Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

salome2001 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:48:05 GMT

The issue of charity clinics is an interesting one, especially for me as a non-UK trained vet. In Australia I worked for the RSPCA in Sydney in its "private clinic". It was a very different beast to the RSPCA hospitals here: it was not a charity clinic as such, but actually existed as a regular small animal vet hospital that charged the equivalent rates to the other practices in the area, and which existed to generate income to run the other parts of the RSPCA hospital (shelter, inspectorate). It was more generous than other practices in terms of allowing payment plans for treatment, and did shoulder a disproportionate amount of bad debts compared to private practices, but the ethos was NEVER on cheap - let alone free- treatment.

The vet in charge when I was employed was quite blunt- pet ownership was a privilege and not a right, and responsible pet ownership meant coughing up for veterinary treatment. If you couldn't afford it, you could surrender the animal to the RSPCA and they would rehome it with someone who could.

I think he was right.

I do wonder if the mentality that expects someone else to pick up the tab for veterinary treatment that exists here with charity vet hospitals is just an extension of the welfare mentality that expects a free 4 bedroom council flat and a truckload of benefits for squeezing out a bevy of illegitimate sprogs.

One last memory of a client at the RSPCA: old lady in her 70s at least, old cat, needed an operation. Given an estimate, couldn't see how she could afford it, was going to speak to family about helping out. The lady called back the next day to give the OK for the surgery. She'd sold some antique clocks. It's all a matter of priorities.

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Clive Ansell — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:02:22 GMT

Another one this morning. I've just returned from a home visit to pts an elderly dog that normally attends the PDSA. I am puzzled that people who cannot afford veterinary treatment can afford nearly £300 for a home visit and individual cremation with return of ashes in casket. Also noted while I was there two new cars on the drive, and a massve plasma screen TV and media centre in the lounge. Maybe we should have declined the visit and advised that the £300 was donated to the PDSA?

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:25:36 GMT

Example of the irresponsible. Elderly widow, basic OAP and nothing else, and several pets (dogs and cats ) Took on another (yorkie ) after it's owner (a friend ) died. This dog had a severe heart murmur, which had not been previously detected because it had never seen a veterinary surgeon. New owner in PDSA bracket, but already too many animals.

I had other clients, an elderly married couple, whose Yorkie I had recently PTSed. I knew they were looking for another, and wanted an older animal, because they were missing a dog, but didn't want one which would outlive their ability to care for it. These people were really well-off. I told them that I knew of a dog that might suit, said it would need medication from the word go, they were fully prepared for the cost, able to care for it, and if one of them died, the dog would still be cared for, and company for the other. Guess what? The woman who could not possibly afford it would not give it up

Wynne

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Clive Ansell — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:22:45 GMT

There is no excuse whatsoever not to have a cat neutered, it is not even expensive with most practices I work charging less than £50, one charges only £22.50. In many areas there are schemes where charities such as the CPL offer vouchers to help too.

There is no reason the PDSA or anyone else should have to pay for this, it is a direct consequence of owner irresponsibility and they should be made to pay for it. If they can't or won't then euthanasia should be offered. Yet another example of an owner expecting someone else to pick up the bill.

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Gillian Mostyn — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:16:05 GMT

People's stupidity is limitless. We did a caesarian on a cat last week. They had no money so are applying for help from the PDSA. The owner came in for a post op check with me this week and mentioned, just as part of the conversation, which kitten she will be keeping! I really didn't know what to say. Seemed obvious that if you can't afford the cat you've got, don't get another one. But then she mentioned that she was keeping the male 'so that she doesn't have to go through all this again.' At that point I advised castration at the appropriate age and ushered her out of the room. Before I got too angry.

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Niall Taylor — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:49:20 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]many of our clients, particuarly the elderly, rely on their pets as sole companions and focus for their entire lives[/quote]

I'm sure we're all aware of that and are able to discriminate between the deserving cases and the real scroungers. It is a fact that many people will delibarately take on animals despite not having the funds to look after them properly, my subjective impression is that there are far more of that type than the deserving cases who need the companionship or whose circumstances have changed since getting the pet.

Having a pet is a luxury, not a necessity and, like any other luxury, should be budgeted for - if you can't afford it, don't get it. Unfortunately many people take on pets on a whim (sometimes rehomed from charities) without even considering the costs.

Cheers,

Niall

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Utlendigur — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:33:10 GMT

Clive - sorry I didn't make it clear - the breeder and the mastiff owner are not petaid clients, they're from the charity clinic. This offers a few hours of consults a week, anything more is sent to us or other neighbouring practices, often with minimal financial help from the clinic - last week's "entertainment" was a toxic closed pyo that had ruptured and developed peritonitis, which was sent over in the middle of a busy afternoon....

I was also not aware practices could stipulate conditions when taking petaid clients on - I thought the only decision allowed was whether to accept them or not. It sounds worth looking into. As far as long term meds, there are increased levels of funding - a lower level for less costly ones, and a higher level for things like diabetics or cushings, but it doesn't cover the full cost by any means

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Clive Ansell — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:20:02 GMT

[quote user="Rudolph"]

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]petaid clients are required to take some responsibility and get their animals neutered and vaccinated to be eligible[/quote]

We were told that we couldn't insist on clients neutering their pets, as it was their choice to make and if their circumstances changed in the future they might like the option to breed from their dog. Do PetAid allow you to apply your own rules to the scheme or have they changed their policies? It's been a couple of years since I've had anything to do with them.

[/quote]

I have never read the Petaid rule book if there is such a thing, but from my understanding the practice can choose whether or not it takes on an animal on a case by case basis. I think the practice impose their own rules, one of which is that animals must be neutered and vaccinated. If they are not neutered at first registartion, it must be carried out in a reasonable time frame at there own expense.

One thing I have noticed is many clients try to register their elderly dogs on endless medications. Again, these are assessed on a case by case basis and pre existing conditions can be excluded, or in some cases treatments are altered. I believe the practice can apply to the PDSA for addition individual funding for animals on long term expensive meds.

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:41:32 GMT

I've got about 80% (yes, honestly ) of my clients insured. That took many years of nagging !!!! I also have a local PDSA clinic and am very, very, grateful that they are there, because it removes the moral blackmail of the genuinely hard-up turning up on my doorstep. If I have grumbles about fees, I can genuinely say "If you can't go to PDSA you're not really hard up, and you've been told to take out insurence It's not my fault if you're to thick to do as you're told " I put it more tactfully than that, but that is the gist of things

The only cut-price work I will do is Dogs Trust or CPL neutering (owners have to fulfill their criteria for assistance ) and work for 3 local re-homing charities who do a lot of good, and deserve support. I really do cut charges to the bone for these.

In spite of this, I still have to ration health-care by ability to pay. I currently have a cat owned by one of my uninsured clients, whom I would LOVE to refer, but can't

Wynne

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Rudolph — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:08:26 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]petaid clients are required to take some responsibility and get their animals neutered and vaccinated to be eligible[/quote]

It is apparent that most vets appreciate a need for charity clinics but not the way in which they are currently run. The consensus seems to be that vaccination, microchipping and neutering should be mandatory and assistance should definitely be limited to one pet per household, as PetAid - but not the PDSA - is currently. I don't see that this should be difficult to implement and would go a long way towards cutting down the numbers who really milk the system and do spoil it for everyone else. Are there any vets from one of the larger charity clinics on here that could maybe offer their views on this?

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Clive Ansell — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:21:09 GMT

Utlendigur - in the petaid practice where I sometimes locum, neither of the clients above would be eligible for petaid assistance. No breeding related condition is covered at all, in fact it is a practice requirement that animals entering the scheme are neutered, if they are not this has to be done as soon as possible, otherwise they are no longer eligible. Likewise the client with the Mastiff Puppies; only one cat and one dog per household is covered, any additional animals full private fees apply. In addition animals have to be vaccinated, and any illness related to none vaccination is not covered either.

The practice adheres to the rules strictly, the petaid clients are required to take some responsibility and get their animals neutered and vaccinated to be eligible. I think this is fair and reasonable.

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Utlendigur — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:23:07 GMT

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in Martin's comments. I haven't worked out how to do multiple quotes so...

"to limit the quality of treatment given to a patient because of the client's financial status is utterly abhorrent"

"Many of our clients cannot (and occasionally some will not) meet our costs, and in these cases we'll perhaps bend the rules of the charity as far as we can to help, but inevitably many investigations are prematurely curtailed and patients are euthanased"

Surely you are saying that for "many" of your clients, limiting treatment is exactly what you do? - like we all have to do.

Our local charity clinic is currently struggling (reduced donations due to recession coupled with increasing demand) and wondering whether this was a local problem I came across this http://www.rspca-cambridge.org.uk/policy.html which seems to sum up a lot of the problems clearly.

We work closely with our local clinic and are also a PDSA petaid practice, and generally I do think that charity clinics are beneficial, but I think they could do more to promote responsible pet ownership (eg insisting that use of clinic or petaid is dependent on having the animal vaccinated, chipped and neutered unless good clinical reasons not to, limiting numbers of pets per household covered, insisting on concurrent spaying for all caesars) rather than just fire brigade stuff, and taking a firmer line on those who misuse the clinics/petaid eg ineligible owners registering the animal under someone else's details. Some charities seem better at stressing responsibilities than others - Dogs Trust runs some good neutering (+/- chipping+ vaccination) campaigns as do our local CPL - it means work for us albeit at reduced cost, fewer unwanted pets, everyone wins.

As a petaid practice we find there are certain situations that really annoy, mainly the clients who don't bother to renew their petaid depriving the practice of a small but regular income...until the next disaster when they still expect free treatment. Or those who turn up every few days with trivial complaints just because it's free. Same with the charity clinic which we jointly cover ooh- eg the clinic client who breeds French Bulldogs who wanted an elective caesar on Christmas day at charity rates (she didn't get one from us - I said I would see her if dystokia and would advise neutering at same time) and who advertises the pups for £600-1000 (presumably the benefits office is unaware!) and who also complained when the clinic refused to vaccinate the pups at charity rates. Or the owner of the bull mastiff pup we just done an enterotomy on for next to nothing, who already had another giant breed dog - told not to get any more dogs - she arrived a few weeks later with another mastiff pup, with parvo. These sort of clients are in the minority but the problem is they have a disproportionate effect - by abusing the system they are using up funds which means that another, maybe more deserving case, may be denied treatment as there is only a limited pot of money, by defaulting on payment they make it more difficult for genuine cases to be get credit, and by the sheer bad feeling they generate.

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Clive Ansell — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:47:15 GMT

Out there at the coal face I think we are all on the same side, trying to do the same thing; we are trying to provide a good and adequate level of veterinary care for ALL of our patients, and do the best with what we have available. There will, however, always be difficult decisions to make and diifficult situations to resolve.

Going back to the cat in my earlier posting it is good news, it has been accepted by a local charity for tomorrow so will now get the care it needs and I hope a successful outcome. The clients are, however, unhappy that we will hospitalise the cat overnight in an unmanned premises because they cannot afford the OOH centre fees. It again highlights peoples' high expectations without considering who's going to pay for it. They are welcome, in fact I would advise, the cat attends the OOH clinic, but overnight care, wages etc etc have to be paid for

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:43:19 GMT

Nicely put, Martin. But I still wonder whether we aren't all talking at cross purposes. I would have thought most people would agree with the sentiment that those who can afford to pay, should, and those who can't should be helped.

I think it's those that can afford to pay, but won't, that Clive and Rudolph are talking about (correct me if I'm wrong).

Should the level of care available to them be limited (if it were practically possible)? And if so, would it be possible to do that without compromising animal welfare?

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Martin Jones — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:37:38 GMT

Clive

OK, I'll make one more statement before I'm done - and I'm referring this to you directly, Clive.

I'll assume that you think I either have no grasp of economics, or that I've never worked in the real world outside of charity care. Neither is true; in fact, I spent ten years in cattle medicine, where the economics and consequent impact on veterinary care would break most small animal vets - it certainly broke me.

The clinic in which I work is a small, independent charity which offers discounted - but not free - veterinary treatment to those on low incomes. We also work with the RSPCA and other local organisations, who may be able to chip in with funding for individual clients. I think that some of our practices could act as a model for the larger corporations. Many of our clients cannot (and occasionally some will not) meet our costs, and in these cases we'll perhaps bend the rules of the charity as far as we can to help, but inevitably many investigations are prematurely curtailed and patients are euthanased. In these cases, we work hard to ensure that the client is not left feeling that it's their fault; they simply don't deserve that kind of guilt.

Our ethos is clear: those that can afford to pay, should. Those that cannot, should be helped. To suggest that it should be otherwise is shaming to the nature of our profession. Should you wish for an example of how a failure to provide social medicine can have catastrophic consequences, look at the American healthcare system: 50 million people are faced with a straight choice between luxuries like shelter and food, or health insurance. Unable to manage the latter, their access to decent care is almost non-existent.

I'm not inviting comment, merely ensuring that you're not labouring under misapprehension. Having a pet is not always a luxury - many of our clients, particuarly the elderly, rely on their pets as sole companions and focus for their entire lives. Don't let the presence of a few miscreants in the system might make people lose sight of that.

With that, I'll bow out, although I'll be reading further comments with interest.

Martin

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Clive Ansell — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:10:31 GMT

Wake up and smell the coffee - outside of charity clinics and in fee paying private practice a hugh amount of treatment is decide based on financial means, it is the biggest limiting factor to treatment in many cases.

I have had 2 cases just this morning.

One, an 8 year old Greyhound that has suddenly started having frequent seizures which are increasing in frequency and severity but is otherwise well with no abnormal history or any findings on pe. The owners have no money and are not eligible for local PDSA or RSPCA help, so the routine blood work to look for and rule out metabolic causes I advised was declined (About £50-£60, about the same as filing a car with fuel) so I was only able to run in house glucose level, before sending them on their way "see how he goes, and come back for phenobarbitone or pts if he worsens". If they could afford it I would run the bloods, and even offer referral with the possibility of MRI etc if bloods are normal.

The second case is a cat RTA. Again the owners have no money. The cat has been given emergency care; analgesia and IVFT so far. He will need further investigation for a suspect fractured pelvis and/or hip and suturing of some superficial skin wounds. The owners are asking the RSPCA to help by accepting the case at their local hospital, but they may not which could mean the cat is euthanased because the owners cannot afford treatment. Tonight there is a choice between sending the cat to the local OOH centre for a high standard of overnight monitored care, or keeping him overnight in an unmanned practice, again costs will dictate the level of care given.

The amount and standard of care given in both these case is solely dependable on available finance - no question about it, it will be the limiting factor. We will help all we can of course, but the practice owner will not sanction external lab fees and orthopaedic surgery carried out free of charge, and payment is strictly at the time of treatment. He has also banned the giving of credit because of the number of people who finish up not paying after promising to do so.

Both these owners feel hard done by, and feel it is the veterinary profession that is at fault. At the end of the day they are responsible for being able to provide care for their pet; be that with pet insurance, a savings account, or access to a credit card. If people cannot or will not do that, they should consider not owning an animal.

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:26:17 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]I'm going to do you a huge favour now - and allow you to limit the damage you're doing to yourself - by withdrawing from this debate. I'll carry on helping people who clearly deserve it; you carry on doing whatever it is that you feel you do, and I wish you all the very best.[/quote]

A bit harsh, if you ask me.

I'm not sure that Rudolph was arguing against care for people who genuinely deserve it.

He seemed to be making the case that there are a lot of people who DON'T genuinely deserve it (i.e. the people who rock up in a 4x4 wearing more bling than the Queen on a state occasion).

And it is an interesting point, whether the existence of free or reduced cost charitable care for pets encourages some people to buy a pet who couldn't otherwise afford to (and if they couldn't otherwise afford to, they shouldn't buy one).

Martin, what percentage of 'your' owners do you think never had the wherewithall to own a pet in the first place, as opposed to those that have fallen on hard times? Genuinely interested to know.

