 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / January 2004Update
Well I paid the vet a visit this morning. Let me tell you he was suprised to see me! Here is his explanation. I authorized the euthinization (SP?) on Friday. He claims that by Saturday Abby started getting better and he felt that she had a fighting chance. He said that he tried to call me on Saturday but got my machine, but then the weekend got away from him and by Monday he figured it was too late to call me and tell me since I would have been grieving already. So he claims he then handed the cat over to his technician with strict orders to watch the cat and if she started getting worse again to bring the cat back to him. Well he then brought the tech in. She says she was moving so she gave my cat along with her two others to a friend. Apparently the friends boyfriend was angry and bullied her into bringing the cats in to the humane society. I have a feeling that the tech and the techs friend are one in the same because I called the humane society and described the tech, and they said she fits the description of the girl that dropped the cats off! The vet was practically on his hands and knees begging my forgiveness. He said he will do anything I want to rectify the situation, he was on the verge of tears. He said he was only trying to save her life because he felt she had a fighting chance. He first offered to euthenize her for me again, I told him there was no way I could make this decision yet again then he agreed to wipe out all of our current bills, and send her to a specialist in the next big city and pay all of her bills. I am even more confused now and not sure what to do. I mean it was not his call to make! I just pray that by some miracle my kitty recovers and this will all be a bad dream. AJ >From: amaliayosa@yahoo.com (AJ) >Well I paid the vet a visit this morning. Let me tell you he was >suprised to see me! Here is his explanation. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >be a bad dream. >AJ This is totally insane! But I guess what's done is done. Since cats are considered property, and I don't think you'd fare well in a lawsuit, I think I would take him up on his offer but I would want to pick the specialist myself, instead of him choosing one. Good luck and keep us posted. Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >Since cats are >considered property, and I don't think you'd fare well in a lawsuit ACtually, I think that is precisely why she would fare well. The cat was her property. >>Since cats are >>considered property, and I don't think you'd fare well in a lawsuit > >ACtually, I think that is precisely why she would fare well. The cat was her >property. Which courts have estimated to be worth $35 replacement value. -mhd >From: hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com >>>Since cats are >>>considered property, and I don't think you'd fare well in a lawsuit [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >-mhd Exactly. ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm > >From: amaliayosa@yahoo.com (AJ) > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > would take him up on his offer but I would want to pick the specialist myself, > instead of him choosing one. Good luck and keep us posted. And I would never, ever again let the cat out of my sight, even if I had to sleep in the *&% animal hospital. > Well I paid the vet a visit this morning. Let me tell you he was > suprised to see me! Here is his explanation. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > be a bad dream. > AJ Well, I'd take up the offer on the specialist. But man o man, this guy is reall something. Karen I agree about taking him up on his offer and trying to get the cat well. That would be my first priority. After this, however, I would never use this vet again. Gail > > Well I paid the vet a visit this morning. Let me tell you he was > > suprised to see me! Here is his explanation. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Karen >I agree about taking him up on his offer and trying to get the cat well. >That would be my first priority. After this, however, I would never use this >vet again. >Gail And then what? Let him go free to do god knows what in the future? I say post his name, practice and phone number on all these forums and let the phone calls make him realize he's now forever under the public scrutiny..... eq >> > Well I paid the vet a visit this morning. Let me tell you he was >> > suprised to see me! Here is his explanation. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> Karen > >I agree about taking him up on his offer and trying to get the cat well. > >That would be my first priority. After this, however, I would never use this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > eq I really, really wanted to do this to the Orlando, FL are vet who mistakenly declawed my friend's kitten. But she wouldn't let me, even though the only thing the SOB did to even TRY to make it up to her was refund the money for the one spay. Her husband said that he really liked the vet, who has taken care of his dog for some years. He also said "I would be more upset about it if I were a cat person." I'm still steamed, but I gave my word not to expose the vet online. I second both of them. Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon > I agree about taking him up on his offer and trying to get the cat well. > That would be my first priority. After this, however, I would never use this [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > > > Karen > Well, I'd take up the offer on the specialist. But man o man, this guy is > reall something. Assuming this story is true (sorry, AJ, but it is really wild), I'd say the vet is indeed really something; namely, something special and worth forgiving at least once. The following is more for the people suggesting punishment for the vet. I vote contacting no legal authorities, state boards, lawyers, police, whatever. Why? (1) Because I can't tell what physical harm was done to the cat. If anything, because of the vets's actions, the cat got a second chance at life. (2) The vet seems to have come clean, is deeply apologetic, and is putting a lot of money where his mouth is. (3) I think the vet learned a lesson; or he will have by the time he pays all the bills. I guess one could say the family was harmed, because it grieved and now finds the grief was... not necessary? I think the psychology of this is hard to reconcile and understand, but I wouldn't say the vet was intentionally or even recklessly inflicting emotional distress upon the family. I say: Do as a cat does. Go in peace (or playfully) as often as possible. Two cents. >I vote contacting no legal authorities, state boards, lawyers, police, >whatever. >Why? > >(1) Because I can't tell what physical harm was done to the cat. If anything, >because of the vets's actions The harm was done to the owner. If you are inclined to go to some authority . . . go. You should not be the one deciding how much if any trouble he gets into. Suppose he has done this before and there is a record of this; this may be the straw that does him in. Go tell some authorities and let them decide if there is something worthwhile following. > >I vote contacting no legal authorities, state boards, lawyers, police, > >whatever. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The harm was done to the owner. Please describe the harm. Please indicate whether it was intentional. > If you are inclined to go to some authority . > . . go. You should not be the one deciding how much if any trouble he gets > into. Suppose he has done this before Done what before? Saved a cat's life? > and there is a record of this; this may > be the straw that does him in. Go tell some authorities and let them decide if > there is something worthwhile following. I do believe more than one authority would laugh at such a complaint. Why? Because the vet arguably did more good than bad. >Please describe the harm. The owner was a victim of a breach of contract, at the very least, and perhaps a fraud in the inducement of the contract. The owner suffered consequential damages as a result. >Please indicate whether it was intentional. I don't know. It should be properly investigated. >Done what before? Saved a cat's life? We don't know what he has really done. At the very least he has taken money under a false pretense. >I do believe more than one authority would laugh at such a complaint. Why? >Because the vet arguably did more good than bad. Let them laugh. We don't know if they would laugh until we go to them, do we? Who says he did more good than bad? That is just your belief, as you say. It was the owners decision that the good in this case was a humane put down of the cat. >The owner was a victim of a breach of contract, at the very least, and >perhaps >a fraud in the inducement of the contract. The owner suffered consequential >damages as a result. Oh, paa-leeze. That's what's wrong with this country--lawyers are convincing everybody they're a "victim" and are entitled to a cash settlement. Sherry I do understand your viewpoint, and I agree that greed is a huge problem in our country. However, regardless of whether the victim should receive a cash settlement, this vet should be properly investigated and castigated. If the owner of the cat doesn't follow through, lawsuit or not, then others will suffer! > >The owner was a victim of a breach of contract, at the very least, and > >perhaps [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sherry >I do understand your viewpoint, and I agree that greed is a huge problem in >our country. > >However, regardless of whether the victim should receive a cash settlement, >this vet should be properly investigated and castigated. If the owner of >the cat doesn't follow through, lawsuit or not, then others will suffer! I posted somewhat impetuously. To clarify, do I think the vet should be disciplined? Absolutely. While he may have had good intentions, he followed through in an extremely irresponsible manner.. He should be reported to the state Board of Veterinary Medicine. If the OP truly feels his irresponsible manner is a threat to other pet owners, she could tell the media. Believe me, the media will jump on a story like that and everybody in town will hear about it. But suing him in court, for a cash settlement, no. On the other hand, by bringing action at this point, the vet is going to withdraw the offers to forgive the outstanding balance, and to pay for diagnosis/treatment by the specialist. To me, the most important thing is getting cat back to health. Money was the issue in the first place in not seeking further testing and treatment. Well, now the OP can give that cat every chance in the world, paid for by the vet. It just depends on what's most important to the OP--taking action against the vet, or a second chance with the cat. Sherry >From: sriddles@aol.comkitty (Sherry ) >To me, the most important thing is getting cat back to health. Money was the >issue in the first place in not seeking further testing and treatment. Well, >now the OP can give that cat every chance in the world, paid for by the vet. >It just depends on what's most important to the OP--taking action against the >vet, or a second chance with the cat. If I was in the situation where I couldn't afford health care for my cat and suddenly it was afforded to me, I would be thrilled. Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >>From: sriddles@aol.comkitty (Sherry ) > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Lauren Oh, no doubt. I'd be so thrilled all I'd be thinking about was getting that cat back on its feet and taking advantage of every resource available to me. It still sounds like an absolute miracle to me. Sherry circa 27 Jan 2004 04:58:04 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Sherry (sriddles@aol.comkitty) said, > Money was the > issue in the first place in not seeking further testing and treatment. That's the part that I keep getting stuck on. I can't help wondering if the vet did what he did because he just couldn't bear to put the cat down and felt it was a financial decision to do so. Note to the OP- I'm *not* saying that that is why you decided to have the cat euthanized, just that maybe the vet let his compassion override things a bit. Heck, I don't know. I go back and forth on my feelings about this one. Laura  SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. > circa 27 Jan 2004 04:58:04 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Sherry > (sriddles@aol.comkitty) said, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Heck, I don't know. I go back and forth on my feelings about this > one. Yep. Seems to be half of one thing & half of another, making it difficult to come up w/ a clear-cut conclusion. Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon > However, regardless of whether the victim should receive a cash settlement, > this vet should be properly investigated and castigated. If the owner of > the cat doesn't follow through, lawsuit or not, then others will suffer! How will they suffer? Compare this to how much joy many would have upon learning their little cat was still alive and might make a full recovery, at no cost to them? For what should the vet be investigated? Doing harm to animals? What harm did he do when in fact he appears to have saved this cat? Would you rather a vet who saw a cat recovering, thought he may have misdiagnosed, then tried to reach the owner but couldn't, just euthanize anyway? Would you want this for your cat? I wouldn't. Maybe the vet didn't behave perfectly, but I think there are far bigger fish to fry in the vet world than this one. >How will they suffer? Compare this to how much joy many would have upon >learning >their little cat was still alive and might make a full recovery, at no cost >to >them? The owner of this cat did not experience any joy. She was hurt and distressed by the whole episode. >For what should the vet be investigated? Doing harm to animals? What harm did >he >do when in fact he appears to have saved this cat? His duty extends beyond the cat. At the very least he was extraordinarily sloppy in the running of his office. He should get his head on straight if he is going to continue to take on the responsibility of the health of people's precious pets. >Would you rather a vet who saw a cat recovering, thought he may have >misdiagnosed, then tried to reach the owner but couldn't, just euthanize >anyway? >Would you want this for your cat? He didn't try to reach the owner. This guy is a total jerk. He got her machine and left no message. He didn't follow up a mere two days later. Maybe his original idea of second-guessing himself was a noble one, but his execution of his remedy was negligent and inexcusable. >I wouldn't. Maybe the vet didn't behave perfectly, but I think there are far >bigger fish to fry in the vet world than this one. So, go fry them. What is your objection in having this pursued a bit further. No one has all of the answers now. We need to get some people who are not directly affected by this incident to take a soboring look at what happened. No one is suggesting that he be hung by his b***s. > >How will they suffer? Compare this to how much joy many would have upon > >learning [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The owner of this cat did not experience any joy. She was hurt and distressed > by the whole episode. I can't see how the vet caused this hurt. The owner would have grieved if the cat had been euthanized. She grieved even though it actually hadn't been euthanized. What's the difference? Now that the cat has been found alive, and all medical expenses will now be paid by someone else, why would she grieve? > >For what should the vet be investigated? Doing harm to animals? What harm did > >he > >do when in fact he appears to have saved this cat? > > His duty extends beyond the cat. At the very least he was extraordinarily > sloppy in the running of his office. Having a sloppy office is not illegal. It has no bearing on any breach of contract claim, as long as the vet put things back the way they were prior to the contract. > He should get his head on straight if he > is going to continue to take on the responsibility of the health of people's > precious pets. Sure. And I have no doubt what he is going to pay to get the cat better will help accomplish this. I want vets who are honest. This guy appears to have come clean *and* is going to pay all future bills. He didn't have to do the latter. > >Would you rather a vet who saw a cat recovering, thought he may have > >misdiagnosed, then tried to reach the owner but couldn't, just euthanize > >anyway? > >Would you want this for your cat? > > He didn't try to reach the owner. Now you're being sloppy. > This guy is a total jerk. He got her > machine and left no message. This is not the whole story. > He didn't follow up a mere two days later. Maybe > his original idea of second-guessing himself was a noble one, but his execution > of his remedy was negligent and inexcusable. Lawyer-speak. You have an interest in promoting legal remedies. File a suit. Since the vet restored things to the way they were before the contract, and since there was no intentional infliction of emotional distress, I expect there's a fair chance the stinkin' plaintiff's lawyer and the plaintiff would be sanctioned for filing a frivolous suit. Or now, since you seem to be backing down from any possibility of a legal remedy here, I would not have an objection if the owner made inquiries to the appropriate state board (I presume) about this vet. I doubt the board (or whatever) would put him out of business, but it would serve as a warning. Would disciplinary action result? No, because I don't see that the vet did anything outrageously wrong. Instead, the owner of the cat will likely have begun a reputation with the state board. Crying wolf, sort of thing. > >I wouldn't. Maybe the vet didn't behave perfectly, but I think there are far > >bigger fish to fry in the vet world than this one. > > So, go fry them. What is your objection in having this pursued a bit further. It deters veterinarians from owning up to their mistakes. > No one has all of the answers now. We need to get some people who are not > directly affected by this incident to take a soboring look at what happened. > No one is suggesting that he be hung by his b***s. On the contrary, I think that's what many people here are saying. > >How will they suffer? Compare this to how much joy many would have upon > >learning [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The owner of this cat did not experience any joy. Too absolute of a statement. How do you know there was no joy when she brought her alive, not dead, cat back home? Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon >>How will they suffer? Compare this to how much joy many would have upon >>learning [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >distressed >by the whole episode. Everybody is hurt and distressed at the loss of a cat. It doesn't necessarily mean a settlement is due. Sherry Here's the point: you are observing this from afar. Who really knows WHAT this vet's intentions truly were? And isn't the OP just damn LUCKY that it worked out this way? Can you even begin to visualize the possible suffering this cat ALMOST went through at the hands of the irresponsible people it ended up with? Isn't this cat just damn LUCKY that the humane society was responsible enough to check for a microchip? This vet may be running some other completely awful scam, like selling animals to laboratories or pit bull owners. You just don't know. This "comedy" of errors has laid open his best laid plans to lots of speculation. He's busted! Moreover, how would you like to be in the OPs shoes? Put a child in the place of a pet, it you need to, because that's the attachment a lot of us have to our pets. I just can't imagine a vet making decisions for a long-term client after "not being able to contact them". That's RIDICULOUS in the extreme. She had an answering machine, right? He should have kept the animal on premises (if any part of his story is true) and continued to try to contact her. That is the ONLY reasonable right and fair course of action he had, other than euthanasia. Please, spare me the idiots of this world and those who excuse them! > > However, regardless of whether the victim should receive a cash settlement, > > this vet should be properly investigated and castigated. If the owner of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I wouldn't. Maybe the vet didn't behave perfectly, but I think there are far > bigger fish to fry in the vet world than this one. >This vet may be running some other completely awful scam, like selling >animals to laboratories or pit bull owners. You just don't know. I don't think this guy is running any scam at all. It is a simple matter of his actions in this case being so way below expectations, that it deserves to be looked into by some competent authority. "GovtLawyer" <govtlawyer@aol.com> wrote snip > I don't think this guy is running any scam at all. It is a simple matter of > his actions in this case being so way below expectations, What is your expectation for a vet who sees a cat destined for euthanasia suddenly take a turn for the better? How far off from the expectation was this vet? > that it deserves to > be looked into by some competent authority. >What is your expectation for a vet who sees a cat destined for euthanasia >suddenly take a turn for the better? > >How far off from the expectation was this vet? The cat had an owner who loved it and nurtured it. His failure to notify the owner and his failure to follow up was below expectations. Did his techie return the cat for further treatment? NO! Did he follow up? NO! > >What is your expectation for a vet who sees a cat destined for euthanasia > >suddenly take a turn for the better? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The cat had an owner who loved it and nurtured it. His failure to notify the > owner and his failure to follow up was below expectations. He tried to notify the owner. What happened with the answering machine is unclear, but I think it's quite possible the vet didn't want to leave any sort of message given the very uncertain condition of the cat. A message would cause angst. Meanwhile, by the time the owner called back, the cat might be dead. Imagine a few days go by. How comfortable would anyone be calling an owner who thought her cat had gone to the Rainbow Bridge and saying, "well... maybe not"? That *is* the best description the vet could give, given the cat's precarious state. Did the vet do the best he could? I believe he did. Then too as someone mentioned, if vets routinely gave care to cats who were ordered to be euthanized, then owners would never be agreeable to paying for such care; they'd just leave the cat with the vet and let the vet decide what to do. All the indications are this is a very tricky situation. I don't think there is a "right answer" here. It's why, based on the facts to date, I'd definitely give the vet the benefit of the doubt. Or tell me more about exactly what you would have said in the message to the owner that would make everything right and better and not put the owner through the wringer that weekend, given the uncertain condition of the cat. > Did his techie > return the cat for further treatment? NO! It's not clear the cat needed further treatment. Either way, if the techie didn't tell the vet about the cat, is this the vet's fault? > Did he follow up? NO! So fire the techie. You seem to be forgetting that the vet has to make a living and has many other animals to care for. You seem to expect him to hover over this animal 24/7. That would not optimally benefit the animal world, given all his skills. >> >What is your expectation for a vet who sees a cat destined for euthanasia >> >suddenly take a turn for the better? [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >animals to care for. You seem to expect him to hover over this animal 24/7. That >would not optimally benefit the animal world, given all his skills. Very similar reply to the message I left a little while ago on the original thread. I think the vet is getting a bad rap for going the extra mile on a cat that the owners had decided can't/shouldn't be saved. And again, I'm not faulting AJ here. We have all stood there with our loved pet in our arms trying to figure out what to do. "dgk" <sonicechoes-spamless@hot-nospamp-mail.com> wrote snip for conciseness, as our positions seem to be in almost exact agreement > And again, I'm not faulting AJ here. We have all stood there > with our loved pet in our arms trying to figure out what to do. Let me say emphatically, "Likewise." AJ and family has suffered. I am sorry for all the grief and these decisions that anyone would find difficult. I hope AJ and family do what is best for themselves, the cat, the vet, and anyone else concerned, including future patients of the vet's. >Or tell me more about exactly what you would have said in the message to the >owner that would make everything right and better and not put the owner >through >the wringer that weekend, given the uncertain condition of the cat. OK, how about something like this. Hello, Ms. . . . This is Dr. . . . After you left it appeared to me that your kitty may have had a turn for the better, so I wasn't sure if euthanasia was the right thing at this time. I thought it would be wise to at least monitor her health for a few days. I have taken the liberty of sending her home with my techie (since I can't reach you). Please call me Monday, and we'll see if her condition has changed or not. Perhaps we may not have to put her down at this time, and I know that would have been your preference. So, please call me Monday and we'll take a nother look." Well, if the owner had gotten this message she would have called on Monday, and no matter what else this whole episode brought, she would never have found her pet in a shelter 5 weeks later. >> Did his techie >> return the cat for further treatment? NO! > >It's not clear the cat needed further treatment. If the techie didn't return the cat for treatment, just what was the idea to begin with? Unless it was that the vet simply didn't want to follow the owners instructions. I thought the idea, since he did try to call the owner, was that the best scenario is returning the cat to the owner, alive and kicking. Neither he nor the techie followed through on that track. >> Did he follow up? NO! > >So fire the techie. It is the vet who should have followed up. On Monday, when the techie comes to work, he asks the techie how the cat is doing. >You seem to be forgetting that the vet has to make a living and has many >other >animals to care for. You seem to expect him to hover over this animal 24/7. >That >would not optimally benefit the animal world, given all his skills. Didn;t you ever hear of a calendar? He puts a note on the calendar for Monday . . . FOLLOW UP ON KITTY'S HEALTH. ASK TECHIE AND NOTIFY OWNER. > >Or tell me more about exactly what you would have said in the message to the > >owner that would make everything right and better and not put the owner [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > may not have to put her down at this time, and I know that would have been your > preference. So, please call me Monday and we'll take a nother look." And who is going to pay for the expense of boarding the cat, medications, food, etc.? You're assuming the owner can afford continued treatment of the cat. The owner has already made clear she won't pay anything. The uncertainty in any step taken in this situation is huge. > Well, if the owner had gotten this message she would have called on Monday, and > no matter what else this whole episode brought, she would never have found her > pet in a shelter 5 weeks later. That's 20/20 hindsight. The cat may very well have taken another turn for the worse by Monday. > >> Did his techie > >> return the cat for further treatment? NO! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the best scenario is returning the cat to the owner, alive and kicking. > Neither he nor the techie followed through on that track. No, the best scenario is to heal the cat at no cost to anyone. Was this possible? No. The dollars here are necessarily (albeit regrettably) a big factor in all the decision-making. The situation is complicated. There is no "best answer," except with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and knowing outcomes in advance. >And who is going to pay for the expense of boarding the cat, medications, >food, >etc.? Money is not the issue. The vet had already decided that he was embarking a possible road to recovery. As far as the weekend is concerned, that was not a question of boarding, the cat was with the techie. Suppose the owner was home? She could have said, no way... it is my decision to put the cat out of its misery and that is that. Do nothing other than instructed. Well, what then? To heck with owner? You keep passing over the issue of this animal belonging to someone and of that person's wishes. If the Dr is going to do something against her wishes, because of the goodness of his heart, fine. However, he didn't tell of this or give her a choice. As far as I can see he made a lame call to a machine and didn't leave a message. he sent the kitty home with a techie, and never saw the cat again or contacted anyone about it. How is that humane? > >And who is going to pay for the expense of boarding the cat, medications, > >food, > >etc.? > > Money is not the issue. Of course it is part of the issue. But for the owner not wanting to pursue every last possibility of care, she would not have ordered the cat euthanized. > The vet had already decided that he was embarking a > possible road to recovery. As far as the weekend is concerned, that was not a > question of boarding, the cat was with the techie. How can you just presume the techie would not expect compensation for boarding? > Suppose the owner was home? > She could have said, no way... it is my decision to put the cat out of its > misery and that is that. Do nothing other than instructed. Well, what then? Well, she didn't get to say this. So so what. > To heck with owner? You keep passing over the issue of this animal belonging > to someone and of that person's wishes. You keep passing over the issue that it's not clear who the animal belongs to once euthanasia has been ordered, particularly when the animal suddenly appears to be recovering and the original owner cannot be reached. > If the Dr is going to do something > against her wishes, There is no telling what the owner's wishes were by the weekend. Come on. > because of the goodness of his heart, fine. However, he > didn't tell of this or give her a choice. As far as I can see he made a lame > call to a machine and didn't leave a message. he sent the kitty home with a > techie, and never saw the cat again or contacted anyone about it. How is that > humane? Cat's alive. Caroline, whose side are you on? And, can you read? You've misrepresented the issues from the get go. Kindly go back and read the original post, and all the follow ups. > > >And who is going to pay for the expense of boarding the cat, medications, > > >food, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Cat's alive. circa 28 Jan 2004 00:36:35 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, GovtLawyer (govtlawyer@aol.com) said, > the cat was with the techie. S Semantics, but a "techie" is usually some kind of computer/science geek, while a "tech" is what is being referenced here. Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. > >Or tell me more about exactly what you would have said in the message to the > >owner that would make everything right and better and not put the owner [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Didn;t you ever hear of a calendar? He puts a note on the calendar for Monday > . . . FOLLOW UP ON KITTY'S HEALTH. ASK TECHIE AND NOTIFY OWNER. I think even Caroline can follow this logic. > >This vet may be running some other completely awful scam, like selling > >animals to laboratories or pit bull owners. You just don't know. > > I don't think this guy is running any scam at all. It is a simple matter of > his actions in this case being so way below expectations, that it deserves to > be looked into by some competent authority. I have to agree. The thing that bothers me the most is that he did not make the effort to let this grieving family know that their hearts need not be broken, that the kitty was better. What person who loves animals (or has any compassion at all) could rest until they reached the family to tell them she had gotten better? I wouldn't trust this SOB with clipping my animal's claws. My point is we just don't know, and it is definitely possible. These things do happen. Evil doesn't always look evil, you know, that's how people get away with it! > > >This vet may be running some other completely awful scam, like > selling [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to tell them she had gotten better? I wouldn't trust this SOB with > clipping my animal's claws. "Mary" <rosefan@email.com> wrote i > The thing that bothers me the most is that he did not > make the effort to let this grieving family know that their hearts > need > not be broken, that the kitty was better. The cat wasn't at all necessarily better. The cat's condition was uncertain. > What person who loves > animals > (or has any compassion at all) could rest until they reached the > family > to tell them she had gotten better? I wouldn't trust this SOB with > clipping my animal's claws. Why? Because he spared a cat that was destined for death? I can't see your logic but am wide open to further explanation. > "Mary" <rosefan@email.com> wrote i > > The thing that bothers me the most is that he did not [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I can't see your logic but am wide open to further explanation. Wide open. Well, good. ALL he had to do was to persist in trying to get hold of the OP, and let her know that the cat was better. HE gave her the impression that the cat was not going to improve without some very expensive treatment, which was not the case. The cat in fact did improve, and all he had to do at that point was admit that he had been wrong and tell her. If she THEN authorized the shot, that's a different matter. > "Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote > > "Mary" <rosefan@email.com> wrote i [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Wide open. Well, good. ALL he had to do was to persist in trying to > get hold of the OP, and let her know that the cat was better. It wasn't clear the cat would continue to get better. > HE gave > her the impression that the cat was not > going to improve without some very expensive treatment, which was not > the case. How many MDs or vets do you know that nail a diagnosis every time? Mis-diagnoses are very common. I have had many between my cat and me. > The cat in fact did improve, and all he had to do at that > point was admit that he had been wrong and tell her. If she THEN > authorized the shot, that's a different matter. Well who is going to pay the expense of healing the cat? I'd say this is putting the owner through the wringer. Vets cannot afford to give away care. If they did, very few would work in this profession. Plus, it doesn't address the next time the cat gets ill. Next time, the owner will think she can leave the cat with the vet and, out of his pocket, he'll pay to save her. Sorry this is getting a wee bit nasty. My opinion is different from yours, but I respect what you say. > Here's the point: you are observing this from afar. So are you. Tell me what harm was done. > Who really knows WHAT this vet's intentions truly were? Exactly. An investigation will not establish this. It will attempt to establish the raw facts, particularly the physical events that transpired. > And isn't the OP just damn LUCKY that it worked out this way? > Can you even begin to visualize the possible suffering this cat ALMOST went > through at the hands of the irresponsible people it ended up with? Would you rather a healthy cat now be dead? > Isn't > this cat just damn LUCKY that the humane society was responsible enough to > check for a microchip? Without the microchip, the cat would either be euthanized by the Humane Society or rescued by a new owner. These outcomes are equal to or better than the original outcome (euthanasia) the owner arranged with the vet. > This vet may be running some other completely awful scam, like selling > animals to laboratories or pit bull owners. You just don't know. This > "comedy" of errors has laid open his best laid plans to lots of speculation. > He's busted! Let's investigate all vets, because we "just don't know" what sort of scams they run with pets they're told to euthanize. > Moreover, how would you like to be in the OPs shoes? Put a child in the > place of a pet, it you need to, because that's the attachment a lot of us > have to our pets. Just tell me exactly how the OP suffered; how it differs from the suffering she had if the cat had been euthanized; and how responsible for this difference the vet is. > I just can't imagine a vet making decisions for a long-term client after > "not being able to contact them". That's RIDICULOUS in the extreme. His explanation that he tried to reach them, meanwhile had to decide how to care for the cat, and didn't want to impose more heartache on them is entirely plausible. > She > had an answering machine, right? He should have kept the animal on premises > (if any part of his story is true) and continued to try to contact her. > That is the ONLY reasonable right and fair course of action he had, other > than euthanasia. Nonsense. The owner asked for euthanasia. To continue after a weekend or so trying to reach her to tell her the cat hadn't been euthanized, for this or that reason, poses a difficult situation. I think many are missing the conflicts the vet was facing. First and foremost, the vet appears to have put the animal's needs first, without imposing hardship on the owner. That's his job. Remember? > Please, spare me the idiots of this world and those who excuse them! If you'd identified an idiot, then you better believe I would not excuse him. You're still not responding to the following: > > Would you rather a vet who saw a cat recovering, thought he may have > > misdiagnosed, then tried to reach the owner but couldn't, just euthanize > anyway? > > Would you want this for your cat? >Oh, paa-leeze. That's what's wrong with this country--lawyers are convincing >everybody they're a "victim" and are entitled to a cash settlement. > >Sherry If you have been following this thread, you should know that the owner of this cat, and her family, were put through the ringer by the wrongful actions of vet. I'm not sure if there is a suit here, but there are authorities who police the veterinarian industry who ought to hear this story and decide whether or not they wish to take any action. >>Oh, paa-leeze. That's what's wrong with this country--lawyers are >convincing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >police the veterinarian industry who ought to hear this story and decide >whether or not they wish to take any action. Yes, I have been following the thread. Yes, I did suggest in another post the vet should be reported to the State Veterinary Board. No, a lawsuit shouldn't be filed. There is no monetary loss...quite the opposite, the vet is already willing to forgive the past vet bills and pay for any new ones. All a lawsuit is going to accomplish is lining the pockets of some ambulance-chasing lawyer. Sherry > >Please describe the harm. > > The owner was a victim of a breach of contract, at the very least, and perhaps > a fraud in the inducement of the contract. There may have been a breach of contract. But to win anything from a defendant in such a case the plaintiff would have to show harm and attach a fair dollar figure to it. The owner already said the vet wiped out all her bills. What more could the owner reasonably ask for? Breach and fraud in the inducement are debatable, anyway, given the extenuating circumstances of the vet trying to reach the owner, not being able to, then having to make a judgment call. > The owner suffered consequential > damages as a result. > > >Please indicate whether it was intentional. > > I don't know. It should be properly investigated. I think everyone (except those on the payroll for frivolous lawsuit investigations) has better things to do with their time. > >Done what before? Saved a cat's life? > > We don't know what he has really done. At the very least he has taken money > under a false pretense. He returned it. At the time he took the money, it was his intention to euthanize the cat. I don't think a jury or judge would be the least bit sympathetic to the plaintiff here. > >I do believe more than one authority would laugh at such a complaint. Why? > >Because the vet arguably did more good than bad. > > Let them laugh. We don't know if they would laugh until we go to them, do we? > Who says he did more good than bad? Well tell me what exactly did the vet do that was more harmful than good. You can argue it's the principle of "contracting" that counts here. But the law won't back you up. Gotta show harm. > That is just your belief, as you say. It > was the owners decision that the good in this case was a humane put down of the > cat. That was before the owner had the information that the vet tried to get to her over the weekend the cat was with him. I think the owner might have a lawsuit if the vet had instead euthanized the cat when in fact the cat was healthy. That's the rub. The vet may have believed his first diagnosis was wrong and felt that, if the owner knew this, then she wouldn't have arranged for euthanasia. <message snipped> This is not a simple case of his deciding not to go through with the euthanasia and instead nursing the cat back to health. He did not inform her. By his own admission, he called her and got her machine???? DUH???? Ever hear of leaving a message. He gave the cat to someone for safekeeping and didn't follow through to see if it was being kept safely. DUH??? What was that all about? He cut the owner out of every thing he did after trying to call her once and hanging up on her answering machine. Maybe there is no big high damage suit here; so waht? All I'm suggesting is that he ought to be made to account for his actions to someone other than the principlas involved. >>Done what before? Saved a cat's life? > >We don't know what he has really done. At the very least he has taken money >under a false pretense. How do you figure this, since he offered not only to wipe clean the owner's vet bill but also pay for a specialist to see the cat? > >>Done what before? Saved a cat's life? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How do you figure this, since he offered not only to wipe clean the owner's vet > bill but also pay for a specialist to see the cat? And, as it turns out, never charged the euthanasia fee. Considerably more effort should've gone into contacting the OP, IMO. But other than that, it actually worked out for the better, not worse, in the end. Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon >> How do you figure this, since he offered not only to wipe clean the >owner's vet [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >other than that, it actually worked out for the better, not worse, in the >end. It now sounds as though he did leave a message for the OP, but just asking how she was holding up rather than mentioning that the cat seemed better. The only thing I can think of is that maybe seeing that it had been an agonizing decision for her to decide to euthanize, he wanted to wait and see if the cat continued to improve rather than give her new hope and have the cat take another turn for the worst. Just an idea. (snip) > I do believe more than one authority would laugh at such a complaint. No, they wouldn't. Unless the OP signed over ownership of the cat or the cat was legally abandoned (time required for abandonment varies state to state), he had no right to give it to anyone. He committed pet theft. He did the right thing by postponing euthanasia when the cat rallied, but he should have kept the cat in his infirmary or fostered it with the understanding the cat was not his to give away. If the original owner was not willing to pay the cost of supportive care for the cat, the vet should have obtained a signed consent for transfer of ownership. At that point, he would have every legal and ethical right to give the cat to the vet tech or anyone else he felt was appropriate. My vet is also very compassionate and often delays owner-requested euthanasia if he feels the cat can recover with treatment. Once the cat is healthy, he will find it another home or surrender it to a no-kill shelter or rescue group, but never without the signed consent of the original owner. (snip) >Well, I'd take up the offer on the specialist. But man o man, this guy is >reall something. I agree, I'd take him up on his offer because it would be in the cat's best interest, but his story sure sounds fishy. If he was on the verge of tears, however, I think he is genuinely sorry about the whole mess. It does sound as though he cares about giving your cat a chance. >If he was on the verge of tears, >however, I think he is genuinely sorry about the whole mess. Sure, he could be genuinely sorry about how much trouble his stupidity got his a.s into. AJ, I have been reading your story with amazement. I have never heard of such a unbelievable situation! And this poor cat getting tossed around like this. I cannot believe the vet did not try harder to get a hold of you and wouldn't think you would be happy to find out your cat was better and he didn't have to put her to sleep. And what a heartless technician to drop a sick cat off at the humane society, why didn't she just bring the cat back to the vet if she couldn't take care of it. What a bunch of losers. I cannot imagine what a rollercoaster you must be on right now. You and your family. What is the condition of your cat now? Is she still very sick? And if she is what is her diagnosis? I think this poor cat deserves a second chance after all she has been through. Of course I don't know how sick she is and if she is suffering or not. My heart goes out to you...Janice >AJ, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >My heart goes out to you...Janice The Vet sounds like he is young and idealistic. After all, they go into the profession (usually) because they love animals. Doctors are not always good businessmen and they hire others to handle the business -- that is where trouble can appear. I am sure everyone has learned a valuable lesson -- do take him up on his offer. Purrs in abundance for kitty's wellbeing and recovery. >The Vet sounds like he is young and idealistic. After all, they go >into the profession (usually) because they love animals. I disagree. If he truly loved animals he would have followed up on the cats health. He should have asked the technician how the cat he entrusted to her was faring. She would have said it was sent to a shelter, and he would have retrieved it and took care of it; whatever that meant. No, he certainly wasn't thinking about the cat's well being or the owner's. I think he was passing the buck. BTW, why is he so nervous and unhinged? Because he knows he did wrong and he is vulnerable. Don't let him off the hook. > >The Vet sounds like he is young and idealistic. After all, they go > >into the profession (usually) because they love animals. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > BTW, why is he so nervous and unhinged? Because he knows he did wrong and he > is vulnerable. Don't let him off the hook. This sounds like the sort of thing you'd hear at an AA or NA meeting when someone tells their story. "Then there was the weekend I was supposed to euthenize this cat, but she looked a little better, and I thought I'd wait and see if she perked up, and in the meantime I thought I'd do just one line/beer/joint, and before I knew it...." Priscilla I'd still take legal actions against this vet and press to have his license suspended. Young or not if he did this to the OP's cat he has done it to others. I don't think just not using this vet is enough. He needs to be stopped now before there is another victim. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > The Vet sounds like he is young and idealistic. After all, they go > into the profession (usually) because they love animals. Doctors are > not always good businessmen and they hire others to handle the > business -- that is where trouble can appear. I am sure everyone has > learned a valuable lesson -- do take him up on his offer. Purrs in > abundance for kitty's wellbeing and recovery. Please, even if a lawsuit is not necessary or warranted this vet just MUST be reported. This has got to go on his record. He is either an idiot or a jerk or a liar, but none of these bodes well for animals in his care. You really need to visit an attorney, and contact the appropriate authorities. What if this guy has second thoughts about the bills AFTER you incur more? You haven't got anything in writing so you lose! Please, take your kitty to the best specialist you can find, and go after this vet. If more people did this, my animals wouldn't have suffered at the hands of an incompetent vet as they did! > Well I paid the vet a visit this morning. Let me tell you he was > suprised to see me! Here is his explanation. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > be a bad dream. > AJ >Well I paid the vet a visit this morning. Let me tell you he was >suprised to see me! Here is his explanation. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >be a bad dream. >AJ This is getting a bit weird. You said this originally happend in December, 5 weeks ago. So, he could have given the tech the cat for a weekend and called you two days later. I do not believe his story. Why did he not call you on that Monday and say he thought the cat had a chance, knew you would prefer her alive, so he put off the euthanaisa? Why did he give the cat to the tech who was about to move? Why did he not follow up on the cat's health on the following Monday? I would take him up on his offers of wiping out the bill, and paying for subsequent treatment at his expense. You can do all that wihtout giving up your recourse to go after his a.s once the dust has settled. >From: govtlawyer@aol.com (GovtLawyer) >This is getting a bit weird. You said this originally happend in December, 5 >weeks ago. So, he could have given the tech the cat for a weekend and called [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >was about to move? Why did he not follow up on the cat's health on the >following Monday? All good questions. Makes you wonder if somehow the cat got out of its cage before the vet was going to euthanize, and somehow got outside. Then a person in the neighborhood could have found her and brought her to the shelter. Stranger things have happened. ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >I just pray that by some miracle my kitty recovers and this will all >be a bad dream. >AJ If it were my cat, I would consider it a miracle, not a nightmare. I'd have given anything to have that kind of reunion with Cherokee. Forget about "whose call" it was, whose fault it was, etc. etc. The vet is paying for a specialist, and if I were you I'd take advantage of that offer and do everything in my power to tap into every resource and see what it will takee, what kind of chance there is to regain that cat's health. Good luck Sherry > >I just pray that by some miracle my kitty recovers and this will all > >be a bad dream. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > everything in my power to tap into every resource and see what it will takee, > what kind of chance there is to regain that cat's health. Good luck I second the motion. Priscilla <snip> >He claims that by >Saturday Abby started getting better and he felt that she had a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >orders to watch the cat and if she started getting worse again to >bring the cat back to him. >The vet was practically on his hands and knees begging my forgiveness. >He said he will do anything I want to rectify the situation, he was on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >of her bills. I am even more confused now and not sure what to do. I >mean it was not his call to make! At the *very least* this person is criminally negligent. If it were me, I'd have his license--not out of vengeance, but to stop him practicing his wacko brand of veterinary medicine on anyone else. For the sake of the other defenseless animals in this guy's care (now and in future), don't agree to anything with him. Hire a lawyer. File criminal charges. Report this person to the institutional entity in your state responsible for granting and revoking veterinary licenses. From the moment he saw you today, this so-called doctor realized he was in seriously deep pooh. *That* was why he begged your forgiveness and was on the verge of tears, not because he was remorseful or felt your pain. If you let him off the hook, he'll congratulate himself on his great luck and continue acting in his own interests rather than those of his patients. >Report this person to the institutional entity in your state >responsible for granting and revoking veterinary licenses. There are organizations which are set up to monitor the behaviour of vets. Let them decide if his behaviour is excusable or not. You should report him. > Well I paid the vet a visit this morning. Let me tell you he was > suprised to see me! Here is his explanation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > figured it was too late to call me and tell me since I would have been > grieving already. Did he leave a message on your machine? > So he claims he then handed the cat over to his technician with strict > orders to watch the cat and if she started getting worse again to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > be a bad dream. > AJ That's freakin' weird for sure, BUT, I'd get the cat to a specialist... I really thing it's not her time to go. > Well I paid the vet a visit this morning. Let me tell you he was > suprised to see me! Here is his explanation. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > be a bad dream. > AJ << I am even more confused now and not sure what to do. I mean it was not his call to make! I just pray that by some miracle my kitty recovers and this will all be a bad dream. AJ >> Well, it was all very, very wrong of him to turn a cat over to someone. How sad that these cats were passed around like that. I would certainly go to the specialist, though, and see what he can do. You don't have to pay for it yourself. I think the poor kitty deserves a chance at health and, just as an aside, I would take the vet for all he's worth. And then when all is done, I would report him. Candace (take the litter out before replying by e-mail) See my cats: http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace "One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other than human." (Loren Eisely) > << I am even more confused now and not sure what to do. I > mean it was not his call to make! > I just pray that by some miracle my kitty recovers and this will all > be a bad dream. > AJ >> <snipped> > I would certainly go to the > specialist, though, and see what he can do. You don't have to pay for it > yourself. I think the poor kitty deserves a chance at health Yes, I agree; I would definitely take Abby to the/a specialist. One of my cats had an acute liver condition - my vet referred me to an internist/oncologist, who was able to properly diagnose the nature of the prob (via a sonogram & core needle biopsy), & set us upon a successful treatment plan. If the vet is willing to pay for this, all the better! Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon and, just as an > aside, I would take the vet for all he's worth. And then when all is done, I > would report him. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other > than human." (Loren Eisely) He's willing to pay because he is scared shitless of a huge lawsuit and losing his license..take advantage of this....then report his pathetic a.s. Christina -- http://www.geocities.com/chrissy_1228/ourkittycats.html > > << I am even more confused now and not sure what to do. I > > mean it was not his call to make! [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > other > > than human." (Loren Eisely) That's great! I'm GLAD he was on the verge of tears! I'll bet he was scared shittless about losing his license! Bet he won't EVER make the same mistake again with other animals. What a lousy explanation about not being able to reach you on your phone. He should have gotten his "tech" to drive to your home with this type of situation to let you know what was going on! You'd better believe that if it were me, I would pick out the specialist myself, get Abby the best doctors/treatment she deserves and tell them to send the bill to that Joe Blow vet! He can apologize all he wants, get on his hands and knees, but don't buy into it. Let him take on all the bills from now on to make up for what you and Abby and your family has gone through. Good for you for going there today and confronting him!! I'll bet he's having a panic attack as we speak. I'm so sorry you had to go through all of this and wish that it was a dream, but realize that he's terrified of a lawsuit now, so he's going to do everything possible to give Abby the medical treatment she deserves. Please let us all know what you decide to do and try to remain calm and do what's best for her. How is your little girl doing, your daughter? The statement he made about "the weekend got away from him, he couldn't get in touch, and figured you'd be grieving by Monday anyway" made my blood boil!!!!!!!!!!!!! Christina
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.