-
Anntelope 10/13/2010 7:56:00 PM
It's long past time for this horror to end. Most vets are kings of their little castles and the only witnesses to their behavior, be it good or bad are their employees who are not about to tell on them for the most part. I've had a vet burn my cat's back during surgery with a mal functioning heating pad. I've had one poor cat murdered because the vet did surgery without waiting, even though I told him that cat had just eaten. He lied and said the cat possibly had rabies and as a result, he had to destroy the body. Yeah, because he didn't want me to see he hadn't waited and had performed surgery. A standard neutering should not have resulted in the cat's death. It's long past time that these vets should be held responsible for their mistakes and bad behavior. They HURT people and animals and it needs to be stopped.
-
JustAnotherVet 10/13/2010 7:56:00 PM
Responsibility without control = absolute misery.
What I learn from this article is that people will pay more for revenge than to help their animals. Sadly, I'm not surprised. Just another reason to like animals more than humans.
-
Diane Carey 10/07/2010 1:33:00 AM
Stefani,
Thank you for the name of the attorney in VA. I am an attorney, my only concern with suing is the emotional toll that it will take on both me and my husband. Plus we are still working through the process with the Board to try and get some justice for Molly. But I still have time to file, our statute of limitations has not run. The only real cost to me is my time and the filing fees. So I have not ruled out a lawsuit, but as we see the law does not place a real value on a stray kitten. If we do sue, I am going to try a new theory and any money we might win, would be donated to the local animal shelter. We do not want money. We are really just looking for justice.
Thanks for the support and for everyone out there who is fighting for their pets.
-
Natalie Kramer 10/05/2010 6:03:00 AM
to Kish: Ms. Underwood, the points you are making are all valid, in my view. The only thing I'd point out, because it's important for the efforts to change the legal status of animals under the law, is that your angle is on the commonness between humans and companion animals, whereas the issue under the law is more on the effect pets have on humans (those of legal age anyway). The current law, which equates pets with inanimate objects in their "value" would imply that humans have the same relationship to their pets as they do to their toasters. The burden on legislators who might attempt to draft proposals to change the law is to show that most "normal" (or average) humans who own pets have a relationship with their pets that is qualitatively different from their relationship with their toasters. Vets, of course, benefit economically from the fact that most people have a relationship with their pet different from that with inanimate property, but when they harm pets, they cry "property" anyway because it suits them well. That's what has to change.
-
BarbaraA 10/05/2010 5:01:00 AM
For any of those interested, there is now a formal grassroots group to deal with this very issue of veterinary negligence, malpractice, and abuse. Please visit ForOurCompanions.com should you want to receive a quarterly email newsletter, join our private support group, or simply visit our web site for updates.
We are "victims" and ordinary clients. We cannot offer legal or medical advice, just share our experiences as "lay persons" and give emotional support
-
Kish Underwood 10/05/2010 2:41:00 AM
You can be a person without being human. Coca Cola, for instance, is an artificial peron under the law. Meanwhile, there is at least one parrot who can read, and modern science shows that the parts of ourselves we value most (the ability to bond, have empathy, cooperate, love, etc) are shared by most mammals and birds. Other scientists in disciplines that don't study human or animal emotions but instead make their careers experimenting on animals try to refute this, but their arguments are (ironically) scientifically weak. Their opponents in the cientific community have, quite reasonably, accused them of anthropocentrism. That said, we can't have folks going after every vet that means well and did his or her best, but what most people don't know is that medical malpractice cases are almost impossible to win, because physicians are allowed a lot of leeway. The same leeway should be given to veterinarians, so that only the worst cases of malpractice can be effectively litigated. There is nothing silly about making animals legally "junior" or "quasi" people with guardians acting for them. What's silly is not having a category in the law that recognizes them as self-aware beings who share most of our DNA and who are very much like us in their capacity to feel and bond, even if they are on the moral level of children. I can't really say that corporations, operating with only the moral duty to provide profits to their owners, are operating on an adult human moral level either. And while corporations are made up of human beings, human beings are protected from accountability for the corporations actions, and these "artificial persons" don't feel or bond, or suffer physical pain, as animals and human beings do. Frankly, I'll by animals as nonhuman persons before I'll buy corporations as nonhuman persons. So I have to see the article was unfairly dismissive of Adam Carp's profesional opinion, an opinion the writer didn't give fair exploration I might add. Mr. Carp may or may not need to "grow up" but once certainly shouldn't say that about a professional on the basis of an opinion which is held by many at Harvard Law School and not just held by Adam Carp.
-
Stefani Olsen 10/05/2010 12:37:00 AM
Aussievet, in the United States a spay with appropriate monitoring at a good hospital is going to cost close to $500. I don't know what statistics you are quoting, but even at $500, the quality and safety standards are nowhere near what they are in human medicine. And while that's the cost of a spay, my cat's echocardiogram, ultrasound, office visit, and drugs cost a comparable amount to what my own echocardiogram, ultrasound, and doctor's visit cost. Bloodwork is also comparably priced. The difference, of course, is that my insurance company pays the majority of the costs for my medical services, whereas I pay every penny out of pocket for my pets. As a result, I spend many times more in a given year on my pets' vet care than I do on my own health care. Like Julie, I am not complaining. But also like Julie and others here, what I do expect is QUALITY, STANDARDS, and ACCOUNTABILITY. Your profession doesn't take itself seriously. Until you start acting like medical professinals, don't expect the rest of us to consider you medical professionals.
-
Stefani Olsen 10/05/2010 12:24:00 AM
Diane, if you are considering legal action, I met an animal lawyer who seems to be pretty terrific and practices in Virginia. You might want to look her up. Ashley R. Dobbs. I, of course, can't promise you she will take the case, but I definitely got the impression that she is aware that veterinary accountability is one of the issues that affects our beloved pets.
-
Stefani Olsen 10/05/2010 12:19:00 AM
My heart goes out to the families affected by this, and the needlessly deceased pets. Ridgefield's explanation that the surgery for bloat is risky is ridiculous, no competent practitioner would use such a defense. Bloat itself is much more risky and potentially fatal than the surgery to treat it, which is the standard of care as I understand it.
The Newman's case is likewise, highly disturbing. Can you imagine the feeling you would have, in your heart, in the pit of your stomach, to realize that you needlessly euthanized your beloved pet on the urging of a vet, who gave you misleading and incorrect information to talk you into letting him kill your animal? Can you imagine how you would feel when you realized that the euthanasia was not, or may not have been needed?
We, the loving humans left in the wake of such horrific events, suffer from them, too. I know that I suffered many of the hallmark symptoms of PTSD from holding my cat Toonce in my arms as he seized and seized repeatedly on the way to a referral hosptial after he suffered brain damage from a massive insulin overdose that was left untreated by his vets for 24 hours. The insulin overdose was given to him by his vet's son -- a young man with no formal veterinary training, left alone to administer dangerous drugs to the patients. He used the wrong syringe -- tuberculin instead of insulin. The records I saw when I first came to the vets said he had been found comatose the next morning, by yet another unlicensed, unsupervised assistant, who -- according to the records - gave him yet another dose of insulin, although he was comatose. Those records subsequently disappeared, the vet claimed to have had no knowledge of their existence. In their place were backdated records, dated months before my cat was even a patient, that documented he'd been found acting normally the day after the overdose, even though they admitted the overdose for several months, and then -- after having admitted it to me, members of my family, subsequently treating referral vets, and their insurance company -- they wrote me a letter denying that it had ever occurred after I went to ask them more questions about how this could have happened at their hospital. My cat Toonces' brain injuries cost me $16,000 over the remaining 2 years of his life, but worse was the cost in quality of life to Toonces, and also the impact on me, which bore the hallmarks of PTSD.
Events that cause PTSD have certain characteristics, including threat to either one's own life or someone else's in close proximity, horror, and feelings of helplessness. It has been recognized that either being the victim of, or watching a loved one be the victim of, medical errors can cause PTSD or lower levels of traumatic stress. For cases of human malpractice, there is now a "Medically Induced Trauma Support Services" organizqation (MITSS.org). I have met many others who have witnessed the suffering and death of their pets at the hands of veterinary "professionals" who share many similar characteristics.
No wonder Hendrickson had to take off work and continues to be haunted by the events, as the Newmans are also haunted by the events.
Analogies to human medicine are not helpful, particularly the scare tactics used by the profession around the issue of insurance costs and liability. These arguments are totally bogus, as veterinary insurance costs are approximatelyl $300 a year for a policy of $1 million and up, and even if limited non-economic damages were permitted by the courts, analysis shows that the cost impact to the consumer would be measured in pennies, not dollars, per year.
