There was an article in this morning's paper about the fact that there has been an increase in the numbers of animals euthanized because their owners cannot pay for life-saving treatment.
What is wrong with this picture? The article was about the grief that the veterinarians experience doing these euthanasias (killing, in my mind) - but what about the guilt surrounding the veterinarian's inability to lower their prices so that the pet can receive the life-saving treatments? How come no one ever talks about that?
I can totally understand choosing euthanasia if the outcome, after expensive tests and surgeries, would be the same: the pet will not be saved. At a certain point it may be more humane to consider euthanasia.
At the same time, if a cat's life can be saved by unblocking his blocked urethra, why not do it for whatever the owner can afford? You still may make more money than you would have performing the euthanasia and the good-will you have inspired in your client, yourself and your staff would be worth it.
It's easy for me to criticize at this point in my career: I no longer perform the types of life-saving procedures that cost $1500. I may save the animal's life by degrees, one acupuncture treatment, herbal or homeopathic remedy at a time, and the pet's guardian may pay me, over a period of time, $1500. I don't have a staff whose salaries I need to pay, a building that needs repair or lease payments and I don't carry a large inventory. I don't have expensive equipment. It is just me, my bag and my car.
But I still wonder why it costs $1500 to unblock a blocked cat, and whether euthanasia is ever a viable option when the pet's life could be saved for much less?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment