Kristov

Yes, vets have an obligation to relieve suffering - however, this includes providing euthanasia if the treatment is too expensive for the owner. So sending a suffering animal away without treating it is an offence. Giving the owner two options (PTS or pay for treatment) is not an offence. In other words, the vet is under an obligation to do something to relieve suffering, but they are not under any obligation to provide the owner's preferred treatment if the owner cannot pay for it. 9.4.1 Euthanasia may be considered a legitimate emergency treatment of an animal (under the definition of an "appropriate treatment" in subsection 9(1)(i) of the PCA) in those circumstances where it is impossible or impractical to provide for satisfactory alternative treatment, and where indicated by the registered veterinary practitioner's clinical examination. An owner and vet can come to an arrangement in regard to costs involved in treatment versus euthanasia, but a vet cannot choose to euthanase on the basis of payment for services. Payment is a civil matter and nothing to with the Act especially if the owner authorises treatment and commenses a contract to treat the animal appropriately. The same applies if midway through treatment the owner runs out of money, the vet cannot euthanase the animal as an alternative to providing a treatment regime on the inability to pay basis, or return a partially treated animal to the owner knowingly that suspending the treatment will cause the animal to suffer. Although vets from a business perspective try to avoid these situations, money is secondary to the appropriate treatment of an animal and is one of the reasons so many vets get caught up in non payment situations.

Vets actually have an obligation to treat sick or injured animals and can't refuse treatment on the basis of perhaps not being paid which contravenes the prevention of cruelty to animals act. It also contravenes the obligation guidelines set out by the Veterinary Board and can be struck off the register to practice if found guilty of an offence in those circumstances. They can refuse routine procedures like desexing, annual check ups etc, but not animals suffering illness, pain or injury on a financial basis. They can pursue payment for services via civil court action from a business perspective, but they can't tell an animal owner presenting a sick or injured pet to a registered practice to take the animal away on the basis of finances, neither can they delay treatment awaiting financial instruction allowing an animal to suffer unnecessarily or die in the process. Likewise an animal owner contravenes the prevention of cruelty to animals act by not presenting a sick or injured animal to the vets on the basis of being unable to afford treatment and does not provide a defense to a charge raised against the act. Although from a financial perspective it can be hard on vets at times with non payment and chasing accounts, it's part of the job and obligations they undertake in a similar fashion to a registered Doctor.