Sherlock Bones Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 I read this article today in the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/fema...in_page_id=1879 I have to say, I am horrified, and I think, had I have been the vet involved, I'd have called the RSPCA on her for failing to seek veterinary treatment - but does she have a point, at all? Her cat was sick and she knew the vet would charge to try treatment... and she didn't want it. My personal opinion is that, if she doesn't care for her cat and it's well being then she simply shouldn't own one. Not least does she not seek vaccination so cannot be protecting the health of that cat... and comparing it to kids with nothing in Africa? I'm not sure it's a comparison that can be made, or can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khanu Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 (edited) To be honest reading that article the woman comes over as a callous uncaring bitch. Saying she didn't care what they did with her cats body - they could sell the fur for gloves! She didn't want to be present when they "put her down", it's horrifying. To not want treatment that may prolong suffering is one thing. But I can't help thinking that the vet was maybe concerned by the womans attitude. I'm sure vets get many people who want their pets put to sleep as they can't be bothered any more - maybe this woman appeared to be one of them? Edited November 25, 2007 by khanu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennyB Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 (edited) I couldn't stand her attitude either Edited November 25, 2007 by PennyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 What a horrible woman I was shocked at her comment about the fur gloves, her attitude to the card sent by the practice and mostly by the fact she saw fit to deny her other cat any vet treatment for months, I'm not surprised the vet acted as they did, and I for one am glad she left the surgery so upset, it's the least she deserved, did she actually think someone would feel sympathy for her ? I can understand she was annoyed at having to spend nearly 400 quid for her other cat but it was no reason to just leave the other cat to slowly die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 I think it's an upsetting article to read and not one I would recommend to anyone who has recently lost a beloved animal The woman comes across as lacking in compassion. I hope and feel, given the fact she had those cats for 20 years, that that is not the case, but she does not come across well in the article at all. She seems more focused on the loss of money than the loss of her cats, which is very sad. On the issue of vaccinations - and I don't wish to turn this into a debate on that - but there are plenty of people who opt not to vaccinate their pets, at least not annually, following lots of research, thought and discussion. Unlike this lady who apparently just couldn't be bothered. Nor bothered to neuter them either, if the comments about not having previously taken them to the vet are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 (edited) None of us likes having to pay extortionate vets fees (and if she had had the cat insured she wouldn't have had to). However, she has put her own annoyance at the vets fees above the wellbeing of her cat, which is unacceptable IMO Isn't it against the law anyway to withold treatment for a sick or injured animal? On the issue of vaccinations - and I don't wish to turn this into a debate on that - but there are plenty of people who opt not to vaccinate their pets, at least not annually, following lots of research, thought and discussion. Unlike this lady who apparently just couldn't be bothered. Nor bothered to neuter them either, if the comments about not having previously taken them to the vet are correct. Wot she said. Edited November 25, 2007 by madmerle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 I'm sure there are those here who also don't like & perhaps even can't really afford "extortionate" vetinerary fees but when it's needed they find that money no matter what. Looking at the photo, her choice of paper & her general attitide I don't think this woman was short of £400 yet seems more worried about spending it than listening to expert opinion & the well fare of her cats. The fact that she admits having listened to a cat wail in pain and not sought vetinerary help for months ought to be enough to get the RSPCA looking at prosecuting her in my opinion. I don't suppose they'll publish it but my comment was along the lines of angry - why? They did exactly what she wanted contrary to their opinion except that she had to see it happen & that in her shoes I'd be ashamed of comments about Freddies body not publishing the story like she'd been wronged! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenda Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Re vaccianation, I chose not to vaccinate my cats & dogs when they get to about 7. I think they have all the protection they need by then and I have heard enough stories lately about pets suffering from auto immune disease as a result of vaccination to convince me I am doing the right thing. My vet even agreed with me!! I have done lots of research though and didn't reach this decision lightly Sorry, slightly off topic, I agree with everyone else's comments on the woman though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel Rumpelstiltskin Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 I can understand the womans 'annoyance' about the vets fees. Also the fact that insuring a cat costs very little and she wouldnt of had to pay £400. Recently Sheena broke out of her crate, when left, and ate nearly her body weight in dog food. By midnight she was very quiet and had a very compacted stomach. So at midnight set of the the vets who x-rayed her and said they would keep her in for observations but because she is a lively dog it would be better if she sat calmly at home and watched carefully. We were in the vets for less than 15 mins and the bill was £200. That works out at paying our vet £13 a min to examine sheena. Of course we were shocked at the amount but will always pay that amount of money to know she is safe. She didnt have the cat examined for kidney disease. I will never go to a 