And a Little More With the Head Exploding

Gina says my head explodes a lot. Well, it does. But I swear, I don't get up every morning intending it to happen. People just keep saying things and the next thing ya know, cranial combustion.

Today it was someone on one of my email lists suggesting... are you sitting down?... that if your pet dies while your vet is treating him or her, you shouldn't have to pay the vet.

I'm going to disguise the circumstances slightly to protect the stupid guilty innocent:

The poster's newly purchased purebred puppy has diarrhea and is vomiting. Naturally, she suspects canine parvovirus, and goes to the vet, where she is told that if it's parvo, the treatment will be hospitalization and fluids and antibiotics and the cost will be somewhere around a thousand dollars and there is no guarantee the pup will survive.

I wish this vet had known about Tamiflu, but that aside, this is standard treatment for a puppy with parvo, and while survival rates in the hands of a really good vet with a case caught early are close to 85 percent, still, there really cannot be a guarantee that the puppy will survive. Parvo is a puppy killer.

Now, at this point, the owner of this pup hasn't actually said anything about not being able or willing to pay for this treatment, but implied that she was interested in holistic therapies to use in case her puppy didn't respond to conventional treatment, or as supportive care. Before I could reply, a few people jumped in with suggestions of various herbal treatments, stern admonishments to not, under any circumstances, let the bloodsuckers at the vet hospital keep her darling pupper, and if she already had, go get him out and bring him home and use (insert magical recipe here).

My post recommended that she keep her puppy in the hospital getting IV fluids, give her vet information on Tamiflu, and use holistic supportive care when the puppy got home.

I was promptly informed that the owner couldn't afford to put her puppy in the hospital, so she was instead looking for "home remedies" for one of the most deadly of all canine diseases. She also ranted quite a bit about the fact that the vet wouldn't provide this care on credit, and expected to be paid regardless of whether the puppy survived or not.

I understand that some people can't afford to get appropriate vet care for their pets. Some people can't afford to get appropriate medical care for themselves or their children. Some people can't  afford to buy enough to eat.

These are tragic circumstances. But when I'm asked my advice, I don't automatically assume that someone can't afford to take it.  And after all, this person had a brand new purebred puppy, and a computer, and she went to the vet.  Without information to the contrary, I think the first round of advice should be the best medical advice, not the cheapest.

As to the rest of it, there is certainly getting to be a gap between what's available out there on the cutting edge of veterinary medicine and what any pet owner, even a fairly well-off one, can afford.

The problem is, vets have the same skills and get the same training and pay as much money to become vets as human doctors, and yet make a tiny fraction of what human doctors make. They make less than human DENTISTS. They have to pay their staffs, pay for their facilities, pay for medications and fluids and equipment. They take continuing education and pay insurance and many of them even offer benefits to their employees. They aren't credit bureaus or banks, to be able to offer financing programs to their clients. Especially when there already are businesses who do just that, such as CareCredit or even regular charge cards. My car mechanic and my doctor don't offer payment plans. The local drugstore doesn't offer a payment plan. Why should my vet?

As to not paying if your pet dies, again, unless the vet did something wrong, I don't understand this. What vet would risk treating a pet - paying staff, using up hospital space, paying for drugs, supplies, tests and equipment - if they won't get paid if the pet does not survive? Again, if the vet did something wrong that causes the pet to die, of course you shouldn't pay them.  If a vet does something genuinely wrong and kills my pet, I not only won't pay them, I'll sue them.

But if they did all they could and your pet dies anyway, what is the logic or justice in them not being paid? Did they not do their best? Did they not expend their efforts on behalf of your pet? I just don't understand in what fantasy world this makes the slightest bit of sense.

Comments

[nancy]

Cranial combustion- I am so stealing that phrase! good one! That owner would have sent my head into orbit as well. That is frustrating when people come to your list, not for the best possible advice, as in being an advocate, but to do it on the cheap. gggrrrr

[Nan]

I'm gonna preach the other side here. The problem is, it's absolutely true. Not everyone can afford the best veterinary care. It doesn't stop their pets from having emergencies. Sure, there are those that would state that no one should have a pet if they can't afford to drop thousands of dollars at the vet on demand - but in the real world, there are a lot of wonderful families that struggle financially under such circumstances. To restrict pet ownership to only those that have the savings to cover any medical emergency on demand is to restrict an already too-small pool of homes in a world where millions of unwanted pets die yearly due to lack of homes. That seems callous and irresponsible to me. Sometimes family circumstances change. When I adopted the pets I currently have, I was financially able to provide whatever veterinary care they needed. Now, I struggle to do so, opting for homeopathic equivalents anywhere I can do so without compromising their health, due to changes in my financial situation. But I defy anyone to state that I am a bad pet owner for this reason.

Your mechanic and your doctor may not allow you to pay on credit - but your car will not suffer and die if it is not repaired in a timely fashion - you have the option to carpool or use public transportation (options that are better for the environment anyway.) A human has the option to go to an emergency room, where s/he cannot be turned away for lifesaving care, or to appeal to any one of several governmental or charitable organizations for help with medical bills. Pets do not have these options - in many cases, the best they can hope for is euthanasia if their owner is not able to immediately come up with the money to cover vet bills, and the vet is not willing to work with the owner on financial matters. The fact that many poor people do without needed medications due to financial constraints doesn't make it right or just - it's an indictment of a capitalistic system that puts corporate welfare over patient welfare.

I agree that the vet has expenses and must be paid - and I agree that someone that has the money to pay for a purebred pup should have the money to pay for adequate veterinary care for that pup as well. But to condemn people who love their pets for not having the income to pay skyrocketing medical costs for them is wrong. Allowing clients to make payments over time can make a life-or-death difference, and is something that all vets that care more for their patients than their bottom lines should do.