the poison became worse did it become obvious. You went to them and they diagnosed what they saw and treated. Vets can get things wrong and some are better than others but go in and make your case and see what they'll do with the bill

thomasdylan

DrPhilG wrote: »

First off, I'm really sorry for your loss.

Secondly, I'm not one for the claim culture etc. Far from it.

But if this was one of my pets, not only would I not be paying, I would be all over them with a solicitor. Fair enough things can be missed, mistakes can be made. But for 2 of them to miss something that another vet diagnosed so quickly makes it sound very much like they didn't give it the care and attention that they should have. I would also be making a complaint to the Veterinary Council of Ireland, www.vci.ie.

This is not about getting a financial compensation. It's about punishing negligence. I work in a hospital myself and I know very well that no matter how badly someone has been wronged, nothing will make people sit up, take notice and actually ensure that it doesn't happen again is when litigation hits.

On a side note, if the poisoning was deliberate I hope the fecker responsible gets their comeuppance.

Do you understand that a wrong diagnosis isn't negligence?

DrPhilG

thomasdylan wrote: »

Do you understand that a wrong diagnosis isn't negligence?

Of course I do.

I stated in my original post that things happen and mistakes can be made. Also as Moooo stated, the diagnosis may not have been so easy at first until the condition worsened.

But when 2 different vets miss the diagnosis and a third vet at a different practice gets it right first time it suggests to me that it is at least possible that the first practice didn't pay enough attention. That 3rd vet also stated that the cat should have been treated differently and I don't think they are going to make a statement like that criticising their fellow professionals without being damn sure of themselves lest it bites them in the ass later.

Maybe they didn't take it lightly and it was just one of those things, maybe they did and a chance to save the cat was missed.

I for one would not be just shrugging my shoulders and walking away until I had made sure someone gave me that answer.

DrPhilG

DrPhilG wrote: »

I for one would not be just shrugging my shoulders and walking away until I had made sure someone gave me that answer.

Ps, reading back I realise that my first post came across badly. I would not be advocating landing at their door on Monday with a legal team!

As above, I would be wanting answers and if those answers were not up to scratch then I would be taking it further.

As for the scorn about talking to a solicitor about a cat, I fail to see why that is an issue. If (stress the word IF) there was negligence involved then those responsible should be held accountable to prevent the same negligence from happening again.

Tokyo

DrPhilG wrote: »

But when 2 different vets miss the diagnosis and a third vet at a different practice gets it right first time it suggests to me that it is at least possible that the first practice didn't pay enough attention. That 3rd vet also stated that the cat should have been treated differently and I don't think they are going to make a statement like that criticising their fellow professionals without being damn sure of themselves lest it bites them in the ass later.

It's worth bearing in mind that the third vet had the benefit of (a) seeing the cat at a more advanced stage of poisoning, and (b) knowing that two previous vets had treated your cat with fluids and antibiotics, and it hadn't worked, therefore could eliminate a number of possible causes. And professionals in all fields criticise each other all the time.

I'd be in the same camp as the poster above - not being able to diagnose poisoning in an animal doesn't necessarily equate to negligence. It's unfortunate, but that's where it would end for me.

CeilingFly

I reckon that when the vet finds out the cat has died they will cancel the bill.

As for diagnosis - very difficult with an animal as they can't really tell the vet anything and many would follow the same treatment. Only when it got worse and a different vet saw that anti biotics didn't work, did it then become apparent that it was something more serious.

DrPhilG

mike_ie wrote: »

It's worth bearing in mind that the third vet had the benefit of (a) seeing your cat at a more advanced stage of poisoning, and (b) knowing that two previous vets had treated your cat with fluids and antibiotics, and it hadn't worked, therefore could eliminate a number of possible causes. And professionals in all fields criticise each other all the time.

I'm sorry for the loss of your pet, but I'd be in the same camp as the poster above - not being able to diagnose poisoning in an animal doesn't necessarily equate to negligence. It's unfortunate, but that's where it would end for me.

It's not my cat!

Tokyo

DrPhilG wrote: »

It's not my cat!

Apologies - not sure how I mistook you for being the OP Edited my post, but my point to the OP still stands.

the_pen_turner

How do we know that the third vet is right.

Muppet Man

FWIW, I thought my dog might have been posioned previously and the vet talked me through the symptoms. Basically a posioned dog doesn't display a drastic decline in health for a long time after the initial poisoning and then declines very very rapidly. This would be consistent with with two vets misdiagnosis and third vet getting it right. I suspect in this case the250 euro bill will either be wiped or severely reduced. I personally wouldn't go down the legal route... nothing to be gained there and the misdiagnosis was not deliberate. Sorry for your loss.

tayto lover

250 quid for a vet bill ???
You'd have got your cat into the Blackrock Clinic for that.
Robbery.

callaway92

You should be paying. It's heartbreaking but you used their services.

If you don't pay, they'll start chasing you. Will just save you a lot of further stress.

The Witches Cat

Thanks for all the replies. I have no intention of going down any legal routes. I just feel that the original vet could of at least brought up the poisoning issue and treated him to be on the safe side.
The last Vet i dealt with said that they should of took him in and flushed any possible toxins out of his system and not wait for symptoms to worsen.
The poor Cat ended up dying a horrific death that could of been avoided.
He might of died either way but i feel if original vet had of been on the ball a bit more he could of died more peacefully.
Thanks everyone for your comments.

Springwell

Did the first vet clinic take bloodwork?

the beer revolu

tayto lover wrote: »

250 quid for a vet bill ???
You'd have got your cat into the Blackrock Clinic for that.
Robbery.

OP, sorry for your loss.

As per above, how does 2 consultations and a few injections get to €250?

I would have thought about €80 per visit would be quite a lot. Some vets are really taking the p1ss.

The third vet might be the one who made the wrong diagnosis. Have you had a Post Mortem done? That would tell you which was right. I would go to first vet and tell him the outcome and negotiate a deal. You did receive two consultations and treatments.

kathleen37

Why would there be antibiotic injections on both days though? My understanding is that the intravenous antibiotics are long lasting, and so therefore would never be a need to have ab injections on following days?

It seems the first two vets didn't mention poisoning as a possibility at all?

To be fair, without a bloods showing the poison then a PM would need to be done to confirm. Did the 3rd vet know what the poison was?

(Terrible situation, OP - I'm very sorry for your loss)

DrPhilG

Agreed on the cost too.

One of my dogs had to go to the vet one night after hours. She had suddenly got very lethargic and wouldn't eat.

Vet saw her at 9pm, took an x-ray, kept her overnight on a drip and charged me €45.

Turned out the fat pig had broken into the dog food and stuffed herself. All was normal by the next day.

the beer revolu

DrPhilG wrote: »

Vet saw her at 9pm, took an x-ray, kept her overnight on a drip and charged me €45.
.

That's mad cheap, I don't think many vets would charge that little but €125 for a consultation and two injections seems crazy.

There seems to be a mind-boggling scale of charges across the sector. Are vets obliged to display a price list?

DrPhilG

the beer revolu wrote: »

That's mad cheap, I don't think many vets would charge that little but €125 for a consultation and two injections seems crazy

No doubting that my vet is cheap and not the norm. But as you say €250 for what has been described by the OP seems the other end of the unusual scale.

Ms Doubtfire1

The long acting AB is Convenia and is +/- 20 a shot.Lasts about 10 days.
I do think the first vet mis diagnosed, Catflue does not kill a cat that fast.
The vet at the second visit should have copped on very quickly. I wouldn't pay them a single penny over the first visit.:mad:

boomerang

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

The long acting AB is Convenia and is +/- 20 a shot.Lasts about 10 days.

Convenia isn't used for cat flu. It was most likely an injection of Bimoxyl or Betamox, which needs to be repeated every 24hrs.

kathleen37

Bimoxyl and Betamox are both amoxicilin and are intravenous dosage for farm animals (thought reading through the inci, they can be used on cats and dogs) Recommended usage for cats and dogs with amoxicillin is usually via oral administration.

Also, both Bimoxly and Betamox dosage is every 48 hours, so I still don't see how either of these should have been administered on a Friday night then the next Saturday morning?

Having said that, without the OP confirming what actually was done, it's all conjecture..

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I would be taking to the original vet, but what happened to your cat doesn't excuse non payment.

the beer revolu

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

The long acting AB is Convenia and is +/- 20 a shot.Lasts about 10 days.
:

Even if each shot cost €20,that is still leaving an €85 consultation fee!
Is this normal?

My GP charges €50.

Can anyone explain a €250 bill for 2 consultations and 4 shots?

tk123

the beer revolu wrote: »

Can anyone explain a €250 bill for 2 consultations and 4 shots?

Would it be an estimate maybe? An itemised bill will tell for sure.

My vet charges €42 for the first visit and at most €20 for a follow up - but usually they don't charge the €20.... That said another one I'm going to atm (for something the local one doesn't do) isn't a 'local' vet and are pretty expensive.

Ps my GP charges 60!

_Brian

Pay the vet.
The last vet has no idea what symptoms the cat had when presented to the initial practice. You would need a post mortim results to chase for anything or even to be sure tue third vet was right.

We use vets here in the farm and I'd be disappointed to hear one criticise another's work without concrete proof like test results, it's unprofessional behaviour.

State your opinions and pay the bill, pets cost money to keep.

Springwell

No one can be sure what the cat did/didn't have treatment wise without an itemised bill. The OP didn't mention (or reply) if the cat had bloods taken, those are easily €50-80 depending on if they're done in house or sent out. The third vet shouldn't have criticized the first (technically it's also against the VCI code of ethics) as without a post mortem we can't know if they or the first clinic was correct.

Emme

the beer revolu wrote: »

OP, sorry for your loss.

As per above, how does 2 consultations and a few injections get to €250?

I would have thought about €80 per visit would be quite a lot. Some vets are really taking the p1ss.

Some vets are opportunists and do everything they can to rack up the bill even if they know the prognosis isn't good. Somebody I know brought a relative's dog into the vet while the relative was in hospital and they were minding the dog. The dog was 14 and the elderly owner hadn't brought him to the vet for years. The vet subjected the dog to a battery of horrific tests and then pronounced that the dog had to be put down. Nobody wanted the dog to suffer but the dog's death was horrific and the vet had to use a higher dose than normal of the drug to put him to sleep. At the end of that the person was presented with a bill of €250 and the practice had the gall to say they would bury the dog for an extra €20!

I wonder if the OP took her cat to the same practice. If possible the OP should question the vet's bill (I know it's difficult when she's grieving but I'm convinced some unscrupulous vets take advantage of that to jack up the bill). The OP will have to pay the vet some if not all of the bill but she shouldn't pay it without a fight.

boomerang

Emme wrote: »

Some vets are opportunists and do everything they can to rack up the bill even if they know the prognosis isn't good. Somebody I know brought a relative's dog into the vet while the relative was in hospital and they were minding the dog. The dog was 14 and the elderly owner hadn't brought him to the vet for years. The vet subjected the dog to a battery of horrific tests and then pronounced that the dog had to be put down. Nobody wanted the dog to suffer but the dog's death was horrific and the vet had to use a higher dose than normal of the drug to put him to sleep. At the end of that the person was presented with a bill of €250 and the practice had the gall to say they would bury the dog for an extra €20!

I'm sorry someone you know of had a bad experience at the vets but from reading what you wrote it doesn't sound like you're in full possession of the facts. It might make you feel better to know that the "battery of horrific tests" probably simply involved a blood draw and perhaps an x-ray - nothing hard on the dog. It can happen that when the dog is being put to sleep that the vet has to give more of the lethal agent than has been drawn up in the first syringe. But after the first syringe the dog is usually already towards unconsciousness and if you see any gasps of breath for instance, this is purely a reflex. Now if the dog had to be heavily restrained and the vet hadn't put in a catheter then that would have been stressful for all to see.

I can see how the bill would have arrived at €250 for an inpatient needing tests and nursing care, and to be honest even depending on the length of stay, it's not exorbitant. Maybe someone will contradict me but I've yet to meet a vet who was an unscrupulous money-grabber.

OP you should pay the bill.

kaizersoze

_Brian wrote: »

Pay the vet.
The last vet has no idea what symptoms the cat had when presented to the initial practice. You would need a post mortim results to chase for anything or even to be sure tue third vet was right.

We use vets here in the farm and I'd be disappointed to hear one criticise another's work without concrete proof like test results, it's unprofessional behaviour.

State your opinions and pay the bill, pets cost money to keep.

Spot on on all counts.

You never look good trying to make someone else look bad.

Nekarsulm

Bill seems excessive, in my opinion. But talk to the vet first and see what deal you can do/are offered.

Do you have a vegetable garden?

Do you have slug pellets down?

biko

Pay the vet. They did the best they could.

I know you are upset but instead of searching for a person to blame, work with them to see if you can find the source of the issue.

DeadHand

Pay the vet and don't use him again- he's taking you for a ride but you ate the sandwich.

The moral, sensible thing to do here would have been to put the cat down on day one. I have known (a tiny minority) of vets to fleece people on small animals. They exploit the kind of Enid Blyton infantilism we are developing in our attitude toward animals in this country.

You can see this naiviety in evidence on this thread where posters have seriously suggest hiring a solicitor to pursue a medical negligence case on behalf of a bloody cat. Others don't blink at a €250 bill for its treatment.

Nonsense.

Absoluvely

DeadHand wrote: »

The moral, sensible thing to do here would have been to put the cat down on day one. I have known (a tiny minority) of vets to fleece people on small animals. They exploit the kind of Enid Blyton infantilism we are developing in our attitude toward animals in this country.

Ahahaha. You're a funny guy. Your bring your cat to the vet, and the vet says they will give the cat fluids and antibiotics and it will be fine. But apparently the moral, sensible thing to do here is to insist that the cat be put down instead. :pac:

DBB

DeadHand wrote: »

The moral, sensible thing to do here would have been to put the cat down on day one. I have known (a tiny minority) of vets to fleece people on small animals. They exploit the kind of Enid Blyton infantilism we are developing in our attitude toward animals in this country.

You can see this naiviety in evidence on this thread where posters have seriously suggest hiring a solicitor to pursue a medical negligence case on behalf of a bloody cat. Others don't blink at a €250 bill for its treatment.

Nonsense.

DeadHand,
This is a forum for people who love their pets, who view their pets as family members, and who are often prepared to go the extra mile for their pets, financially and otherwise.
We do not refer to anyone's pet as a "bloody" anything here, nor do we ridicule people who are prepared to pay a higher price, with their own money, for various procedures.
Whilst you're welcome to express your opinion here, it may not be done in a manner that comes of as abrasive and patronising towards other pet owners and users of this forum. There are other forums that are considerably more relaxed in how you talk about people and their pets, and you're welcome to opt for one of those instead if you'd rather not rein in your tone on the subject.
Do not reply to this post on thread.
Thanks.
DBB