The veterinary profession is the ONLY profession that plays with life and death of patients and practices entirely outside the reach of either regulatory entities (because the regulatory entities are staffed by cronies who don't want accountability, and FLAT OUT REFUSE to hold their peers to sensible standards) and a legal system that still considers our pets without value.
What a horrible irony that pet food, product manufacturers, and vets alike laugh all the way to the bank, with Americans spending $45.5 billion on their pets last year. Raking in the bucks, zero accountability. Love your pets? Good for us, hand over your money as a result of that love, tee hee laughing all the way to the bank. We killed your pets? Tough luck, because guess what? We never thought they had any value anyway, that's what we keep arguing and the law agrees. We just lied to you and snookered you with all that sweet talk about "your boy" and how much we care, but not only did we not mean it, we actually laugh at, and derisively sneer at, the love you have for your pets as soon as we slaughter them with our incompetence and negligence.
I am glad we pet owners who have experienced the dark side of veterinary medicine and the heartless pet industry whose M.O. is extraction of as much money as possible from us using the "human-animal bond" while simultaneously fighting to keep our pets having ZERO value in the eyes of the law and themselves having ZERO accountability for the most egregious acts of negligence and worse -- are finding each other. Our voices WILL be heard. If the vets won't change their own system, we will raise the rafters.
Thank you to everyone who fights on behalf of their pets.
-
Natalie Kramer 10/02/2010 12:59:00 AM
Chris, no reason to get discouraged by articles "such as this" because no one lumps anyone with anyone. Neither the artcle nor any of the comments posted in response to it suggests that all vets are bad, incompetent, dishonest, or unethical. What both imply is that WHEN and IF incidents of unfortunate encounters with such vets happen, there is no accountability, no system of recourse that's unbiased and helpful to the pet owner, and the legal status of companion animals equal to that of a toaster is inappropriate, out of date, not reflective of economic or social/emotional reality and as such, has to change. You may want to, if you haven't already, visit http://www.petmd.com/blogs/fullyvetted/2010/oct/fearmongering_in_vet_medicine, your fellow vet's take on fear mongering and the legal status of pets. Thank you for trying to be flexible in your views after all.
-
Julie 10/02/2010 12:32:00 AM
Chris, I only want vets to behave like physicians in the sense that they need to adhere to standard of care, and suffer a very real consequence when they don't. I'm so sick of vets blathering about how many degrees they have, and how they have to know so much more than physicians, and they don't make what MDs make, and on and on, only to "break" our family members and be barely liable for the cost of a good toaster, assuming the victim can even find a lawyer to take the case. They want all the perks, privileges, and protections of being a medical professional and yet when it comes to record keeping and informed consent, they hide behind any number of excuses. If an MD has crappy records and is performing unauthorized procedures, they are not going to survive. A vet can do these things encumbered every single day, knowing the boards are going to look the other way and the legal system is laughable. It's the arrogance I can't abide, couched in this "nice guy" garbage that has SO many people fooled it's vomitous. There must be more Jekyll and Hydes in the veterinary profession than anywhere else. Do you know what good vets should do in their communities? Draw up their own set of best practices to drive out the bad vets. Bad vets, almost to a person, are incredibly lazy, always taking shortcuts, cutting corners, failing to test and monitor, the aforementioned crappy records, not using consent forms or Drug Information Sheets, etc. Good vets should get together and make their practices a cut above these quacks, so that eventually consumers WILL be able to tell the difference and choose a vet accordingly. Bad vets rely on personality to hide a multitude of sins; good vets should stress proficiency and standard of care, and drive these worthless charlatans over a cliff where they belong. (I know it's not that simple, but it's a start.)
-
Chris 10/01/2010 11:30:00 PM
While I know there are absolutely scary veterinarians in our community, I also know there are fabulous ones. Having worked in the field for more than 20 years, I am always happy to see the movement forward on care and client bond with animals. I am always a little discouraged by articles such as this because what inevitably happens, is that a portion of people reading it, lump ALL veterinarians and clinics into the same group. Please remember that the majority of veterinarians are working hard to do everything right by their patients. Those of you that have shared your story on here, I can tell you those things are unacceptable and seem to be old school problems that shouldn't exist anymore. Patients left at clinics overnight? Why? There are multiple 24-hour practices. I certainly hope you have found a new vet for your current pets, that care more. And Julie.....do you really want veterinarians to behave like human doctors?? Do we see where the human health care field has gone? Would it be acceptable for you have the veterinarian some in the room and spend literally 98 seconds with you? I agree, we need a better system for holding the bad vets accountable, so the good ones don't get brought down with them.
-
Diane Carey 10/01/2010 8:35:00 PM
To all who have suffered a loss at the hands of a vet, I offer my sympathy.
I do not have the words to desribe the betrayal we felt, when the vet that we had been taken our cats to for 5 years and had paid them thousands of dollars to treat our cats failed to live up to the contract we had with them. The vet told us the morning that we left Molly off that they would call us if there was a problem. This is an oral contract and oral contracts are enforceable.
Yet this vet did not give us the courtesy of a phone call to tell us Molly needed help. When we left Molly for her surgery, they told us she had to spend the night, "so they could keep an eye on her". Sounded good, unfortunately, they did not keep an eye on her, they noticed she was in trouble and wrote that in the record and turned off the lights and left her alone to die. All it would have taken was a 1 minute phone call to us.
There needs to be some way that pet owners can achieve a measure of justice when a vet's negligence causes their pet to die.
I have been researching and reading about this since Jan. when Molly died, and it seems to be almost universal that the vet Boards are ineffective and protect the vets and not the pet or the pet owners.
The law is slow to recognize that a pet is worth more than $100. I am not advocating that a lawsuit against a vet should be for millions but the reality is that the pet owner grieves and continues to grieve. I have lost many cats over the last 30 years, due to old age, renal failure, a bad heart, diabetes. I never had a complaint until Molly was left alone to die. Now I realize how poorly vets are regulated and how arogant the vet boards are. From what I have seen and read and experienced, the vet boards are failing to actively regulate vets.
Yet our board wants to raise fees, so they have more money to spend. While, I don't care if vets are charged more for licensing, I fail to see a need to raise fees when the Board does not do its job well, at least in my opinoin, the vet Board in VA is not living up to its responsibility and mandate.
Thank you for this forum.
Thanks to those who fighting the fight. I know I am still fighting for some measure of justice for Molly. I am still within the statute of limitation period in VA to file a lawsuit against the vets and that may be my next course of action.
-
Absolutelycorrect 10/01/2010 8:21:00 PM
Many of us pet owners have gone through what Nonna went through with no recourse but the state agency that actually is made up of vets that protect each other. It is insulting to pet owners to be charged so much money by vets that want the glory of the "doctor" credentials but when there is a claim they then want to downgrade the event/surgery as something that only involved "property" therefore it is not worth anything comparable to the fee they charged. If that is the case then the vets need to downgrade their license and their fees to match the property statement they stand behind and they need to put up a sign in their reception room that says "we only work on property here" and see how that effects their business. This is a national problem with these vets and vet boards. More people need to stand up together and fight to change this horrible injustice.
-
Kelly 10/01/2010 5:14:00 PM
Thanks so much to the Seattle Weekly for covering such an important topic. My dog was also the victim of malpractice years ago. I went through the same thing Nonna and others in this article are going through. My heart goes out to them. These cowardly and incompetent veterinarians should stop hiding behind poor excuses for their sloppy care and own up to their mistakes. They rely on pet owners not to question their mistakes. When they do, they lawyer up, and blame the pet owner, who by now is grieving hard, and in many instances, needlessly feeling guilty for trusting these vets to do their jobs competently. It's bad enough to grieve over the death of a pet, but to feel the added emotion of guilt is not something I would wish on anyone. I spent thousands in the courts, and fought against a very unethical and unscrupulous veterinarian who is prominent and very popular in an upscale city in Ohio. He countersued me for defammation, alleging I went to a pet fair, where he had a booth, and shouted, "You killed my dog. How many dogs are you going to kill today?" Oh. My. God. A total lie. I later learned from my attorney that he countersued me to force me to drop my lawsuit and to bleed me dry financially. This is the kind of person I was dealing with, and many of you are dealing with. I suffered tremendous grief and depression because I felt I was all alone. But I vowed to my dog I would fight until I could fight no more. The state licensing board said he did nothing wrong. And I didn't win in court. The system is rigged against the pet owner and in favor of the veterinarians. I was able to throw a few good punches, including two newspaper articles about what he did to my dog. They hate publicity! Getting your story out is the best ammunition we have until the laws change. Vets will continue making sloppy mistakes so long as there is no deterrence and accountability, i.e., REAL discipline from the state vet boards, laws that protect our pets from harm, including harm from vets. It's time for the "good vets" to stop circling the wagons around the "bad vets," and raise the standards of your profession. This is NOT going to go away. We will NEVER forget what you've done to our pets. Thanks to Mr. Karp for all his efforts. He is a real hero for taking on the cause. And thanks to Nina Shapiro for a very well written article.
-
Julie 10/01/2010 4:41:00 PM
Anntelope you are SO RIGHT. If vets insist on comparing themselves to human doctors, then they need to BEHAVE like human doctors. That means proper pre- and post-surgical protocol, including INFORMED CONSENT prior to anesthesia and surgery. The vet who mistreated Suki did NO presurgical labwork and couldn't even be bothered to pick up the phone to notify me that he was about to put my 20-year-old "v. dehydrated" (his chart entry) cat in a box and gas her while she was already dying. No IV fluids. Try doing that with a parent, child, or sibling in the hospital, or even at a human doctor's office. They would be hauled off to jail, or at the very least sued out of existence. But vets? They get away with it, laughing at us the entire time at our blind trust. They can do whatever they want with OUR "property" and with NO accountability to anyone or anything but their own toxic egos and need for control. They whine about how they don't make as much as human doctors, but refuse to take any responsibility for shoddy care and a pattern of repeated negligence that would put an M.D. out of business in two seconds. They can't have it both ways, but they never stop trying to.
-
Anntelope 10/01/2010 1:47:00 PM
I'd like to address the vet who seems to think that spaying a cat should cost the same as a hysterectomy for a female human. There is NO COMPARISON to the amount of procedures involved when a human receives surgery. For starters, you can't go home and leave humans alone in a cage all night like most vets do with the animals in their care. That's why I NEVER leave my pet overnight with a vet unless there's someone there and only if there's no possible way to avoid it. I don't leave my pets alone all night when they're well so why would I do it when they're sick? One hundred dollars for overnight vet and there's nobody there? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
-
Hope 10/01/2010 8:06:00 AM
Nationwide, there is increasing evidence--irrefutable accounts of some vets as well as specialized vets who prescribe and perform dangerous surgery for which they are not adequately trained. (There are also some respectable vets who may admit that a situation cannot be handled properly with any type of medical procedure or intervention.) However, for the villainous vets who prey on vulnerable pet owners, make outlandish promises and ultimately force pets to suffer and die, there must be severe penalties including the loss of their license, and broad communication of the threats faced by pets and their owners. Enforcement of regulations, and full disclosure of risks, are mid-points. The STARTING point however, is that 'medical' training for vets is nowhere near the training for humans. The death rates for pets following surgery seem to be exponentially larger compared to complications and death rates for humans. All in all, while there are some wonderful veterinarian practitioners, there is also a horrific, growing force of vets who need their licenses revoked for the deliberate failure to 'Do No Harm.'
-
Natalie Kramer 10/01/2010 5:56:00 AM
Chris, I answered your question, but my post appears in an unusual place (two posts below yours) and under my e-mail address (muttlover1) instead of my name. I don't know why that happened.