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Martin Jones — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:28:37 GMT

Rudolph

I'm going to do you a huge favour now - and allow you to limit the damage you're doing to yourself - by withdrawing from this debate. I'll carry on helping people who clearly deserve it; you carry on doing whatever it is that you feel you do, and I wish you all the very best.

Martin

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Rudolph — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:21:04 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]to limit the quality of treatment given to a patient because of the client's financial status is utterly abhorrent [/quote]

I completely disagree. We have to do this every single day of our lives in one way or another. I can't tell you how many clients I'd love to refer or run a series of blood tests or offer certain treatments and cannot because they are unable to afford it. Sometimes the level of investigation or treatment is very much determined by a client's financial status and I challenge anyone in private practice to say that this isn't so.

Secondly, whilst at the PetAid practice, some concerns were raised about the level of costs incurred by the practice. A PetAid representative specifically told us to limit the treatment given to only very basic treatment - see Clive's reference to Ampicillin and Pred above. I believe this is a direct contradiction to your above statement, but is the policy of that particular charity.

[quote user="Martin Jones"]In other words, we behave like almost all vets anywhere, in putting care before ability to pay.[/quote]

We all do our best at this, reducing costs to hard up clients, allowing genuine cases to pay up over time rather than demanding money up front. It's not that I don't care, it's just I believe people should take responsibility for themselves and their pets. Charity clinics allow them to waive this responsibility to an extent.

[quote user="Martin Jones"]People on low incomes are generally not there through choice. [/quote]

No, but they do choose to spend hundreds of pounds on pedigree large breeds like Mastiffs and GSDs. They can do this because they know that somebody else will foot the bill. If you really have to have a dog when you're on a low income, get a terrier or small breed cross that you have half a chance of being able to afford.

[quote user="Martin Jones"]pre-judge a little less?[/quote]

Throughout the forum there are small references to clients on benefits expecting free treatment but driving cars most of us as vets couldn't afford. I'm not pre-judging, merely speaking from experience, which is clearly not a unique one.

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Martin Jones — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:24:45 GMT

[quote user="Rudolph"]

Why should somebody who can't be bothered to fork out on insurance or fees have access to ultrasound, endoscopy, internal fixation of fractures, ECGs, when many private practices don't have access to all of these? If someone wants to avail of a charity clinic then it should be at the most basic level of care, to keep costs for the charity down, and so that owners learn that it is of value to take responsibility for their pets and get a better standard of care.

[/quote]

As the lead vet in a small animal charity practice, I cannot tell you how much I disagree with this statement; to limit the quality of treatment given to a patient because of the client's financial status is utterly abhorrent and the above statement deserves only contempt.

Our clients are a fantastic bunch. We do work hard to weed out the spongers, and we don't offer charity discounts to those people who refuse to neuter their animals or to any form of breeder. For the rest, we offer the best service that we can - including further discounts whenever we can afford it, unbilled procedures, free consults for deserving cases and open arms to local volunteer groups (and the RSPCA). In other words, we behave like almost all vets anywhere, in putting care before ability to pay. And long may it continue.

People on low incomes are generally not there through choice. Why not help a little more, and pre-judge a little less?

Martin

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Clive Ansell — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:37:37 GMT

That is one grey area in the petaid practice I work in. All OOH care is provided by a well known national provider, the practice is closed and does not hospitalise cases OOH. This is not covered under the petaid scheme and clients are totally responsible for full fees OOH as well as all transportation. It causes many problems as they feel everything should be free, even at 2.00am!. Anyway, that is the deal and they are made aware of it at the onset, but unfortunately many always expect someone else to pick up the tab.

Matthew - I know what you mean by the expensive cars. In one charity clinic where I worked there was a client with 2 Burnese mountain dogs and a labrador, who purchased a new Range Rover every 2 years (Cheapest bottom of the range one = 58K!). One of the mountain dogs had EPI, and his trypase consumed 4% of the whole annual drug budget for the clinic! I argued he should have to pay for it as it is not a POM, but was overruled by management more interested in PR - what can you do!

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

ms1083 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:35:07 GMT

We see PDSA clients, we have a few who live outside the catchment area but register their pet with family member within our catchment, in addition I am almost certain there is some shuffeling occuring with regard to the PDSA only covering 1 pet per person.

Charities are essential but I get very frustrated when, for example, a PDSA client expects it is their right to receive free care - and they arrive in a brand new expensive car! As an assistant I have to pay my vet bills, at staff discount & cost price drugs, but its not free. To be fair, many are very appreciative and always give donations. The PDSA does not cover out of hour callouts, when these get charged to the client it frequently causes fireworks.

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Clive Ansell — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:29:46 GMT

[quote user="Rudolph"]

At a PetAid practice I worked at, it was a common scenario for people to arrive with a new pet asking about the "PDSA insurance", that they heard meant they didn't have to pay for treatment. Actually, they weren't far wrong with this interpretation. For the bargain price of £5 a year their pet was entitled to free veterinary attention. The practice received £8 a month per pet registered. Fine if nothing much happens but a couple of surgeries (cruciates in staffies, repeated aural haematomas in mastiffs) soon wipes out any gain, whilst also denying your paying clients your time and expertise. Is this not being forced to work below cost?

[/quote]

One of the practices I regularly locum in is a petaid practice. There are loads of new applicants every week, many roll up and register and in passing mention "oh by the way he is on vetoryl, rimadyl, fortekor, vetmedin, corvental, insulin etc etc, and we can now get these for free don't we?". Once it is free it is amazing how many ask for routine bloods and x-rays. I had one recently where the owners said " he's is about 9 now and we just thought we get routine bloods done to make sure he's alright"

What happens is they are taken on as petaid clients but re existing conditions and medications are excluded so clients still have to pay for them. They get a good basic standard of veterinary care; routine dentistry where there is no dental disease, cosmetic lump removals, routine blood tests, neutering, skin allergy testing, prescription diets etc are not included. They are restricted to one cat and one dog. They only get expensive drugs if indicated and no cheap option is available. As a vet it is basically a big pot of ampicillin and another of preds and off you go.

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Clive Ansell — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:13:54 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

The irresponsible are irresponsible, so without charity clinics would still have the animals, who would then either suffer, or we would be forced to treat below cost price (moral blackmail ) and fees for responsible owners would be even higher !!!! Charity clinics are essential

Wynne

[/quote]

No, we should not treat their animals at cost price or on the cheap, because as you say, it would mean the responsible majority of pet owners would be subsidising the few irresponsible ones.

It is harsh perhaps, but where charity assistance is unavailable or the owners are not eligible then euthanasia should be put forward as a treatment option. Animal owners are totally responsible for THEIR pets and for the cost of any care they need. It is not our responsibility to fund them or work out how they will provide care.

Re: Do charity clinics really promote irresponsible pet ownership?

Rudolph — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:51:00 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]The irresponsible are irresponsible, so without charity clinics would still have the animals, who would then either suffer, or we would be forced to treat below cost price (moral blackmail ) and fees for responsible owners would be even higher !!!! [/quote]

This is exactly what the PDSA tell you about PetAid and it is in itself moral blackmail! A pet is not a right and people should have to think hard about whether or not they can keep one. If they can't afford one pet then they certainly shouldn't keep three large mastiffs (a common scenario in the PDSA!). However, having the charity clinics in place facilitates this, allowing them to have their giant dogs, street cred and no worries about veterinary bills.

Also, the charity clinics provide a standard of care beyond what many private practices can provide to paying clients. Why should somebody who can't be bothered to fork out on insurance or fees have access to ultrasound, endoscopy, internal fixation of fractures, ECGs, when many private practices don't have access to all of these? If someone wants to avail of a charity clinic then it should be at the most basic level of care, to keep costs for the charity down, and so that owners learn that it is of value to take responsibility for their pets and get a better standard of care.

Charity clinics without a doubt contribute to irresponsible ownership. As Clive mentioned in another post, one example would be if a C. section is required it should be mandatory to have the bitch neutered at the same time. Can you honestly say that this wouldn't cut down on people keeping and breeding dogs for profit?