Signing over pets

Re: Signing over pets

HMC — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 09:44:35 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

but then the owners have managed to just rid themselves of all responsibility and yet are comforted by the fact that the cat has been treated and rehomed.

[/quote]

No, I never let the clients know what happens to the pet- it is not theirs anymore. I have in the past signed a cat over and immediately euthanased it- this exact situation may not apply to the original post but I still never tell the owner the outcome.

Re: Signing over pets

Hanna Bennett — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 19:41:55 GMT

have a cat in a kennel at work waiting for rehoming as we speak (7mo cheeky tabby boy if anyone is interested!) - had a ruptured eye requiring enucleation but otherwise fit and healthy. chipped/vacced/neutered so owner obviously had tried but when faced with the estimate the first thing she said was ' I didn't choose to have this cat, my son bought him for me'. I can't see putting that cat to sleep so yes, I signed him over, have paid cost price for his surgery myself and he is now well on his way to recovery. if one of my staff did the same I would expect them to contribute to the cost themselves. I would only sign over simple, fixable things - not a cat with a pelvic fracture as there are too many potential complications and keeping it cage rested at the surgery for 6 weeks is not my idea of a nice time for a cat.

Re: Signing over pets

Anthony Dennison — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:16:52 GMT

I spoke to an RSPCA inspector on Monday night OOH as we're the centre that they come to around Blackburn/Burnley. Someone rang the RSPCA (rather than their own vet!) because the dog had had a couple of fits and wanted it sorting.

Some people will try it on as much as possible so they can pay very little/nothing and get a lot back

Re: Signing over pets

Tanya Fielding — Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:39:03 GMT

All the ones that I don't want to PTS are either signed over to a charity who will pay or seem to end up at my house, so only very good natured animals willing to give blood when needed!

Re: Signing over pets

CatherineThomas — Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:50:53 GMT

If I get an animal signed over to the practice I usually get the owner to pay what it would have cost for a euthanasia and that would then go towards it's treatment or care until we find a home for it.

A while ago I had a little dog with a fore limb fracture which the owner's said they couldn't afford to treat. We put a picture of the dog on facebook and sent emails round asking if anyone wanted the dog for a contribution towards surgery. This was done on a saturday. By monday morning we had at least 5 people calling to either offer money towards the treatment or to take the dog and give money. Fortunately the owner's had managed to find enough money to pay for surgery so we didn't need the offers. It also seemed to be quite good advertising for the practice, as everyone was impressed with our efforts to try to save the dog.

Re: Signing over pets

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:54:00 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]I would have treated and rehomed the cat-always assuming that cage rest and analgesia would be sufficient[/quote]

That's the problem... I have no idea what the cat's injuries were. It was passing urine and faeces in its bed and was unable to stand. I suspected pelvic fracture but no diagnostics were carried out.

The issue was that this wasn't a client - the cat was brought in by a neighbour, with an RSPCA log number for the cost of emergency care. The client basically refused to tell us what to do with their cat at all - she just kept saying 'I want to get him treated but I can't look after him myself'. Horrible situation. Would you seriously have undertaken this treatment yourself? If word gets around you'd be inundated with 'stray' cats!!!!

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]alsocontacted RCVS for permission to involve RSPCA - and would be prepared to give evidence . Hopefully the magistrates would have enough sense to ban her from keeping animals for life, and also fine her several thousands. People like that are simply plain evil.[/quote]

As you already know, all the above would be very unlikely to happen in this case.

We had another today. Old thin 'stray' cat brought in by a member of the public, RSPCA log number in hand. (The RSPCA head office had again told the person to bring it to our practice, even though we aren't their nearest!!!) What the hell do the RSPCA want us to do with these cats? The 'kind citizen' kicked off when we said they needed to release it back where they found it, with a note on its collar, as there was nothing else we could do. Apparently they are going to 'report us to the RSPCA' for not admitting it for TLC. We're a sodding veterinary practice, not a charitable home for waifs and strays!

Re: Signing over pets

John Flynn — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:48:31 GMT

[quote user="KathW"]

What are people's policies on getting clients to sign over a pet with (for example) a degloving injury or a fractured leg or ruptured eye ulcer - an injury that will be fairly costly to treat or that requires ongoing treatment and may result in an animal that is less than 100% fit + healthy.

If the clients can't afford the treatment (even if costs spread over a few months) would you push them to opt for euthanasia or get them to sign it over to the practice and then treat it foc and re home it?

We've had a few cases like this and each one has been treated differently - depends a bit on which vet they have seen on initial presentation.