-
muttlover1@verizon.net 10/01/2010 5:18:00 AM
Chris, what have you done? Let's see now. You advocate keeping our pets' status as that of mere property. You use scare tactics, playing off of people's ignorance and gullibility, to suggest that doing away with the mere property status would make vet care more expensive and beyond means of many pet owners. It won't. According to Christopher Green's calculations, which you are likely aware of (and if not, you should be before making the kinds of statemenets I have seen you make), the portion of increased costs of liability insurance passed on to the conusmers of vet care would be about $.23 (that's twenty three red cents) a year per consumer. Even if it is $23 per year (and Mr. Green's estimate is 100 times lower than it should be), the overwhelming majority of pet owners would rather forgo the five lattes per year to pay the difference, if it meant that their pets' veterinary care is safer and a healthy fear of being sued (accountable)for harming the sentient property you derive your livelihood from actually makes you train your vet tech more appropriately. Or better yet, hire a licensed vet tech, who wouldn't be as likely to botch up my pet's intubation. You can't have it both ways, Chris! People don't spend thousands of dollars to "repair" their mere property if the cost of replacing it is $50, but they do to treat their pets, enabling you to make a (comfortable?) living. You know why? Because pets are not "mere" property. So, when you try that party line again, be prepared to hear from those of us who are not buying into your scare rhetoric. Keep in mind also that many of your colleagues are in favor of the change. My own vet told me it's a "total hypocricy" to suggest pets are mere property. It's a growing movement, Chris; you'll just have to get over it. Better yet, if you can't beat them, join them:)
-
Natalie Kramer 10/01/2010 3:56:00 AM
Barbara, blaming the victim is the usual game with these vets. They'll find something the pet owner did wrong and will be totally shameless in putting their spin on the situation. Never mind that the vet may have been responsible for the 95 percent of the problem and the owner for 5. In this case, the problem (95 percent of it) is in the failure to communicate to the owner the potential seriousness of the situation (bloat). When you say "take some Gas-X and call me in the morning" it certainly doesn't sound to an average person that the condition might be lifethreateing and that taking Tums instead might result in death. The stuff vets will tell you to cover a certain funny looking part of their bods! Even if it belongs to a fellow vet and not themselves. Mine told me, after my cat died because his congestive heart failure was missed on an X-ray, that congestive heart failure is not visible on an X-ray! So, get used to it Barbara! Vets will say stuff. They don't bother to make it believable or rational. They think the dumb old (or young) lady will buy it! Especially if they are part of the good ole boys' club.
Chris, in case you haven't noticed, we are waiting for your likeness to fade into history. At least have some dignity to do it quietely.
-
Barbara A 10/01/2010 3:23:00 AM
Gosh, Can't imagine why "Gas-X" wasn't prescribed for all those dogs that "bloat", maybe because it doesn't work? Maybe because the muscle to the stomach has closed preventing "retching & burping"? Unbelievable, and Goldens being a large deep-chested breed are at risk for this. Oh, yes, blame the "victim".
Oh, Aussie Vet: Check your prices, I have not been able to obtain a spay for 200 USD in about, hmmm, 10 years? Just an "office visit" without "anything else" is $50.
And who says people can still afford veterinary care, it is dwindling down to fewer and fewer, hence some of the newer and better "ripoffs" developing for those who can.
Sorry,the piddly malpractice premiums that never get paid out, nor the few that can afford to bring a legal claim, sure means something has to give and act as a deterrent to slip-shod care.
-
Diane Carey 10/01/2010 1:29:00 AM
These stories break my heart. I have owned cats all my life. We recently lost a beloved kitten, Molly Mittens, to incompetent veterinary care.
Molly had a routine spay which ended at 1145 am.
At 2:30 pm, we were told her surgery went well and "she was waking up fine."
At 4:40 pm the vet writes "Molly is non responsive in her cage." this vet did nothing to treat Molly. This vet did not call us so that we could transfer her to an emergency overnight clinic. In the morning Molly was dead.
We filed a complaint with the Vet. Board in VA and they found no violation.
I believe Molly was let down twice, once by the vets who took an oath to protect her and then again by our vet board.
-
chris 10/01/2010 12:28:00 AM
I understand this is a very emotional issue, but you cannot ignore economic realities. This policy will have unintended consequences. Vet practices are businesses, and if they cannot at least break even then they will cease operation. Malpractice insurance is low now because the likelihood of vets being sued is also low. If lawyers see the potential to make money from vet malpractice lawsuits, there will be more such lawsuits and the price of insurance will skyrocket. This cost will be passed onto consumers of veterinary services. As cost increases, fewer people will use the services, meaning more animals will be forced to live (or die) with medical conditions that might otherwise be treated. As fewer people use vet services, the cost will increase even more, since staff, equipment, rent, etc. must still be paid for, regardless of the number of clients. A similar effect is known in the insurance business as a "death spiral". This will ultimately result in a small number of vets providing services to a small number of animals who are fortunate enough to be owned by wealthy or highly dedicated humans. You may be willing to spend tens of thousands in medical care for your pet, but most people are not. This is an example of seductive rhetoric combining with the economic interests of a small group (lawyers) to produce bad public policy.
-
Jenny DB 09/30/2010 11:36:00 PM
"Victims are left with nowhere to go with their grief and pain when it's "just" an animal -- albeit an animal who was once a very good source of income for some vet, somewhere, precisely because of the emotional bond." Well said Julie!
