Maximum Price For Desexing

[Staranais]

Absoloutely disagree that IVF is a waste of time. We definately recommend both bloods and IVF.

It is definitely the "gold standard", and I prefer all of my animals to be on fluids any time they're under GA (especially my cats - considering how prone older cats are to kidney issues, and how easily renal perfusion can drop under GA, I personally think it's really important to support cats with fluid any time they're under.

I probably won't bother with blood tests when I get my young girl operated on in a month or so, though, just because of her age. Although admittedly, basic blood work on all animals before a GA is probably gold standard procedure too. I definitely would get her bloods run if she were old, or ill in any way.

It's true that humans don't necessarily get blood work done before operations, and aren't always on fluids for minor procedures, but it's important to understand that humans are kept at a much lighter plane of anaesthetic than animals are, using a different cocktail of drugs to do so (humans are typically given neuromuscular junction blockers to relax their muscles, so they can be given much less actual anaesthetic agent than we give to animals). Humans also generally have much more monitoring equipment on them, and generally many more skilled people looking after them during the procedure (not just one GP doctor, with perhaps a nurse helping out!) My anaesthesia lecturer told us in class that healthy humans tend to die under anaesthesia at a rate of about 1/10,000. For healthy cats and dogs, the death rate is somewhere around 1/1000 - ten times as high, just because of the greater anaesthetic depth and lower level of monitoring they generally receive. And for horses, for various reasons, it's about 1/100! My point being, human and animal anaesthesia can't be directly compared. We do things a little differently for humans and for animals, and the risks are sometimes different as a result.

I have no idea how much spaying should cost in Australia, but I wonder if the clinic the OP's puppy buyer went to is in a high socioeconomic area? Clinics do charge different prices in different areas. Partly to cover a much higher rent, partly because they can. Vets like to make a profit, just like everyone else, and some choose to do that by running a practice in a richer area and charging what the market will pay.

[stormie]

Absoloutely disagree that IVF is a waste of time. We definately recommend both bloods and IVF.

Bloods - not all animals who are in early stages of renal/liver failure will be showing clinical symptoms. Approx 2/3 of the kidney will be non functioning before the animal really shows signs visible to us. Not sure about the liver. I think doing pre an bloods is best practice and it should be offered and let the clients know exactly what we get from them.

IVF is so critical. Anaesthetics that we use (Iso in particular) often cause a drop in blood pressure, if the animals blood pressure drops during surgery we can give a bolus or up the fluid rate to counteract that.

I think it was something like an animal only has to have low blood pressure for 20-30 minutes to cause damage to organs (kidneys in particular). Cant remember why, but my vet has gone through this with me when I started there as she wants to ensure all her nurses understand the importance of IVF.

I think it is really poor practice that a clinic wouldnt recommend fluids for any animal, regardless of age/health status.

Vet clinics should be offering their clients everything they have available to them. I actually think it should be compulsory for all animals having surgery to be on fluids

I agree with you, but disagree with my bolded part. It should not be 'offered'. If it's important, it should be done full stop, not because the owner requested it. When humans go in for surgery, we are not offered 'extras' like that - we put our trust in the surgeons that we will receive everything we need. I think it should be exactly the same for animals. Owners shouldn't be made to decide IMO, it's not fair to ask if they want extras and have to pay for it and not fair to tell an owner there were 'complications' because they elected no fluids etc.

It's something that will absolutely never happen in our clinic.

Edited April 21, 2010 by stormie

[cointreau]

Absoloutely disagree that IVF is a waste of time. We definately recommend both bloods and IVF.

Bloods - not all animals who are in early stages of renal/liver failure will be showing clinical symptoms. Approx 2/3 of the kidney will be non functioning before the animal really shows signs visible to us. Not sure about the liver. I think doing pre an bloods is best practice and it should be offered and let the clients know exactly what we get from them.

IVF is so critical. Anaesthetics that we use (Iso in particular) often cause a drop in blood pressure, if the animals blood pressure drops during surgery we can give a bolus or up the fluid rate to counteract that.

I think it was something like an animal only has to have low blood pressure for 20-30 minutes to cause damage to organs (kidneys in particular). Cant remember why, but my vet has gone through this with me when I started there as she wants to ensure all her nurses understand the importance of IVF.

I think it is really poor practice that a clinic wouldnt recommend fluids for any animal, regardless of age/health status.

Vet clinics should be offering their clients everything they have available to them. I actually think it should be compulsory for all animals having surgery to be on fluids

I agree with you, but disagree with my bolded part. It should not be 'offered'. If it's important, it should be done full stop, not because the owner requested it. When humans go in for surgery, we are not offered 'extras' like that - we put our trust in the surgeons that we will receive everything we need. I think it should be exactly the same for animals. Owners shouldn't be made to decide IMO, it's not fair to ask if they want extras and have to pay for it and not fair to tell an owner there were 'complications' because they elected no fluids etc.

It's something that will absolutely never happen in our clinic.

This topic has become very interesting about what the standard should be etc.

IMO you need to trust your vet and should not just select a vet to desex (or any other prcedure) your pet because of price. I have left my dogs and cats at the vet with the knowledge that what is required in my pets best interests will be done and I don't expect to be asked do I want this or that, nor be informed it is going to cost so many $ more if you want this. My vet and his/her nurse are entrusted to do what is the best and I believe a duty of care to provide the best care for the best outcome. Prior to any surgery or treatment I also believe I have a responsibility to inform the clinic if I am unable to afford any more than I am quoted or I need to pay the amount off to avoid embarrasing situations after surgery.

I don't believe in Vet shopping and feel if you have a good Vet stick with them, they get to know you and your pet saving a few dollars in the short term is not worth a Vet you don't trust.

[jrm88]

Sorry stormie, i absoloutely agree with you. I wish my clinic did take away the decisions for owners in regards to IVF.

Unfortunately I dont think it will happen in alot of clinics due to financial issues.

[Staff'n'Toller]

This topic has become very interesting about what the standard should be etc.

IMO you need to trust your vet and should not just select a vet to desex (or any other prcedure) your pet because of price. I have left my dogs and cats at the vet with the knowledge that what is required in my pets best interests will be done and I don't expect to be asked do I want this or that, nor be informed it is going to cost so many $ more if you want this. My vet and his/her nurse are entrusted to do what is the best and I believe a duty of care to provide the best care for the best outcome. Prior to any surgery or treatment I also believe I have a responsibility to inform the clinic if I am unable to afford any more than I am quoted or I need to pay the amount off to avoid embarrasing situations after surgery.

I don't believe in Vet shopping and feel if you have a good Vet stick with them, they get to know you and your pet saving a few dollars in the short term is not worth a Vet you don't trust.

Unfortunately a decent percentage of the population do shop around. Many treat the Vet like their bulk bill doctor and price and least distance from home plays a large part in their decision making.

Lots of people don't think the same way you do & don't feel that they need to advise that they have no money to pay the bill.

You only need to do a thread search here to see how many people think that Vet Clinics are a total rip. It comes down to the relationship people have with their dogs, whether the dog even comes inside the house at all and how much they paid for the dog in the first place. I.e. we have lots of trouble getting a consult fee out of someone with a sick rabbit that cost a fifth of the price to buy. They just don't see the point.

You have to remember too, that for some generations here (in Oz I mean) their animals were desexed on the needle (no gas anaesthetic) no pain relief and were for the most part, fine afterwards.

Not trying to be totally negative, many retired people have their pets as child substitutes and would spend any amount on them which is lovely. Just trying to put across another POV.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Staff'n'Toller

[WoofnHoof]

I think it's often those of us who have learned the hard way who would opt for the full bloods and fluids, I wouldn't have even thought of it prior to my boy getting sick and the last thing my vets thought he would have was a liver shunt so because it wasn't routine it didn't get done.

It's easy to say with hindsight I would much rather have paid an extra couple of hundred at desexing than the several thousand in emergency treatment and diagnostics when he crashed.

[shells]

I am in Canberra. I had my boy desexed at a clinic recommended to me close by and it cost $260. My friend had her dog done at another local clinic and it cost $150. Both standard ops, no complications and recovery seemed the same.

The vet I used is in a big, nice looking clinic and the other is a little run down. FWIW after doing a bit more research the vet my friend used comes highly recommended but I guess people (like me) who didnt know who to ask and hadnt researched go to the big, nice looking clinics and thats why they can charge more.

[cointreau]

This topic has become very interesting about what the standard should be etc.

IMO you need to trust your vet and should not just select a vet to desex (or any other prcedure) your pet because of price. I have left my dogs and cats at the vet with the knowledge that what is required in my pets best interests will be done and I don't expect to be asked do I want this or that, nor be informed it is going to cost so many $ more if you want this. My vet and his/her nurse are entrusted to do what is the best and I believe a duty of care to provide the best care for the best outcome. Prior to any surgery or treatment I also believe I have a responsibility to inform the clinic if I am unable to afford any more than I am quoted or I need to pay the amount off to avoid embarrasing situations after surgery.

I don't believe in Vet shopping and feel if you have a good Vet stick with them, they get to know you and your pet saving a few dollars in the short term is not worth a Vet you don't trust.

Unfortunately a decent percentage of the population do shop around. Many treat the Vet like their bulk bill doctor and price and least distance from home plays a large part in their decision making.

Lots of people don't think the same way you do & don't feel that they need to advise that they have no money to pay the bill.

You only need to do a thread search here to see how many people think that Vet Clinics are a total rip. It comes down to the relationship people have with their dogs, whether the dog even comes inside the house at all and how much they paid for the dog in the first place. I.e. we have lots of trouble getting a consult fee out of someone with a sick rabbit that cost a fifth of the price to buy. They just don't see the point.

You have to remember too, that for some generations here (in Oz I mean) their animals were desexed on the needle (no gas anaesthetic) no pain relief and were for the most part, fine afterwards.

Not trying to be totally negative, many retired people have their pets as child substitutes and would spend any amount on them which is lovely. Just trying to put across another POV.

Staff'n'Toller I don't see you as being negative rather realistic though and yes I do see the other POV. The discussion might make some people think more about why they use a certain clinic or produce supplier rather than just accepting the closest or cheapest.