I can't quite reconcile taking the pet away from the owners, treating it and then passing it on to someone else ( who equally may not have the necessary £500 spare next time the pet has a major problem). But the pts option is a tough one as well and not always popular with the nurses.

[/quote]

I've never taken an animal off an owner to treat and then rehome to a new owner just because the first owner couldn't pay for the treatment - if I was treating the pet for free, then I would return it to the original owner - there's no lack of strays in this area for new owners to take on. I have rehomed animals brought in for euthanasia before, but that is because the original owner cannot have or does not want the pet any more rather than due to ill-health.

On a case-by-case basis, I do make offers such as repairing a fractured leg for the price of a euthanasia/amputation (or a reduced fixed cost paid up-front). This would be limited to cases that I was confident would have a good outcome, the owner had made a "final" decision to decline the treatment purely based on my estimate of costs and thus was not just trying it on, I was satisfied that the owner would provide the appropriate post-op care, I had the time available to do such treatment without putting off paid work (equally, if a staff member is willing to give up a couple of hours on a Saturday morning to charitably assist with such a case, then I will match that charitable commitment if I can).

I also sometimes do treatment at reduced cost or free-of-charge because it will take less of my time to do so than to not to do so.

Re: Signing over pets

KathW — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:35:55 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Kath W It costs the practice a LOT to treat these animals. Why should irresponsible owners have them back?

Wynne

[/quote]

I don't think they should have them back and they don't get them back. some aren't irresponsible , just impecunious and have hit hard times. But my gripe is that I agree it does cost the practice A LOT to treat and rehome so I would harden my heart and go for PTS in most cases as there are plenty of healthy animals out there needing homes.

I just wondered what others thought and I think it is a case by case thing and sometimes treatment and re homing is does for the benefit of staff relations rather than pure economics. That's not necessarily a bad thing when the bigger picture is take into account.

Re: Signing over pets

Utlendigur — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:27:56 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]she basically said she was too busy with her life to look after the cat - and kept ignoring our phone calls and trying to shirk all responsibility.[/quote]

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]I hope she always feels guilty - I think rehoming the cat would have assuaged some of that guilt,[/quote]

IMHO she doesn't sound like someone who is going to feel a lot of guilt

Re: Signing over pets

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:59:48 GMT

I would have treated and rehomed the cat-always assuming that cage rest and analgesia would be sufficient - but alsocontacted RCVS for permission to involve RSPCA - and would be prepared to give evidence . Hopefully the magistrates would have enough sense to ban her from keeping animals for life, and also fine her several thousands. People like that are simply plain evil.

Wynne

Re: Signing over pets

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:27:55 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Get them tosign it over, treat it and then rehome it is my policy [/quote]

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]zero encouragement to owners to try it on[/quote]

but then the owners have managed to just rid themselves of all responsibility and yet are comforted by the fact that the cat has been treated and rehomed.

I had a cat this weekend - RTA ME 18m old tom, brought in by a neighbour who saw it lying under a bush for 2 days. Probable fractured pelvis. We managed to get hold of the owner but she basically said she was too busy with her life to look after the cat - and kept ignoring our phone calls and trying to shirk all responsibility. After 3 days like this, with said cat kept as comfortable as possible on pain relief, I gave her 2 options - PTS immediately or agree to come in and take some responsibility. (She kept hinting at rehoming the cat but in its condition that would have been impossible.) In the end it was PTS. I hope she always feels guilty - I think rehoming the cat would have assuaged some of that guilt, which I had no intention of doing. And at least the cat is no longer suffering, and she may think twice before getting another.

Re: Signing over pets

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:43:38 GMT

Kath W It costs the practice a LOT to treat these animals. Why should irresponsible owners have them back?

Wynne

Re: Signing over pets

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:41:05 GMT

Get them tosign it over, treat it and then rehome it is my policy (within reason-not if it involves referral.). I think it's really the only policy I'd be comfortable with. I have the comforting feeling that I've done my best for the animal,zero encouragement to owners to try it on,and I'll only consider owners I know, and whose other animals are insured for rehoming. Some have ended up with me. Bloody owners-don't they make life difficult

Wynne

Re: Signing over pets

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:48:48 GMT

[quote user="KathW"]

I'm sorry I obviously didn't make myself clear enough in my first post. when I said treat foc I meant the practice pays for all the treatment (rather than a staff member pays - maybe at just cost of drugs but still pays). Not that the pet is treated foc and handed back to original owner.