I know I have spent thousands of dollars on my dog - who I love like a child - and if it weren't for the care of several GOOD veterinarians, he would no longer be with me. Just like doctors there are clearly bad vets and they need to be held accountable for their sometimes deliberate harm. Personally, if I felt that every good faith effort had been made to give proper care I would not sue a vet, even for mistakes. But in cases where vets have blatantly erred and caused a SIGNIFICANT and REAL loss to a paying customer, why should they NOT be accountable?
The wheels have been set in motion. I hope to see Mr. Karp successful with his worthy and admirable endeavors.
-
Cindy 09/30/2010 9:58:00 PM
While I understand the heavy loss that is felt in these situations, yes my furry four legged pets are my kids, the amount that is being spent on these cases is astronimical to me. In the even of something like this happening I would pour that money into a foundation/trust or endowment in the name of that pet to help/save some of the hundreds of thousands of pets that are homeless and euthanized each year. Why not give love in their name to help make life better.
-
Julie 09/30/2010 9:34:00 PM
Natalie, so true. I didn't plan it this way, but all of my current "working" vets are women. And young. They are very up to date, one of them is very tech savvy, entering data and notes from our exams directly into computer. Their clinic has a Pet Portal that allows me to go online and communicate with the office -- I can refill meds, schedule appointments, book boarding, send an email -- I love it! My other vet is holistic so that I always have both sides covered. It's working out great. Now my third (backup) vet is a man, but totally up on the latest. Also computer savvy with excellent recordkeeping procedures. ITA about the "old guard" dying off/retiring/just going away. I can't wait either. Not that there aren't incompetent young female vets either, don't get me wrong; it's just that my worst experiences have involved a "good old boy" network that seems firmly entrenched in some kind of sense of entitlement and arrogance and disses the younger, female generation in a shameful display of what I can only call... envy!
-
Natalie Kramer 09/30/2010 8:48:00 PM
Julie, they won't stop playing on public ignorence. It's a very handy tool for them. Let's just hope that it's the "old guard," the good ole boys, who are a dying breed. I hope I live long enough to see them become archeological evidence (can't wait). The newer, and decidedly more female, veterinarian work force seems to be more reasonable and humane, ethical too, and as such less prone to manipulating the public ignorence. Wish there were a Retinol cream to make the new layers grow and the old slaugh off faster? Me too.
-
Julie 09/30/2010 8:20:00 PM
Chris, we are ALREADY paying far more for vet bills. I've never complained about the bills, btw, and have spent tens of thousands on my pets over the past 30 years and will no doubt spend more. But I always find it suspect that in any discussion of this sort, it's the vets who always bring up the subject of money. It's either "we don't make enough, human doctors make more, we have sky high student debt, our insurance rates will go up," etc. Just once I'd like to hear a vet talk about the human-animal bond that -- as one of my wonderful vet experts put it -- "the reason so many of us went into the field in the first place." Or is she being naive? Did vets NOT go into the field because of their love of animals? Is it possible that's yet another myth about vets that needs to be eradicated? Vets have been threatening for years that a raise in insurance premiums will have to be passed on to consumers. Tell me, what part of the higher cost of business is NOT being passed on to consumers? How much did the vet who sued me -- in an attempt to dismantle my web site and prevent me from telling Suki's Story -- pay his team of bottom-feeding lawyers to come after me in a three-year legal battle to take away my First Amendment rights trying to get an unconstitutional injunction? $50,000? $100,000? More? Who absorbed THOSE costs? Consumers are buying into this garbage that if vets are forced to treat our family members as living, sentient beings capable of suffering, well, then, it's going to REALLY cost them. I'm not buying it. The average vet pays a ridiculously paltry $300 a year for about $1 million in malpractice coverage, and no vet to my knowledge has had to pay anywhere NEAR that amount in claims. Stop playing on the public's ignorance to scare them into thinking if a vet is held accountable for wrongdoing, then be prepared to pay the price. What happened to ethics?
-
chris 09/30/2010 7:48:00 PM
Clarification to below comment: higher vet bills mean fewer people will take their pets to the vet because they won't be able to afford it. The net result is that fewer needy animals will receive the medical attention they need. Animals will suffer if this scheme succeeds.
