In today's paper - opinions

[Rosie]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=496216&in_page_id=1879

I will make my comments when you have all read it.

[smudgley]

She should have found a decent vet in the first place instead of just bloody moaning about them. :roll:

[random]

Ah, I will keep my comments to myself I think. I'm glad they put her to sleep in front of her, she sounds incredibly selfish to me. JMO

[Moli]

She does not seem to give a dam.....Like Random will keep my thought on this to myself...!!

[yola]

It made me very cross reading this. It could just be the 'angle' but the author came across as very callous and frankly, disinterested in her cats. Having shared the best part of 20 years with her pets per attitude was remarkably throwaway when the time came to part with them.

Most 'normal' people would probably be happy to invest £400 in finding out what might be the matter with their pet (yes, even those on limited funds rather than a flush journo); as we all know, cats with kidney disease can go on to live a long happy life - GIVEN THE RIGHT TREATMENT!

And the card? Most people would find that a touching gesture - I know I did. But then I took the time to build a relationship with the vets/nurses at my cat's practice. To fall about laughing over this really does highlight this woman's shoddy attitude.

[Rosie]

I think the woman knew her own animals and was probably right about the decision to pts. I would not want my very old cat/dog to have to undergo lots of painful tests to prolong its life for a very short time. When my 92 year old father was diagnosed with terminal cancer I asked that he should just be treated with paliative care which my daughter did not agree with. To put a human/animal through unnecessary distress for the sake of an extra couple of months at best seems cruel in the extreme.

My only negative feeling towards this woman was that she would not do the very last compassionate thing most of us would do for our friends or relatives or animals, and be with them when they took that final journey.

[borderdawn]

Mmm tricky one. I think the woman loved her Cats, they certainly wouldnt of lived that long if she didnt.

I have come across similar occurances at my vets recently, with 2 of my Cats, some of you may well disagree with me too.

Scooter, seen at the Vets over a year ago for the first signs of heart problems, a small murmur, not causing any problems, but may well get worse as he gets older (baring in mind he is 15yrs old!) Took him a few months ago for the same thing, as suggested and expected showing more symptoms, getting out of breath if runs, no coughing, but definate distress if over did things. I saw the Vet who said she agreed it was more than likely congestive heart failure, very common in all old animals. BUT, he could have a chest tumour! She said she wanted to xray him. I asked what the treatment would be if it was a tumour. "None in all probability, they are very rarely treatable especially in old animals." I then asked what the treatment would be if he did have a tumour, but still had a good quality of life, "we treat the symptoms" was the reply. So, I said, getting a little angry, "You want to give a general aneasthetic, to a 15yr old cat displaying symptoms of congestive heart failure, to tell me whether he has a chest tumour that you can do nothing about, and even so, treat the Cat with the same drugs as you would whether he had or not!" "Well yes basically!!" Now I think that is VERY unethical and morally wrong! She then wanted to do an ultrasound to determine the same, and when I declined, she said he might have Hyperthyroidism as that can make the heart beat quicker !!(as it was) This wasnt suggested a year previous and the symptoms were similar, the fast heart beat was the same. I said he showed no other symptoms of hyperT but agreed a small number of Cats may not show all the symptoms and agreed for bloods to be done for this. She then said she wanted to test for everything else too! :mad: I made it quite clear that was not going to happen and the T4 test was the one I would only pay for. She rings me back the next evening to tell me the test results were completely NORMAL!!!:roll: but she had been thinking and Scooter could have blood clots in his back legs!! but Id need to take him for an ultrasound to confirm it!! Can you imagine my reply ;) :-D Long story short, Scooter is on heart pills and is doing brilliantly, showing none of the symptoms he did and is as playful and happy as he always was. So, was I wrong, cruel or selfish not to have subjected the Cat to all those tests for what is the same outcome and the same treatment? Or was the Vet right to want to do all testing, certainly NOT for the Vets benefit, but for hers and the practices bank account?

See I think that article in the paper was worded to cause a reaction, but I still dont agree she was unkind in any way and at 19/20yrs old I think I may of done the same.
Dawn.

[Moli]

I personally think you were right not to have these test done Dawn, As there was no treatment for the problem, why put him through a general ....I would do the same if it was one of mine.....There are too many tests that come back inconclusive, and you pay for them and get no answers....

