~Anne~

Great to hear you go it sorted Pugger!

I hope she is ok. At least you got her back quickly and they were onto it.

Pugger, I'd apply for a credit card that you have solely for Vet bills only. Don't take the amount they offer you on credit though, state clearly that you only want it for $x otherwise you'll likely end up with a credit card that has a limit of $20k or similar. Get a card that has a limit of only $750 for example. You can't get yourself in trouble with something that small, even if you are tempted! Don't carry the card with you, but put it away safely at home so you are not likely to use it for impulse spending (like that gorgeous pair of peep toes in the Myers window!!). Applying for a card though will take time. For the mean time, I'd try to borrow the money from someone as her ears really need to be looked at sooner rather than later. Aziah - some people simply can not afford to have the luxury of ebing able to plan ahead in this world. Many people are lucky to pay regular bills, let alone any others that might crop up unexpetantly. Stop being so harsh and judgemental.

I have never owned a dog that was overly concerned by storms. Every dog my MIL has owned however has had a storm phobia. I am not sure which, if any of what you describe (apart form the obvious) is an issue. The panting one would concern me as this would also indicate a raised heart beat and undue stress which would affect the dog physically, as well as emotionally. The licker has found a way to comfort itself so I would think that while this would not be great, it is better than the one panting perhaps.

I agree with it being a personal thing and with Megz. I have 3. I wouldn't want any more as they are inside dogs and my house would look like a kennel with any more. 3 dogs enables me time to spend with each of them, but to be honest, 2 is a better number for me I think. I would never give up any of my 3, but 2 bowls are easier to carry.... two beds are easy to wash.... having two arms I can only pat 2 at a time as well.

TM - it isn't common for a dog to develop epilepsy in their later years. The most common age for it to develop is between 18 months - 4 years. For a dog to suddenly start to have seizures at 8 years of age would very likely suggest something else. I have never yet heard of a dog being diagnoised with the onset of epilepsy at that age. There is nothing worng with being given anti-counvulsants when you knwo what is causing the the seizures. If the seizures, for example, are caused by toxins then giving it anti-seizure meds will do nothing and may prevent or delay accurate diagnoses.

Keira&Phoneix - seizures are generally not painful. ANti-seizure meds may also cover up what is causing the seizures. Lilipily, as shortstep's post confirms, seizures can be cause by a number of reasons - disease, cancers, toxins (even heavy worm burdens!) and then there is epilepsy. ALl you can do is worj with your vet to determine the cause of them and then try to treat the condition that is causing them.

When I took out insurance for my 2 dogs, one was over 7 at the time and could only get accident only. Correct me of I'm wrong, but can't the brachy breeds can still get accident cover. Given that in the 7 years I have owned my epi Pug, we have averaged $1800 per year in Veterinary fees for him, and he has never had 'an accident' in that time, I can't see the point in paying cover when the main thing I spend money on medically will not be covered. Brachy breeds can certainly be covered, but primarily for annual check-ups and vaccinations, and nothing to do with health related issues. I don't vaccinate my dogs. They visit the Vet more than once per year for their various ailments, so they also never have to visit just for a 'general' check-up either. Insurance in my case is totally useless. I am sure there are many others out there who for various reasons have also decided that insurance is simply not viable for them and their situation.

I would always call first if going to a vet in an emergency to let them know you are coming. This lets them prepare for you and be ready to see you right away, and rearrange any procedures or consults. Even more important if the emergency is after hours at an emergency clinic. This is what I have always been told to do. True, and maybe it is because my knowledge of snake bites is zilch, but I would be in the car calling the Vet while on the way to them.

This thread reminds me of the debates that surround desexing and breeding restriction issues. Why should the majority, who are responsible, be punished for majority?

Insurance on dogs is very limited. I have a dog that can not be insured. He is a brachy breed with a idiopathic epilepsy. The Insurers refuse to cover him for the greater majority of illnesses, if they will even cover him at all. Luckily, I have access to cash when needed and to credit cards, but even more so, I have Vets that I have built a relationship with. Not everyone has these things. I am one of the lucky people in life. The woman who has just loved her pet obviously did not.

But the money has to come from somewhere. If the owner doesn't pay immediately then the vet has to cover the cost. Are you really saying that the vet should cover these things out of their own pocket if owners don't have the money/don't believe they should pay because the dog died/says they can buy a new dog for that amount? The vets bills don't stop. Any business owner factors in loss. It is a part of life. As for people 'beleiving they shouldn't have to pay' I really can't see where you are even getting this from? :D Are your even reading what I am writing? :D No reasonable person expects any business to be cheated from fair payment for services rendered. I will repeat though, that in this situation, we are talking about life and death. The life and death of a dog that was in definite danger of dying and dying sooner rather than later. We are talking about an owner who was able to immediately, in her stress, ascertain that she could arrange part of the full amount. Given a few more days, and when the dog was out of immediate danger, most people would be able to find the balance or work out a solution that was satisfactory to both the business and the client. Instead, the dog is dead. A dog, in an emergency situation, a situation that was not able to be controlled is dead. A dog through no fault of its own is dead. An owner is grieving, all because they were expected to pay in full for a service BEFORE the service was rendered. I'll bet they are blaming themselves or lamenting that only the wealthy in this life can survive it unscathed. How would you feel it if was your dog now dead because you couldn't think quickly on the spot if you could raise the money and pay before treatment even commenced. I am not sure about most people, but I am certainly not living in poverty and yet if I was faced with a sudden possibility of having to pay a few thousand dollars out NOW, RIGHT NOW and not before, it would take me some time to determine how I would re-arrange my finances to do this. The person would have been under duress knowing it was a life and death situation as well. They certainly would not have been in the right mind to be determining finances if finances were tight. As I said earlier, I find it somewhat interesting that the conversation even came to that. Why did the owner phone first? Maybe they were trying to find out if the Vet could handle the emergency or was open? Who knows. Maybe there is more to the story? We can all only assume, guess and offer our opinions. I have offered mine and I don't really give a rats who thinks I am right, wrong or whatever.

Now you are talking about 2 different things.Paying later and being asked to pay upfront.I would expect to pay at the end of treatment/consult.Not before. Yes but how do they know you will pay at the end of the consult? We are talking about anti-venom here which is a considerable expense to the clinic. The Vets first priority should be the welfare of the dog, not the money.

That's the point though, they said they would pay X amount. Saying and doing are two very different things which is why the situation stands as it is. So instead of taking it on good faith, the dog is left to die because of a scenario that may never occur. In other words, the focus of the Vet is on his money and not on the dog. If it were a standard consult, or a medical issue that was not life and death I could well understand this attitude. Sorry, it doesn't matter what way it is looked at, it shows what a sad society we are becoming when this is what the focus is. I am thankful that I have the Vets I do, and the relationship with them that I do. I would never be the porr person in this situation, who through no fault of their own, has to decide f their dog lives or dies because of money. ;)

If you read what was written Danois, it states clearly that the $1,000,000 is bad debt and is attracting interest. It doesn't say that the business owner's loan is for $1,000,000 and that without cash flow thay are attaracting more interest because it is taking longer to eliminate their debt. vetrg: I used to work at a clinic that had over $1,000,000 of outstanding bad debts. With the interest they were paying on that they could have employed another vet. I asked for an explanation as I can not understand this. I can't see what you can't understand about that. On another note, I'd like to be the Vet that is employed there if they are paid to a value of 1 million dollars. Getting back to the actual topic - I still think the request by the Vet was wrong. As it has been pointed out, the owner had already said they could cover part of that amount. Unless that part was a very insiginificant amount, then it should have been accepted. I am just glad that my Vets, and any Vet I have worked with (bar one) has had the animals needs as the highest priority. Financial incentives may be a very close second, but the animals need should still always be first. No-one expects a veterinary practice to be a free for all or a credit provider, but I guess not many expect to have their dog face a life and death situaiton either and have to worry instantly about money. You would expect to at least get the dog to the clinic and treatment commenced before you have to start robbing Peter to pay Paul as the expression goes.

A judging panel.

Yes, I understand this totally. I have owned businesses, and I have also worked in several veterinary clinics, so I can see it from a few different angles. I am not disputing that there has to be a line drawn at all. Vets earn every cent of their money and are worth every cent and more. I am however trying to understand a business that can hold a million dollars in debt and pay interest on that debt in the service industry.

The clinic has a business loan from the bank on which it pays interest, including the bad debts outstanding. Interesting the tax office still expects you to pay tax on bad debts!! Humour me. How do you transfer your bad debts to a business loan? Debtors, in a user pays business, only actually incur actual debt to the value of the product. Services, such as the veterinary care, are not items that are inlcuded in business loans or overdrafts for starters. Am I missing something?

Must be an enormous clinic to rack up a million dollars in debts, and then have that million transfer into overdraft or interest attracting debt to the creditor. ETA - it still doesn't make sense.

Interest on bad debt? How? Who charges you the interest? It doesn't make sense.

Yay! My Vets were nominated. I will have to ring them to make sure they come along!!

I think it sucks. I don't understand why she rang first, apart from ensuring the Vet was able to treat her dog?? How did the discussion come to money? In my view, it is an obvious life or death situation, they should have instructed her to bring the dog straight in. The payment can be sorted later. Yes, clients don't pay, but there are legal avenues for this and the life of a dog was at stake. Since when has the focus on Veterinary care been on money and not the animal? Vets are not charities obviously and a line has to be drawn somewhere, but not for ife and death situations.

Is it the photogrpah or is there redness?? Perhaps there is something causing an allergic reaction that the dog is coming into contact with. How old is he? Is it on all 4 paws?

If that is a dew claw removal scar, the person who removed it (unless it was badly infected and an adult dog) should not be performing these procedures.