-
chris 09/30/2010 7:40:00 PM
If this movement succeeds, veterinarians will be forced to buy expensive malpractice insurance, and you will be forced to pay far more for vet bills. The only winners here are lawyers, since they will have new people to sue. I know we all love our pets, but just say no to this lawyer welfare scheme.
-
Natalie Kramer 09/30/2010 7:37:00 PM
John, "Gee what's wrong with you?" is right. You don't get it, that's what's wrong with you. Animals aren't people (did anyone say they were?); they are pets, companions, family members, sentient beings, who elicit emotional responses out their people owners, and with whom emotional bonds are formed (do you get that?). They are certainly more than inanimate property, which vets milk for what it's worth when it comes to filling their wallets. When vets' incompetence results in pain and suffering to a sentient being and in emotional loss to the human owner, an appropriate recourse is required for the interests of all involved. It's not about money. Gee, what's wrong with you? You don't get that either, do you? It's about accountability and fairness. It's about incentive for vets to practice on sentient beings more safely. Got that now? Nah.
-
aussievet 09/30/2010 6:26:00 PM
As a veterinarian, I can state fairly confidently that there was no malpractice involved. Given the history of surgery, the assumption that this was simple gas bloat caused by aerophagia (swallowing air) during surgery was justified. And as someone else pointed out above, if Gas-X had been given, it may have delayed the progression sufficiently to give her time to reach the emergency room. It's a lose-lose for veterinarians sometimes. If you go all-out with diagnostics, taking x-rays for example in a case like the above, and it turns out to be something minor, treatable with a simple Gas-X, the client will often feel like he or she has been ripped off. But try to be more conservative in your approach and you get accused of malpractice.
Lastly, allowing veterinarians to be sued in such a way may shatter the viability of the entire profession. People are simply not willing to spend as much money on their pets as they are on people, and hence veterinarians are forced to charge much smaller sums for some of the exact same procedures done in humans. An ovariohysterectomy, for example, otherwise called a spay in an animal, costs less than $200 typically, compared to the thousands of dollars for the human procedure. Therefore veterinarians make much less money than those in human medicine. Add to that the fact that most veterinary students graduate with about the same level of student debt as a medical student, and you have a profession that simply can't handle the huge sums required for medical malpractice insurance that human doctors themselves can barely afford. This really could destroy the profession if it came to pass.
-
Julie 09/30/2010 4:22:00 PM
These stories are heartbreaking, and as a fellow victim of veterinary malpractice I can relate to all of them. Unless this has happened to you it is impossible to convey the life-altering effect it has on every aspect of your existence. First, vets are in a position of TRUST, and not all of them are worthy of that. We find that out way too late. Second, as the article points out, pets are nothing more than property, so there's little recourse there. Victims are left with nowhere to go with their grief and pain when it's "just" an animal -- albeit an animal who was once a very good source of income for some vet, somewhere, precisely because of the emotional bond.
The real problem is the veterinary BOARDS; a more worthless bunch of do-nothing bureaucrats would be impossible to find. They are supposed to be enforcing the statutes of the Veterinary Practice Act and it sounds like the WA board is every bit as impotent as the TX board in that regard. I especially commend Ken and Nonna Newman for fighting an almost impossible fight against the board and wish them much success. Also thank you to Adam Karp, who is a true professional and completely dedicated to this cause. We need more attorneys like him! And thanks to the Seattle Weekly for covering this important subject. There are many, MANY more victims around the country - let's hope other papers follow your lead and devote as much time and space to this as you have.
-
John 09/30/2010 10:06:00 AM
Animals aren't people. No matter how attached we get to them they aren't people. Our courts are already way over used or read that abused by frivolous lawsuits. Maybe all the vets need a hold harmless clause if they don't already have one. It never ceases to amaze me the means people will go to get money out of others. I always thought whatever feelings I had for an animal were at MY risk..............and I sure wouldn't spend $11k on a common animal......gee, what's wrong with me?
-
Tinomen 09/29/2010 11:03:00 PM
Homeopathic 'remedies' are not drugs, they are not real and will not cure you of anything.
The vets told the lady to give the dog a drug, Gas-X. If she did give her dog a real drug, it might still be alive today.
By not giving her loving pet a real remedy, she killed her dog. If anything she should be suing the BS-artist that keep making placebo pills, and then claiming they're 'cures'.