'friend' for professional advice. Go to a professional, have the animal examined. I have just googled kidney disease and it seems that there are many things that can be done to prolong and give a cat a better quality of life without suffering. In my opinion she left the animals to suffer without seeking veterinary advice. The woman took her cat to a vets for it to be pts and the vet felt that PTS wasnt a suitable course of action. I also said again that I had mentioned, on making the appointment, that I neither wanted the cat treated, nor to discuss the matter. The vet said that it was my decision and I reiterated that I had made it, that I wished for the cat to be painlessly put to sleep - but not in my presence. This is a life she is talking about! The vet should of said no and refused to put the cat pts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruby1Nic Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Well, I may be a lone voice here, with some of my opinions I agree that the " sell his fur gloves " comment is insensitive in the extreme and certainly not how I would personally refer to any beloved pet of mine. Neither would I allow a pet of mine to suffer if veterinary treatment meant that my pet's quality of life could be improved. However, the fact that the lady did not want to be present at the time of pet's passing is, in my opinion, a matter of choice for each individual. I have been present at the passing of both dogs that we had put to sleep. However, my OH was not able to be at the first. He was far far too upset - he was present during the second. On the other hand I felt I wanted to be there until the end. (The 1st put to sleep was very traumatic and was not peaceful so I'm glad my OH wasn't there really, however our 2nd dogs passing was peaceful). On each occasion, after I walked out of the surgery, I had no inclination at all to want the ashes or the body. In my mind, I had lost my dogs a long time before I took them for their final journey, and what was left on the table was not my pet. I feel, as perhaps this lady does, that I don't need ashes or to bury a body to remember my pets - I can 'see' them any time I want - I just close my eyes and they are there And now I'm all (Sorry bit of a digression there, and I'm not sure if I've raised my point adequately ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maria Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 I would agree that it's up to the owner if they want to stay or not with their pet when being pts.... However, this 'lady' came across to me as being resentful of having to pay for any vets treatment for her cats, and the comparison with children anywhere was irrelevant imho .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EGAR Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 It happens very day of the week but we never hear about it as it is rarely made public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melp Posted November 27, 2007 Report Share Posted November 27, 2007 I feel, as perhaps this lady does, that I don't need ashes or to bury a body to remember my pets - I can 'see' them any time I want - I just close my eyes and they are there I'm wth you on this. While I appreciate that some people need to have their pets ashes back, it's not something I want. My cats are buried in the garden, my dogs bodies were left at or taken to the vets. They weren't there any more, what was left was just a shell. I don't need a physical reminder to remember my pets. I do think the vet was probably a little harsh and it sounds like the euthanasia was rushed to make a point, thats out of order for the animals sake. The woman though deserves a good slap, withholding treatment for a pet she claimed to have loved is a disgrace. How can anyone listen to an animal in pain and do nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted November 27, 2007 Report Share Posted November 27, 2007 Well, I may be a lone voice here, with some of my opinions However, the fact that the lady did not want to be present at the time of pet's passing is, in my opinion, a matter of choice for each individual. I feel, as perhaps this lady does, that I don't need ashes or to bury a body to remember my pets - I can 'see' them any time I want - I just close my eyes and they are there And now I'm all (Sorry bit of a digression there, and I'm not sure if I've raised my point adequately ) Generally speaking I'd agree with you. In this case though I think the vet did it for a reason. Unlike your closing lines this woman appears to have been more worried about money than her cat. She wasn't prepared to consider treatment and contrary to advice just wanted the cat pts - but wanted the vet to do her dirty work but not have to witness it happen. The vet was in my opinion just showing her the horror she felt. That said I'd rather they'd taken themoney for euthenasia & used it to try & treat the cat afterthe woman left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fee Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 The tone of this woman's article sucks and it's horrible she was prepared to leave her cat in pain without treatment, and then practically boast about it! I do, though, think it highlights a wider problem of when to stop treatment of old/very sick animals. I'm sure there are times when some vets will carry on recommending tests and treatment beyond the point where it's in the animal's best interests, and I'm afraid you have to suspect they are thinking of the money rather than the animal's welfare. One of my biggest regrets is putting Spotty Dog, my first ever dog, through a major operation when he was 15. I was very unsure, but was persuaded by the vet that I should 'give him a chance' - and of course I was absolutely desperate not to lose him, so was very vulnerable to being pressurised into it. In the event he lived only another month, and if I could take anything in my life back it would be putting him through all that pain and distress in his final weeks. If either of my current old (14 year old) dogs develop a serious/life threatening condition then my priority would be to keep them pain free and comfortable as long as possible, and I'd be very reluctant to put them through invasive tests or treatment, whatever the vet recommends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts