Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Vetists/ Animalists?
  • mattyfez
    Full Member

    Bit of a wierd question,

    Our puppy is due to have the dreadded snip in a couple of months, his normal Vet is charging £120 for this, however he got back from the vet yesterday for his worm/flea treatment with a slip of paper suggesting we buy some ‘exras’ for the proceedure –

    Pre anesthetic blood test £45 to ensure the pup can handle the anesthesia.

    Intravenous fluids £55-£60 to allow the anesthetist to respond to lowered blood pressure or any problems under anesthesia.

    Now call me a cynic but is this just a cash grab? they would surely give fluids if required anyway?

    It does mention this is ‘especialy’ important for older animals, animals with other issues, but of course I want him to be as safe as possible, it just seems like they are playing on thier cutomers fear a bit here.

    What would STW do?
    Thanks

    perchypanther
    Free Member

    What would STW do?

    Post a stiffly worded and scathing review on Snip Advisor.

    bigjim
    Full Member

    interestingly your response is exactly what some vet friends on facebook have big rants about

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    Gowrie
    Free Member

    A young dog being castrated shouldn’t need pre GA bloods or intra op fluids IMO, and thinking back over the years I can’t think of any I’ve done where either of those would have prevented a problem. In fact the only problems I’ve had/seen with dog castrates involve swelling/bleeding/infection after the procedure – none of which would be mitigated in any way by the either of the suggested options.
    Some vets nowadays will always have intra op fluids for any op – there often is justification for this in many animals and they just have decided right we’ll do it for everything. Justifying pre GA bloods in young healthy dogs is more difficult IMO, but I have heard of cases where these bloods have picked up something in a young animal that may have compromised a GA.
    You’re being given customer/patient choice – and like so many cases the expert is now asking you the layman to make knowledge based decisions. The public has got what it asked for – but neither do they like it nor is it in their best interests.

    Colin – (snipping dogs for nearly 40 years, man and boy)

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    Thank you Colin, interesting.

    So it’s basically con then?

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    bigjim – Member
    interestingly your response is exactly what some vet friends on facebook have big rants about

    For, or against? Lol

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    I’m obviously a layman in terms of anesthesia, but I’m concerned that they’d let an animal die if it needed fluids during the op, and I didn’t pay for the fluids ‘add on’ package.

    It stinks of a ‘Ryanair’ style business model.

    threerock44
    Free Member

    Should be a quick op. If no pre-existing issues reasonable to decline the bloods and fluids. Threerock44 MRCVS.

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    Thank you, I think I’m more clear now.

    I think We’ll just go with the basic op. But not before I’ve spoken to them, and grilled them on the additional charges. I’m half tempted to take the puppy elsewhere for this.

    poly
    Free Member

    It stinks of a ‘Ryanair’ style business model.

    Ryanair’s business model isn’t necessarily flawed though. If the offers were:

    (a) £ 120 for the basic opp + an unspecified range of charges depending what happens on the day and the experts’ opinion of what is needed OR
    (b) £ 230 fixed fee no matter what is required *

    which would you opt for?

    Now imagine that there are competitor vets around promoting ops “from £120” it becomes hard to sell the package price. The problem is as much the consumer seeking the lowest possible price, as the vet trying to extract extra £.

    I don’t own a dog but am surprised how low the costs are for what is a reasonably invasive operation under general anesthetic. A private hospital vasectomy on a person, which is a much less invasive procedure performed under local anesthetic, costs significantly more.

    * Thats not necessarily a perfect model either as you don’t want the Vet avoiding using a more expensive option just to increase his margins.

    mattyfez
    Full Member

    Well that’s what really peaked my concern.. I’d expect fluids to be given if needed. Not as an additional cost.

    Would a vet kill an animal mid op because the owner didn’t pay for a premium ‘fluid inclusive’ op?

    Frickin sick

    Gowrie
    Free Member

    Do you get this angry if you go to buy a basic model car for taking the kids to school and someone tries to sell you the one with the sat nav and the heated seats as extras?
    And if something happened during the op all vets would do whatever was needed to keep the dog safe. What’s being offered are extra preventative options that in some cases may make a difference. From the wording on your handout it looks like its a standard thing they give to everyone who’s animal is having a GA.
    Appropriate in some cases.

    MartynS
    Full Member

    Would a vet kill an animal mid op because the owner didn’t pay for a premium ‘fluid inclusive’ op?

    Frickin sick

    No they wouldn’t.

    You’re being given all the information available. You just don’t know what to do with that info (most of us wouldn’t)

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

The topic ‘Vetists/ Animalists?’ is closed to new replies.