"Your money or your cat": the ethics of a veterinary policy?
December 26, 2015 4:55 PM Subscribe
A relative of mine recently lost a cat. Not to death, but to essentially forced adoption in order to save its life when he couldn't afford surgery for it. Wondering if anyone else has encountered a veterinary policy like this, and what people think about it.
The story: he and his wife had a middle-aged cat diagnosed with kidney stones by an established local veterinarian. Non-surgical treatment was pursued but without success. They were told that the only option was surgery to remove the stones, at a cost that would run well over $1000 (can't recall the exact estimate, but more than they could afford without real hardship); also, the surgery was not without risk of failure. After some agonized discussion at home they decided that they simply couldn't afford the cost, especially given the uncertain prognosis, and asked if they could bring their cat in to be euthanized.
At this point they were told that it is the policy of the veterinary practice not to euthanize animals with conditions considered potentially curable. Instead, the vet offered this option: if they would sign over ownership of the cat, the veterinary practice would perform the surgery at its own expense and risk, and assuming a successful recovery would give the cat up for adoption by another party.
My relatives were somewhat stunned by this option, but decided that their cat's life was the main thing, and agreed to the arrangement. Subsequently they were told that the surgery had been successful, and their cat adopted, by one of the office staff if I remember the story correctly.
So: is this sort of policy common, or at least not unprecedented? Whether or no, what do you think of the policy? In its favor, it preserves the lives of pets. But my relatives felt as if they were subjected to a sort of emotional blackmail. If you consider it a reasonable policy, why are we outraged at the thought of a similar policy for human members of the family? ("We can cure little Johnny's leukemia, but if you can't afford the treatments you'll have to let us find other parents for him.")
The story: he and his wife had a middle-aged cat diagnosed with kidney stones by an established local veterinarian. Non-surgical treatment was pursued but without success. They were told that the only option was surgery to remove the stones, at a cost that would run well over $1000 (can't recall the exact estimate, but more than they could afford without real hardship); also, the surgery was not without risk of failure. After some agonized discussion at home they decided that they simply couldn't afford the cost, especially given the uncertain prognosis, and asked if they could bring their cat in to be euthanized.
At this point they were told that it is the policy of the veterinary practice not to euthanize animals with conditions considered potentially curable. Instead, the vet offered this option: if they would sign over ownership of the cat, the veterinary practice would perform the surgery at its own expense and risk, and assuming a successful recovery would give the cat up for adoption by another party.
My relatives were somewhat stunned by this option, but decided that their cat's life was the main thing, and agreed to the arrangement. Subsequently they were told that the surgery had been successful, and their cat adopted, by one of the office staff if I remember the story correctly.
So: is this sort of policy common, or at least not unprecedented? Whether or no, what do you think of the policy? In its favor, it preserves the lives of pets. But my relatives felt as if they were subjected to a sort of emotional blackmail. If you consider it a reasonable policy, why are we outraged at the thought of a similar policy for human members of the family? ("We can cure little Johnny's leukemia, but if you can't afford the treatments you'll have to let us find other parents for him.")
This post was deleted for the following reason: Sorry for the late delete on this, but "what do you think of the policy?" is heavy chatfilter / debatefilter -- taz
I've never encountered this before but it seems reasonable to me. The "pay or the pet will be adopted out" policy sounds like its aim is to prevent people taking advantage of free veterinary services if they really are able to afford it but just don't want to pay.
posted by a strong female character at 5:02 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by a strong female character at 5:02 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
I had this happen to friends of mine with an incontinent cat. To be honest, the cat and they and their dog were unhappy together and they were having a baby soon, and were giving up fairly quickly with treatment- and so were happy it was going to be rehomed. That was the first time I ever heard of it.
My current vet as his own thing, he does not push over treatment at the expense of the cat's happiness and will not do some of the extraordinary measures other vets will do if quality of life won't be good. He has warned me he pretty much puts the cats first always. And I am glad he does.
posted by TenaciousB at 5:04 PM on December 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
My current vet as his own thing, he does not push over treatment at the expense of the cat's happiness and will not do some of the extraordinary measures other vets will do if quality of life won't be good. He has warned me he pretty much puts the cats first always. And I am glad he does.
posted by TenaciousB at 5:04 PM on December 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
As for humans vs animals, most people do not consider humans and animals to be equivalent in terms of their rights to humane treatment. That said, a change of ownership is undoubtedly far less traumatic for a cat than it is for a sentient human child. (This is coming from a person who is often disgusted at how people treat pets like they are disposable objects without emotions).
posted by a strong female character at 5:04 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by a strong female character at 5:04 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
the human comparison you spell out isn't really what happened - it's more "we can't care for him anymore, so doctor will you kill him?" and the doctor was like, "how about we let someone adopt him instead of killing him." if i were your relatives, i'd be sad about losing my cat - an emotion i would be feeling no matter how this worked out - but i'd be glad that he'd still be alive even if i couldn't care for him anymore. what would they have preferred, to have the cat killed so they could feel less "blackmailed"?
posted by nadawi at 5:06 PM on December 26, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 5:06 PM on December 26, 2015 [22 favorites]
And (last post, sorry) adopting out the animal to people who can afford to take care of it seems like a better solution for the animal.
posted by a strong female character at 5:06 PM on December 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by a strong female character at 5:06 PM on December 26, 2015 [4 favorites]
I got two of my cats because the original owners had brought them to the vet to be euthanized because they were moving and their new place didn't accept pets. Rather than kill them, my vet had them sign over ownership to him (and then eventually to me). So the ethics here are different, but in both cases the animals lived and got new lives. It is pretty shocking that the vet wouldn't try to find a way to make the surgery cheaper, or figure out some doable payment plan however.
posted by clone boulevard at 5:11 PM on December 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by clone boulevard at 5:11 PM on December 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Your relatives weren't subjected to blackmail. Even if they couldn't comfortably afford the surgery outright, perhaps they could have borrowed part of the money, held a fundraiser, found an animal clinic or charitable organization that could have helped with a lower cost surgery? They didn't. Instead, they elected to have the animal destroyed even though there was a reasonable possibility of cure and meaningful life for the animal after treatment. Their vet did a very compassionate thing and they should be happy that their former cat is healthy and with people who can care for it going forward. This is a kind and generous policy for the vet to have.
Your attempted parallel to a situation involving humans doesn't work for many reasons including several already stated above.
posted by quince at 5:21 PM on December 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
Your attempted parallel to a situation involving humans doesn't work for many reasons including several already stated above.
posted by quince at 5:21 PM on December 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
So basically if you're poor you lose your cat, when the vet has the ability to perform the surgery for free? I'll stand up and say I think that's shitty, given that I have actual low-income friends with cats. There are other ways - payment plans, partial waivers of cost, means-testing, sliding scale charges - to help poor people keep their pets. This kind of policy may prevent a few stingy rich people from getting free services but at a cost to working people. This sounds like it's based on an idea that poor people are irresponsible and so don't deserve pets.
I cannot imagine how bad I'd feel to know that the vet wouldn't help me work out a way to pay for surgery and keep my cat. I also wonder if the people adopting the cats know. "Here is a lovely cat once adored by someone else, but because she couldn't afford medical care, we took the cat away - would you like to adopt it?" Man, I would feel bad if I had some poor person's cat. I'd want to "adopt" the cat and give it back, like in westerns where the sheriff tries to auction off someone's property and everyone stands there stony faced and one person bids a dollar so they can give it back.
posted by Frowner at 5:22 PM on December 26, 2015 [74 favorites]
I cannot imagine how bad I'd feel to know that the vet wouldn't help me work out a way to pay for surgery and keep my cat. I also wonder if the people adopting the cats know. "Here is a lovely cat once adored by someone else, but because she couldn't afford medical care, we took the cat away - would you like to adopt it?" Man, I would feel bad if I had some poor person's cat. I'd want to "adopt" the cat and give it back, like in westerns where the sheriff tries to auction off someone's property and everyone stands there stony faced and one person bids a dollar so they can give it back.
posted by Frowner at 5:22 PM on December 26, 2015 [74 favorites]
I recognize that I am not in a place to comment about this dispassionately. That said, HOLY SHIT HOW FUCKING EVIL MUST YOU BE TO IMPOSE THIS POLICY???
One of my two much-beloved shelter babies, whom I've posted about before, was diagnosed in early November with a severe diaphragmatic hernia. I took her up to the UC Davis veterinary clinic for treatment. She was admitted noonish on November 11. At about 6 pm on November 13, I spoke to the ICU vet to tell them to pull the plug.
I now owe more money than it would take to buy a used car. I will be paying my father off for a couple of years (and I'm grateful I had the option to go into debt). The idea that somebody might say "We'll pay for Bella's continuing care, on condition you never see her again"? Yeah, I might take it. But I'd be so very, very angry at the people involved…
Incidentally, I've never encountered this and I hope I never do.
(If you live within driving distance of Davis and have an ailing pet, I have only good things to say about them. These are people who understand that you just don't break promises to cats.)
posted by Lexica at 5:26 PM on December 26, 2015 [9 favorites]
One of my two much-beloved shelter babies, whom I've posted about before, was diagnosed in early November with a severe diaphragmatic hernia. I took her up to the UC Davis veterinary clinic for treatment. She was admitted noonish on November 11. At about 6 pm on November 13, I spoke to the ICU vet to tell them to pull the plug.
I now owe more money than it would take to buy a used car. I will be paying my father off for a couple of years (and I'm grateful I had the option to go into debt). The idea that somebody might say "We'll pay for Bella's continuing care, on condition you never see her again"? Yeah, I might take it. But I'd be so very, very angry at the people involved…
Incidentally, I've never encountered this and I hope I never do.
(If you live within driving distance of Davis and have an ailing pet, I have only good things to say about them. These are people who understand that you just don't break promises to cats.)
posted by Lexica at 5:26 PM on December 26, 2015 [9 favorites]
...is this sort of policy common, or at least not unprecedented?
Sorry, not sure. I haven't encountered this myself but I've also never been in a position where a vet might feel inclined to broach this topic with me.
Whether or no, what do you think of the policy?
I think it is reasonable. A family that cannot provide adequate medical care for its pet(s) is not equipped to have those pet(s). This vet is doing a kindness to both the pet and its owners - the pet gets the care it needs and is given to a family with the means to provide for it, and the owners are relieved of a financial burden.
The truth is, pets are expensive. For many people, it's easy to fit routine pet expenses into their budget, but not feasible to handle emergencies and/or serious medical issues. And while it sucks to say it, a family that cannot financially handle emergencies and/or serious medical issues ought not have a pet, for the pet's sake and their own.
If you consider it a reasonable policy, why are we outraged at the thought of a similar policy for human members of the family?
Sorry, but this isn't a good analogy. If Johnny's parents could not afford his leukemia treatment, they wouldn't take him to the hospital and ask for him to be euthanized, right?
posted by schroedingersgirl at 5:28 PM on December 26, 2015 [9 favorites]
Sorry, not sure. I haven't encountered this myself but I've also never been in a position where a vet might feel inclined to broach this topic with me.
Whether or no, what do you think of the policy?
I think it is reasonable. A family that cannot provide adequate medical care for its pet(s) is not equipped to have those pet(s). This vet is doing a kindness to both the pet and its owners - the pet gets the care it needs and is given to a family with the means to provide for it, and the owners are relieved of a financial burden.
The truth is, pets are expensive. For many people, it's easy to fit routine pet expenses into their budget, but not feasible to handle emergencies and/or serious medical issues. And while it sucks to say it, a family that cannot financially handle emergencies and/or serious medical issues ought not have a pet, for the pet's sake and their own.
If you consider it a reasonable policy, why are we outraged at the thought of a similar policy for human members of the family?
Sorry, but this isn't a good analogy. If Johnny's parents could not afford his leukemia treatment, they wouldn't take him to the hospital and ask for him to be euthanized, right?
posted by schroedingersgirl at 5:28 PM on December 26, 2015 [9 favorites]
if the relatives had asked for a payment plan, or called vet schools, or seemed to be trying to pay for the surgery and the doctor said no, i'm taking your cat because you're unfit, that'd be one thing. but they were seeking to have the cat put down, which makes it a very different thing than willy nilly punishing poor people for having pets.
posted by nadawi at 5:28 PM on December 26, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 5:28 PM on December 26, 2015 [22 favorites]
If you consider it a reasonable policy, why are we outraged at the thought of a similar policy for human members of the family?
Nobody would euthanize a human family member because the cost of saving them would be a "hardship". I don't say this to be flip - there's an amount we *wouldn't* spend on our own beloved but aging cat - but it's not the same thing.
posted by ftm at 5:32 PM on December 26, 2015
Nobody would euthanize a human family member because the cost of saving them would be a "hardship". I don't say this to be flip - there's an amount we *wouldn't* spend on our own beloved but aging cat - but it's not the same thing.
posted by ftm at 5:32 PM on December 26, 2015
Your relations lost a cat, though not to death, and it sounds like the circumstances of these deals are perfectly shaped to cause shame and guilt in people surrendering their pets (even if that's not the intention of rescue groups). The situational ethics are complex, but your relatives have every right and reason to feel sad about what happened.
posted by Hypatia at 5:33 PM on December 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Hypatia at 5:33 PM on December 26, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yes, this is pretty common. They do it because they don't want to just provide free services for anyone who doesn't want to pay, but they also don't want to leave an animal with a painful medical condition or kill it because the treatment costs too much. I'm pretty uncomfortable with it, but I can't think of a reasonable alternative, either.
There are sometimes charitable services, and there's Care Credit (which I know almost nothing about and am not recommending), and other credit options, and some vets might work directly with clients providing payment plans and/or discounts for necessary services.
And there are a lot of things that we do with pets that we wouldn't with humans. We just have very different standards all around.
Ultimately, life isn't fair and sometimes there aren't clean and there are a lot of problems that just don't have clear, simple solutions. Some things just suck, and I think this problem is one of them.
posted by ernielundquist at 5:35 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are sometimes charitable services, and there's Care Credit (which I know almost nothing about and am not recommending), and other credit options, and some vets might work directly with clients providing payment plans and/or discounts for necessary services.
And there are a lot of things that we do with pets that we wouldn't with humans. We just have very different standards all around.
Ultimately, life isn't fair and sometimes there aren't clean and there are a lot of problems that just don't have clear, simple solutions. Some things just suck, and I think this problem is one of them.
posted by ernielundquist at 5:35 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: So far I've learned two important things: that the policy my relatives encountered isn't rare, and that there's a legitimate range of opinions concerning the ethical issues involved. And yes, my analogy of the child with leukemia was flawed, but it was the first thing that came to mind.
But as for "a family that cannot provide adequate medical care for its pet(s) is not equipped to have those pet(s)": it seems to me that if "adequate medical care" is construed to include "payment for relatively rare but extremely expensive procedures", then basically only the 1% qualify to own pets until/unless the economics of shared risk (insurance) become more equitable.
posted by Creosote at 6:01 PM on December 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
But as for "a family that cannot provide adequate medical care for its pet(s) is not equipped to have those pet(s)": it seems to me that if "adequate medical care" is construed to include "payment for relatively rare but extremely expensive procedures", then basically only the 1% qualify to own pets until/unless the economics of shared risk (insurance) become more equitable.
posted by Creosote at 6:01 PM on December 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
The only controversial instance I heard of this was where the pet owner had the surgery done for her pet, but couldn't pay for it when it was done, so the vet held the pet until the owner could come up with the money, in the same way a mechanic would hold your car if he did the repairs and the car owner couldn't pay. People were upset by this (mostly based on the idea that a pet was being treated like a car), but there's no veterinary code of ethics that prevents it.
Honestly, the couple couldn't afford to keep the cat and take care of it, so the vet offered to give the pet to a family that could. And LOTS of people consider it horrible to let a pet die of a condition that they could otherwise pay to treat (as the veterinarian seems to have felt-- deciding he'd rather the cat find another home than have it euthanized).
posted by deanc at 6:04 PM on December 26, 2015
Honestly, the couple couldn't afford to keep the cat and take care of it, so the vet offered to give the pet to a family that could. And LOTS of people consider it horrible to let a pet die of a condition that they could otherwise pay to treat (as the veterinarian seems to have felt-- deciding he'd rather the cat find another home than have it euthanized).
posted by deanc at 6:04 PM on December 26, 2015
basically only the 1% qualify to own pets until/unless the economics of shared risk (insurance) become more equitable.
Most middle class people living paycheck-to-paycheck who couldn't afford the treatment up front would put the cost on their credit card, if they really wanted to save their pet. People on fixed incomes or the very poor would simply have to put the pet up for adoption, euthanize it, or let the pet die of the condition, with the latter two options having been the solution for almost the entire history of pet ownership.
posted by deanc at 6:08 PM on December 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
Most middle class people living paycheck-to-paycheck who couldn't afford the treatment up front would put the cost on their credit card, if they really wanted to save their pet. People on fixed incomes or the very poor would simply have to put the pet up for adoption, euthanize it, or let the pet die of the condition, with the latter two options having been the solution for almost the entire history of pet ownership.
posted by deanc at 6:08 PM on December 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
That said, my dentist was always trying to sell me on expensive procedures with the option of financing the cost, so I don't see why the veterinarian didn't try to sell your relatives on that.
While "it's just business" seems like a cold reason for not releasing a pet back to a family that could not afford the bill, having a financing department that handles payments and collections seems even more like a business-oriented enterprise than simply making humane arrangements for those who can't afford expensive pet care.
posted by deanc at 6:11 PM on December 26, 2015
While "it's just business" seems like a cold reason for not releasing a pet back to a family that could not afford the bill, having a financing department that handles payments and collections seems even more like a business-oriented enterprise than simply making humane arrangements for those who can't afford expensive pet care.
posted by deanc at 6:11 PM on December 26, 2015
I had a co-worker go through a very similar situation. Faced with a very high very bill for his cat, he was forced to give custody to the vet, and the cat was adopted by someone who worked at the vet clinic.
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 6:11 PM on December 26, 2015
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 6:11 PM on December 26, 2015
I have a similar story to deanc's: my cat had a urinary blockage and the nearest vet clinic had a policy that basically said "If you can't pay your bills within two weeks, we reserve the right to adopt out your pet." No payment plans either, full amount or your pet is gone. Luckily I didn't have to face that choice.
posted by siouxsiesmith at 6:14 PM on December 26, 2015
posted by siouxsiesmith at 6:14 PM on December 26, 2015
Also, it sounds like there wasn't really a negotiation where your relatives had all possible information. At first, they thought there were two options: euthanasia, or a large-sum-up-front-for-possibly-unsuccessful-operation. And they chose from those options. (The vet may have been medically correct by saying that the only medically sound option was surgery; but as you know that is not the only possible choice option.)
Then at the last minute, the vet said "Oh, there's a third option" but it wasn't one they had in their original calculation.
Other options not discussed: payment plans, sliding scale, charitable funds for this purpose--which, as others have said, are all possible options that vet clinics can and do offer, even if this vet chose not to.
So I can definitely see where they felt blindsided or blackmailed. Even if the vet had let them know about the adoption option earlier in the process, or perhaps at the start of their cat becoming a patient, they could have had more time to reconcile themselves to it.
posted by Hypatia at 6:17 PM on December 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
Then at the last minute, the vet said "Oh, there's a third option" but it wasn't one they had in their original calculation.
Other options not discussed: payment plans, sliding scale, charitable funds for this purpose--which, as others have said, are all possible options that vet clinics can and do offer, even if this vet chose not to.
So I can definitely see where they felt blindsided or blackmailed. Even if the vet had let them know about the adoption option earlier in the process, or perhaps at the start of their cat becoming a patient, they could have had more time to reconcile themselves to it.
posted by Hypatia at 6:17 PM on December 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm not going to comment on the ethics of relinquishing pets when owners can't pay (something I witnessed at every vet clinic I worked) but I did want to jump in and say that in my experience, whoever adopts these animals generally pays the bill. It isn't free. Most of the adoptions I saw were by veterinary technicians who can't really afford it either even with an employee discount.
posted by little miss s at 6:41 PM on December 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by little miss s at 6:41 PM on December 26, 2015 [8 favorites]
So I think I would be taking my cat(if I had one) and asking for a second opinion, is what I think.
I can see the possibility of this policy being abused.
While I am at it, who is to say that putting an animal through the stress of an operation, etc especially if outcome is not guaranteed, is not cruel in and of itself?
So many times I see pictures online of rescue groups raising money to treat animals who are suffering horribly, i.e. burns -the more humane thing would be to put the poor thing down.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:49 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
I can see the possibility of this policy being abused.
While I am at it, who is to say that putting an animal through the stress of an operation, etc especially if outcome is not guaranteed, is not cruel in and of itself?
So many times I see pictures online of rescue groups raising money to treat animals who are suffering horribly, i.e. burns -the more humane thing would be to put the poor thing down.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 6:49 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not going to comment on the ethics of relinquishing pets when owners can't pay (something I witnessed at every vet clinic I worked) but I did want to jump in and say that in my experience, whoever adopts these animals generally pays the bill. It isn't free. Most of the adoptions I saw were by veterinary technicians who can't really afford it either even with an employee discount.
Just to sort of second this because I probably didn't clarify it, but I see this from the shelter end, and it also applies to us. We get relinquished animals either directly or I think sometimes referred by the vets, and the rescue pays for medical treatment. Then, once they're treated and fully recovered, we put them up for adoption.
But this is a really good point that bears repeating: It's never free. There are actual costs for supplies and equipment, and vets can't just work for free every time there's a need, because there's an endless supply of need.
posted by ernielundquist at 7:15 PM on December 26, 2015 [12 favorites]
Just to sort of second this because I probably didn't clarify it, but I see this from the shelter end, and it also applies to us. We get relinquished animals either directly or I think sometimes referred by the vets, and the rescue pays for medical treatment. Then, once they're treated and fully recovered, we put them up for adoption.
But this is a really good point that bears repeating: It's never free. There are actual costs for supplies and equipment, and vets can't just work for free every time there's a need, because there's an endless supply of need.
posted by ernielundquist at 7:15 PM on December 26, 2015 [12 favorites]
It's an interesting/weird policy and I'm not surprised people have mixed feelings about it. I haven't heard of the policy at any vets I've used over the years (but when we had to make the decision to euthanize our pup, it wasn't curable and wouldn't have come up). It does sort of make a difference to me if the future adopter was the one picking up the tab - what Frowner and little miss s are talking about. I guess I'd like to know if the vet could perform the surgery pro bono and would only do so under the condition that the animal was surrendered or if the vet was trying to balance earning a living and care for the animal, i.e., found someone who could pay the vet bill.
posted by Beti at 7:17 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Beti at 7:17 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
But as for "a family that cannot provide adequate medical care for its pet(s) is not equipped to have those pet(s)": it seems to me that if "adequate medical care" is construed to include "payment for relatively rare but extremely expensive procedures", then basically only the 1% qualify to own pets until/unless the economics of shared risk (insurance) become more equitable.
To be in the top 1%, a household needed to earn $383,001 per year in 2012 (source). Are you really suggesting that to have a savings account of, say, a few thousand dollars for pet-related emergencies, you need to earn over seven times the national median income? Because that is simply not even close to the case.
posted by schroedingersgirl at 7:17 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
To be in the top 1%, a household needed to earn $383,001 per year in 2012 (source). Are you really suggesting that to have a savings account of, say, a few thousand dollars for pet-related emergencies, you need to earn over seven times the national median income? Because that is simply not even close to the case.
posted by schroedingersgirl at 7:17 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Couple things deleted. Folks, I know pet care and illness/death is a super sensitive topic for folks in a lot of ways, but let's keep this looking like an Ask MetaFilter thread and allow that people have different opinions even about charged subject. Same thing here applies as pretty everywhere: it's okay to just give the thread a pass if other people's opinions are bugging you.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:26 PM on December 26, 2015
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:26 PM on December 26, 2015
Like you said, the animal's welfare is most important. But with the care that you were able to provide, it would have died.
Yes and no. The adopter didn't pay for the treatment, the vet did it for free. Instead of taking cat from family A, performing free surgery, and giving it to family B, they could take the cat from family A, perform free surgery, and give it back to family A. I feel like this should at least be an option? In all respects this is the same as the A to B option except you get to also have your cat and it gets to stay with it's family.
posted by RustyBrooks at 7:42 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes and no. The adopter didn't pay for the treatment, the vet did it for free. Instead of taking cat from family A, performing free surgery, and giving it to family B, they could take the cat from family A, perform free surgery, and give it back to family A. I feel like this should at least be an option? In all respects this is the same as the A to B option except you get to also have your cat and it gets to stay with it's family.
posted by RustyBrooks at 7:42 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
@schroedingersgirl: When 40% of USians have less than $500 in savings total (source) and typical US middle-class families would have to liquidate retirement funds and other investments to survive in an emergency (source), I think it's fair to say that having "a few thousand dollars for pet-related emergencies" is out of reach for the vast majority of people in the United States, yes. Most folks don't have a few thousand dollars for any kind of emergency, let alone specifically earmarked for Fido (or whomever).
As much as I love my own cat, Nemo, I'd have to think long and hard before dipping into my own emergency fund to finance a costly operation for him. If I decided I couldn't afford it, I'd appreciate the option to give him up to someone else so that he could stay alive (even if I would be an emotional wreck as a result).
Having that decision forced feels icky, but that's because I'm human and don't like the idea that I'm replaceable. My special snowflake ego is not worth the cat's life, of course, but in an emotional situation I'm not sure I'd be rational enough to make the best decision for my cat. Point is: I can see how this policy is, overall, the most ethical thing a vet can do.
posted by zebra at 7:48 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
As much as I love my own cat, Nemo, I'd have to think long and hard before dipping into my own emergency fund to finance a costly operation for him. If I decided I couldn't afford it, I'd appreciate the option to give him up to someone else so that he could stay alive (even if I would be an emotional wreck as a result).
Having that decision forced feels icky, but that's because I'm human and don't like the idea that I'm replaceable. My special snowflake ego is not worth the cat's life, of course, but in an emotional situation I'm not sure I'd be rational enough to make the best decision for my cat. Point is: I can see how this policy is, overall, the most ethical thing a vet can do.
posted by zebra at 7:48 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
Instead of taking cat from family A, performing free surgery, and giving it to family B, they could take the cat from family A, perform free surgery, and give it back to family A.
This basically makes paying for surgery voluntary. "It'll be $1,000" "I won't pay, put the cat down" "Okay, we'll do the surgery for free and adopt it out" "you monsters, how could you not give the cat back to me?"
Castigating the vet for not offering the surgery for free without conditions is just demanding the vet act like a charity that they aren't. The vet has another option that they didn't take: simply require full payment, and it's your problem otherwise. The vet is already the generous one in this case.
posted by fatbird at 7:55 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
This basically makes paying for surgery voluntary. "It'll be $1,000" "I won't pay, put the cat down" "Okay, we'll do the surgery for free and adopt it out" "you monsters, how could you not give the cat back to me?"
Castigating the vet for not offering the surgery for free without conditions is just demanding the vet act like a charity that they aren't. The vet has another option that they didn't take: simply require full payment, and it's your problem otherwise. The vet is already the generous one in this case.
posted by fatbird at 7:55 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
What happens when family B can't pay for the next expensive operation - the cat goes to family C? I feel sorry for these poor, sick cats who are getting shuffled around from family to family. And it isn't as if there aren't enough shelter cats to go around without people adopting cats who have homes already. In ernielundquist's example, where the shelter pays the vet fees and adopts the animal to a new family...why not just pay the fee and give the animal back to its original family? Then they'd have one less shelter cat to find a home for.
The 1% thing is a derail. As a poor latchkey kid growing up with a single mom who wasn't around too often, it's no exaggeration to say my cat was my most beloved family member. There's no way we could have afforded a $1k operation but having the cat taken away would have been devastating. There's got to be a better way - reduced fees for low income families that are means tested, for example.
posted by hazyjane at 7:55 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
The 1% thing is a derail. As a poor latchkey kid growing up with a single mom who wasn't around too often, it's no exaggeration to say my cat was my most beloved family member. There's no way we could have afforded a $1k operation but having the cat taken away would have been devastating. There's got to be a better way - reduced fees for low income families that are means tested, for example.
posted by hazyjane at 7:55 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
Another anecdote re "is this common?" : In a similar situation this didn't happen to us.
Our (originally stray) cat apparently needs $1000+ worth of dental surgery because his mouth is in really bad shape. We thanked the vet for checking him out, told him that we'd think about it, and brought our cat home and never did the surgery.
Of course he probably won't die without the surgery and we never asked the vet to put him down (the cat seems happy enough with his wet food diet).
posted by eisforcool at 8:08 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
Our (originally stray) cat apparently needs $1000+ worth of dental surgery because his mouth is in really bad shape. We thanked the vet for checking him out, told him that we'd think about it, and brought our cat home and never did the surgery.
Of course he probably won't die without the surgery and we never asked the vet to put him down (the cat seems happy enough with his wet food diet).
posted by eisforcool at 8:08 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
I am not positive how I feel about the policy. I understand how some of you feel that it is cruel and unfair.
However, I spent some time working as a vet tech in an emergency clinic. There were so, so many animals coming in that we had to put down because their owners couldn't afford (or just wouldn't pay for, in a few cases) treatment (sometimes not even particularly difficult treatment, but for some people $200 is just too much even with helpful financing options). It was heartbreaking for the doctors and techs. We fought the continual urge to just treat them anyway, but that would quickly bankrupt the clinic (or the individuals vets and techs).
At one point, an animal rescue group offered to pay for some procedures, with the animal then going to the rescue group. It certainly seem like a better option to us than killing a very treatable animal. And understand why the rescue group wanted custody in exchange for financing treatment---animals cost money. Most people that can't afford the first procedure won't be able to afford the next one. And the rescue groups pockets are (anywhere close to) bottomless.
posted by mkuhnell at 8:16 PM on December 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
However, I spent some time working as a vet tech in an emergency clinic. There were so, so many animals coming in that we had to put down because their owners couldn't afford (or just wouldn't pay for, in a few cases) treatment (sometimes not even particularly difficult treatment, but for some people $200 is just too much even with helpful financing options). It was heartbreaking for the doctors and techs. We fought the continual urge to just treat them anyway, but that would quickly bankrupt the clinic (or the individuals vets and techs).
At one point, an animal rescue group offered to pay for some procedures, with the animal then going to the rescue group. It certainly seem like a better option to us than killing a very treatable animal. And understand why the rescue group wanted custody in exchange for financing treatment---animals cost money. Most people that can't afford the first procedure won't be able to afford the next one. And the rescue groups pockets are (anywhere close to) bottomless.
posted by mkuhnell at 8:16 PM on December 26, 2015 [11 favorites]
I fail to understand the outrage when your relatives were going to euthanize the cat. How is this outcome in anyway worse for the cat? Vets obviously can't work for free.
The comparison to human health care is non-sense.
posted by LoveHam at 8:18 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
The comparison to human health care is non-sense.
posted by LoveHam at 8:18 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
One thing that is unclear in your question is what your relatives think a preferable option would have been? While I'm sure it was an agonizing decision for them, and they absolutely have my sympathy as a fellow pet owner (one who has several times had to dip into savings to cover unexpected veterinary costs), it sounds like they made peace with the idea of having the cat euthanized. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, what ultimately happened here gave them the exact same end result (life without this particular cat), with the added benefit that the cat gets to live. Were they upset that the veterinarian didn't honor their request to put the cat down or that the cat wasn't given back to them after the surgery?
I'm a little surprised at the suggestion by some that the work should have been done pro bono or at a discounted rate. "Fuck You, Pay Me", the idea that one should be compensated for their work, is a mantra that is generally supported here when it comes to artists, musicians, and writers; don't see why it wouldn't apply to a medical professional too. Might as well suggest that doing this surgery for free would have given him or her "great exposure" for their practice.
posted by The Gooch at 9:10 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm a little surprised at the suggestion by some that the work should have been done pro bono or at a discounted rate. "Fuck You, Pay Me", the idea that one should be compensated for their work, is a mantra that is generally supported here when it comes to artists, musicians, and writers; don't see why it wouldn't apply to a medical professional too. Might as well suggest that doing this surgery for free would have given him or her "great exposure" for their practice.
posted by The Gooch at 9:10 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
We did this with humans for a very long time and it's still a common practice. Historically, many children in orphanages were there not because both their parents died but because living parents (who probably loved them and very much wanted to keep them) could not afford their care (often but not always because one parent lost their job, sickened, or died). Many children adopted from poorer and/or less regulated countries today are in that situation, and many people do see that kind of adoption as saving a child from poverty or worse. And it's kind of true.
But now the preferred approach is to make sure that kids who are up for adoptions are not in that situation due to financial coercion. But it's taking a concerted international effort to even begin to enforce that, and as long as there are places where parents don't have financial safety nets, and as long as there are people looking to adopt, the possibility will still be there.
I don't know if it makes you any better to consider that many people still do take the approach, to children, that if parents can't afford them, they shouldn't have them and shouldn't necessarily be able to keep them, and are comfortable with (or being) wealthier people adopting children under those circumstances (sometimes maybe with willful blindness).
This is possible because humans have not prioritized, at least in terms of putting our money where our mouths are, keeping families intact.
This seems to be changing but we have a long way to go.
I do believe that pets can be an important part of people's families and in a just world we would set up systems to help people at all income levels keep pets. But the financial and logistical work to get there (including incentivizing/regulating responsible choices in terms of which pets and how many, sharing risks/costs in a sensible way, educating and adequately compensating sufficient vets and vet techs) are considerable, and definitely way beyond the reach of any sole vet office or rescue group. (Here in the US, we're not managing this for human health care yet).
I don't love the solution discussed here. I think it's crude and cruel and uncompassionate and reflects badly on all of us. But... I'm not seeing any obvious immediate better choice for a vet facing this question right now, and if a thoughtful and ethical veterinarian told me that, upon reflection, this was the best among the bad choices available to them, I'm prepared to believe and accept that.
posted by Salamandrous at 9:12 PM on December 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
But now the preferred approach is to make sure that kids who are up for adoptions are not in that situation due to financial coercion. But it's taking a concerted international effort to even begin to enforce that, and as long as there are places where parents don't have financial safety nets, and as long as there are people looking to adopt, the possibility will still be there.
I don't know if it makes you any better to consider that many people still do take the approach, to children, that if parents can't afford them, they shouldn't have them and shouldn't necessarily be able to keep them, and are comfortable with (or being) wealthier people adopting children under those circumstances (sometimes maybe with willful blindness).
This is possible because humans have not prioritized, at least in terms of putting our money where our mouths are, keeping families intact.
This seems to be changing but we have a long way to go.
I do believe that pets can be an important part of people's families and in a just world we would set up systems to help people at all income levels keep pets. But the financial and logistical work to get there (including incentivizing/regulating responsible choices in terms of which pets and how many, sharing risks/costs in a sensible way, educating and adequately compensating sufficient vets and vet techs) are considerable, and definitely way beyond the reach of any sole vet office or rescue group. (Here in the US, we're not managing this for human health care yet).
I don't love the solution discussed here. I think it's crude and cruel and uncompassionate and reflects badly on all of us. But... I'm not seeing any obvious immediate better choice for a vet facing this question right now, and if a thoughtful and ethical veterinarian told me that, upon reflection, this was the best among the bad choices available to them, I'm prepared to believe and accept that.
posted by Salamandrous at 9:12 PM on December 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm a little surprised at the suggestion by some that the work should have been done pro bono or at a discounted rate. "Fuck You, Pay Me", the idea that one should be compensated for their work, is a mantra that is generally supported here when it comes to artists, musicians, and writers; don't see why it wouldn't apply to a medical professional too
Animal gets euthanized: vet doesn't get paid (for the surgery)
Vet does surgery for free, gives to family B: vet doesn't get paid for surgery
Vet does surgery for free, gives back to family A: vet doesn't get paid for surgery
There is no outcome here where the vet gets paid. I'm not really suggesting that you should open with "I can't pay, so do the surgery for free" but once the vet is at the point where they are willing to do it for free, I don't see the benefit of giving the cat to a 3rd party. It strikes me as the psychological fallacy where we just see people without money as not being deserving of things.
Maybe there would be rampant abuse if they offered to give it back, with every supplicant refusing to pay, I dunno. That strikes me as being about as likely as rampant welfare abuse, which I see as being in sort of the same category (someone poor is getting something for free, time for moral panic)
posted by RustyBrooks at 9:27 PM on December 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
Animal gets euthanized: vet doesn't get paid (for the surgery)
Vet does surgery for free, gives to family B: vet doesn't get paid for surgery
Vet does surgery for free, gives back to family A: vet doesn't get paid for surgery
There is no outcome here where the vet gets paid. I'm not really suggesting that you should open with "I can't pay, so do the surgery for free" but once the vet is at the point where they are willing to do it for free, I don't see the benefit of giving the cat to a 3rd party. It strikes me as the psychological fallacy where we just see people without money as not being deserving of things.
Maybe there would be rampant abuse if they offered to give it back, with every supplicant refusing to pay, I dunno. That strikes me as being about as likely as rampant welfare abuse, which I see as being in sort of the same category (someone poor is getting something for free, time for moral panic)
posted by RustyBrooks at 9:27 PM on December 26, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am neither offended nor entirely comfortable with this practice. If an aging cat of mine needed an operation to increase its life expectancy and I decided euthanasia was a better option, I would hope a vet would respect the decision. If a young cat needs an operation, it does seem a shame to euthanise because of lack of funds, and it seems this policy might make everyone better off.
posted by deadweightloss at 9:30 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by deadweightloss at 9:30 PM on December 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
I can see why this situation would be heartbreaking. It's better than the alternative of putting the cat down, though. But my question is - could the adopter actually afford the surgery? It sounded like the vet did the surgery for free and then adopted it out to a random person that may or may not be able to afford expensive medical treatments in the future. That's the part that seems unfair to me. If the vet was going to do the surgery free any way, they should have just returned the cat to the original owners. Not sure why rehoming the cat was mandatory if they were going to offer the surgery at no cost either way.
Maybe I'm wrong and the new owner did foot the bill, but I kind of doubt someone working in a vet office could afford an expensive surgery unless they'd already had the money available to spare.
posted by Autumn at 9:33 PM on December 26, 2015
Maybe I'm wrong and the new owner did foot the bill, but I kind of doubt someone working in a vet office could afford an expensive surgery unless they'd already had the money available to spare.
posted by Autumn at 9:33 PM on December 26, 2015
if they would sign over ownership of the cat, the veterinary practice would perform the surgery at its own expense and risk, and assuming a successful recovery would give the cat up for adoption by another party.
The vet is doing the surgery for free, and then giving the cat away.
posted by RustyBrooks at 9:37 PM on December 26, 2015
The vet is doing the surgery for free, and then giving the cat away.
posted by RustyBrooks at 9:37 PM on December 26, 2015
Do we have any evidence that the vet gave the cat away for free after the procedure? Adoptions from rescues often involve fee payments in the hundreds of dollars. In particular, one of the rescues we adopted a dog from did ask us to cover the price of her recent spaying procedure as part of the adoption. They got a great deal on it as it was done by a city shelter, so we were glad to pay it as it would have cost loads more at our vet.
While the vet may not have recouped the whole $1000 they may have gotten a reasonable fraction of it. Certainly they would rather have gotten the whole price and kept the cat with its family, but this way they don't get a reputation around town as a practice that gives away veterinary care if you come in with a compelling sob story.
posted by town of cats at 9:47 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
While the vet may not have recouped the whole $1000 they may have gotten a reasonable fraction of it. Certainly they would rather have gotten the whole price and kept the cat with its family, but this way they don't get a reputation around town as a practice that gives away veterinary care if you come in with a compelling sob story.
posted by town of cats at 9:47 PM on December 26, 2015 [5 favorites]
When I adopted my cat, the people from whom I adopted her asked if I could pay to take care of her. I think they also stipulated that if she had a medical problem and I could not pay for her care, I am to return her to the organization from which she was adopted. God forbid something happen to her but I'm prepared to deal with that (at least as much as I can be, I think).
I think that people who work with animals see all kinds of terrible behavior by people on a regular basis. I think someone here once mentioned a pet owner who didn't want to get a puppy vaccinated for parvo because they didn't want it to get dog autism (??), then when the dog got sick, they surrendered it because it wasn't fun anymore. It would not surprise me to learn that vets have been burned by animal owners who couldn't afford to pay for their pets' health care and continued to adopt more animals.
Pet ownership is not a right. Vets are professionals who are trained for several years and deserve to be compensated for their work. If you disagree, I don't think you should take your animal to a vet and if you can't take your animal to a vet, you shouldn't own an animal. Yes, that sucks sometimes. It also sucks that when I visit family, I can't take my cat so I have to pay for a sitter. But I assumed that cost when I adopted my cat. I would love to have a dog but I chose not to adopt a dog because I didn't think I could afford boarding it when I went out of town and dog daycare or a daily dog walker while I'm at work. If you plan to keep an animal until it dies, you will likely have to pay a steep vet bill at some point. If that's out of reach, maybe you should foster a pet instead of adopting one.
posted by kat518 at 9:57 PM on December 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think that people who work with animals see all kinds of terrible behavior by people on a regular basis. I think someone here once mentioned a pet owner who didn't want to get a puppy vaccinated for parvo because they didn't want it to get dog autism (??), then when the dog got sick, they surrendered it because it wasn't fun anymore. It would not surprise me to learn that vets have been burned by animal owners who couldn't afford to pay for their pets' health care and continued to adopt more animals.
Pet ownership is not a right. Vets are professionals who are trained for several years and deserve to be compensated for their work. If you disagree, I don't think you should take your animal to a vet and if you can't take your animal to a vet, you shouldn't own an animal. Yes, that sucks sometimes. It also sucks that when I visit family, I can't take my cat so I have to pay for a sitter. But I assumed that cost when I adopted my cat. I would love to have a dog but I chose not to adopt a dog because I didn't think I could afford boarding it when I went out of town and dog daycare or a daily dog walker while I'm at work. If you plan to keep an animal until it dies, you will likely have to pay a steep vet bill at some point. If that's out of reach, maybe you should foster a pet instead of adopting one.
posted by kat518 at 9:57 PM on December 26, 2015 [6 favorites]
One point no one has mentioned yet is that if the vet had put the cat to sleep he would have been paid for the procedure. By refusing to kill the cat he cost himself money. I see this as a compassionate choice.
posted by irisclara at 9:59 PM on December 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by irisclara at 9:59 PM on December 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
If you don't assume bad faith on anybody's parts, this is a situation that sucks all around, but the actual circumstances of what happened here were that they actively sought to have the cat put down. The vet did have another option, but it's not another option they can afford to provide on an unlimited basis to everyone who walks in who doesn't have much money. Something has to limit how often they have to do this. It has to be the last resort. Any other policy would result in the vet spending more time treating animals for free than treating them for money. Their work has value and they deserve to make a living as much as anybody.
If you want a people analog? I used to have a friend who went to a public mental health clinic that only operated... every other Saturday or something like that. You had to make an appointment. You had to get there fairly early because they wouldn't wait for you if they were running ahead. All of these things were really annoying. But if they offered unlimited hours and no appointments and no waiting, they could have easily been there 80 hours a week. They didn't have the resources to be there 80 hours a week. They didn't have 80 hours a week to spend on it. When you have to allocate scarce charity care, people have to make sacrifices. It is not unusual to structure things so that people won't take advantage unless they are really desperate. Until there are a lot more funds around to help people with, this sometimes works out to the way to make sure that the most possible care is provided.
posted by Sequence at 10:03 PM on December 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
If you want a people analog? I used to have a friend who went to a public mental health clinic that only operated... every other Saturday or something like that. You had to make an appointment. You had to get there fairly early because they wouldn't wait for you if they were running ahead. All of these things were really annoying. But if they offered unlimited hours and no appointments and no waiting, they could have easily been there 80 hours a week. They didn't have the resources to be there 80 hours a week. They didn't have 80 hours a week to spend on it. When you have to allocate scarce charity care, people have to make sacrifices. It is not unusual to structure things so that people won't take advantage unless they are really desperate. Until there are a lot more funds around to help people with, this sometimes works out to the way to make sure that the most possible care is provided.
posted by Sequence at 10:03 PM on December 26, 2015 [3 favorites]
« Older The Search for the Definitive Bolognese... | Is detergent harmful to clothes if not quickly... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Ostara at 4:59 PM on December 26, 2015 [4 favorites]