[/quote]

No, I think we all understood - it's just that if the client doesn't pay for tx, the practice does, irrespective of whether it's the client's cat or the practice's signed over cat. Lost revenue, cost of drugs, staff time, etc. If you're willing and able to do that, go for it; but outside of insurance and charitable organizations there is no other party who will cover your costs. The fact that the practice isn't necessarily taking physical money for the treatment done, well, something (money) still paid for your drugs and kit and kennels and staff.

As Evelyn quite rightly said, if you're going to treat for free, just do it - but do understand the costs involved. Money may not change hands but that doesn't make it free or cheap.

Re: Signing over pets

KathW — Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:23:48 GMT

Of course I'm talking cats as well as dogs so sometimes a low cost animal. I agree the most annoying/frustrating are the ones who have bought a pedigree and they can't pay when it get injured a few weeks later (and haven't taken out insurance as advised at the time of vaccinations).

[quote user="KathW"]

If the clients can't afford the treatment (even if costs spread over a few months) would you push them to opt for euthanasia or get them to sign it over to the practice and then treat it foc and re home it?

[/quote]

Re: Signing over pets

Utlendigur — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:50:33 GMT

We don't really have a policy either, or it maybe better summed up as "it depends". It depends on the vet. It depends on why the client can't afford treatment - big difference between someone who can't pay because they've just spent hundreds of pounds buying their must-have pedigree and now can't afford to treat it, and a good longstanding client with a much loved pet who's just been made redundant - the former would probably be the PTS or sign over route (why should they have their irresponsibility funded by others?) the latter would probably get treatment very heavily discounted and payment spread over a long period. It depends on the pet - if it's going to be chronically ill, poor prognosis, poor temperament then it will probably be PTS, on the other hand there are some that really get to you and you want to give them every chance. I don't see there is any reason to treat completely free of charge, especially with the risk of being seen as a soft touch. If an owner cares about an animal they can usually find a token amount towards costs - if they can't (won't) pay anything it's usually a sign they don't really care, in which case depriving them of the animal by either pts or signing over doesn't seem too severe. If I get an owner to sign a pet over though, I do usually try to cover the cost price of treating it myself so the practice isn't out of pocket. We do find that a lot of sign-overs go home with a staff member, or friend/relative of staff member, for recuperation and just sort of stay ....

Re: Signing over pets

KathW — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:30:57 GMT

I don't think we should treat for free or reduced costs - word gets around very fast! I wouldn't do that.

I'd go for the " as much as you can pay up front and then what can you pay over the next 3 or 4 months and how can we help you keep your pet" option. Otherwise I go for the PTS as I'm a realist and want to get paid too. I have done the PTS option in these cases several times - costs of treatment have to come into weighing up the options.

I think it's one thing to treat a stray and then re home it but it seems rough all round to take it from one owner then treat for free and re home it elsewhere.

If there is a potential few hundred pounds in the ether to treat stray or abandoned animals that get brought to us then to my mind it will go a lot further on the fitter healthier ones that we keep in for a few weeks and re home. Perhaps it's the pragmatist and farmer's granddaughter in me but I wondered if my viewpoint was too harsh?

Re: Signing over pets

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:15:52 GMT

[quote user="KathW"]

We've had a few cases like this and each one has been treated differently - depends a bit on which vet they have seen on initial presentation.

[/quote]

Hi Kath!

The trouble is, your only other option is to treat it for free. And that will get you no end of trouble, because your other paying clients will logically deduce that if they act poor enough, they don't have to pay either. And that is horribly unfair for you - because while we don't do it for the huge paycheck and the fancy cars, if we do it for nothing we will starve. (oddly enough, even though you ask them not to tell their friends about that free tx, word always gets out. Go figure.)

You're right, it financially makes no sense to get the pet signed over and rehome it - but it's our little gesture that says 'well i'm going to help this one, sod it!' If you just treat it for free and send it back home to the owners, they'll be back for free treatment next time too.

Charity is noble, but your nurses will be even less pleased if your practice can't afford to pay them! ;)

You're absolutely right it's a rough situation and there are no winners here. I've done the signing over...once. And i've done the PTS...depends on the owner and the pet; an aggressive pet can't be rehomed, and some owners do the 'if i can't have him nobody can' number.

I don't like the signing over bit, but in a bit of a Nuremberg defense, i wasn't the practice boss and i was young and foolish! :)

Re: Signing over pets

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:11:49 GMT

I've never done such a thing, or considered it. If you are going to treat it free of charge, well, treat it free of charge.