[Luke]

I tend to be on the same train of thoughts as Dawn here, if age was against an animal and there seemed to be no way of the poor thing recovering I don't think I'd perlong the suffering.
Infact, we've been there and didn't. Our old JRT Polly was probably about 8/9'ish-she was a rescue estimated six months when we got her, but I think she was older and they claimed this age due to her size but she never grew anyway as was just always tiny! She had always been a sickly dog for years, strokes, heart problems and towards the end her organs we're starting to fail..she was becoming incontinent..arthritis was starting to cripple her..apparently she was having points where she was becoming delirious due to not having enough oxygen as her heart wasn't working properly, and in these times she would really "freak out" and be like a raging beast..totally unaware of what was happening, then she'd "faint" [as it were] and come back round and be fine. Closer to the end she was biting, quite badly tbh, many people who just went to touch her as she was A) in physical pain and B) just miserable. To us she had NO quality of life. The vet said their was more medication routes to go down, more tests to be done to pinpoint exactly what the problems were. However when we asked whether all being suggested was a cure or a "fix" we we're told there was no cure, and her body was just beginning to "close down" as they put it. We made the choice, and our vet supported us, to have her pts. She had a seizure the day she was pts which was what halted us to our senses that a dog who had been a loyal,loving family pet and an animal we had been proud of for many years was being reduced to a sickly, shadow of the dog she once was.
Many disagreed with our choice,many said they would have carried on going down every last avenue until there was no more possibilities of drugs to give her extra time. But that's their choice. We made ours, and ours was to let her go when we did.
So I think in the situation in the article, although I do not agree with many ways in which it was worded, i'm not sure whether I would have gone through with extensive medical treatment. I just hold the belief that the quality of life is more important than quantity, and I'm not one for allowing an animal to live leading even a life that's just half of what they lead before.

[smudgley]

:? Am I totally missing the point here? :?

[Rosie]

Sorry Smudgley what do you mean? I thought the point was would you put a cat through extensive tests to maybe extend its life by a couple of weeks or a couple of months at best.

I don't think money is the issue here but quality of life, although maybe other people read it differently.

[smudgley]

whatever. :roll:

[Grete]

Well I read it and a few things sprang to mind.

I appreciate that the lady didn't want to pay out for needless tests but she also didn't actually know what was wrong with the cats, just based it on what she had heard from a friend and really, there are other conditions with those symptoms which if treated accordingly could have prolonged his life for a good few years.

She had never taken the cats to the vets before, not even for vaccinations or neutering which in my mind is totally irresponsible. She said that he had blood tests and some sort of injection but neglected to mention any results or if she had waited for them to come through.

I don't like how she wrote the article, it was emotionless and to my mind she is a person who is quite capable of caring for a cat, but lacks the emotional bond that drives us to do the very best we can for our furbabies.

I feel as well that she went in for her first ever visit with an attitude that all they were about was the money and had already determined what she wanted to happen and didn't listen to her vets nor was interested in finding out if there was anything she could do.

She also based the other cat on what had happened to the first which is totally wrong and in not doing anything to help her, led to her suffering needlessly.

I don't blame the vets at all for wanting to help the CAT and getting upset and angry when this hard nosed woman told them how it was going to be. I don't justify their actions, but I understand them.

The comments about the card just annoyed me - Why would a vet NOT expect someone to appreciate condolences on the loss of a much loved pet who has been part of your life for so many years.

And don't get me started on the comment about the fur for gloves.

I really don't like journalists.

[dandysmom]

I just hope I'd never be reincarnated as one of that woman's cats......

The cash register going kaching in her mind...
The glove comment..
Letting that poor cat suffer needessly ..
Laughing at the sympathy card...

The mind boggles!

[kado]

I dont know what to say realy. You do the best for your animals and only you know when the time is right to let them go. I think some of the comments what she said was inapropiate though.

jane

[smudgley]

I dont know what to say realy. You do the best for your animals and only you know when the time is right to let them go. I think some of the comments what she said was inapropiate though.

jane

exactly!..........

[random]

I just hope I'd never be reincarnated as one of that woman's cats......

The cash register going kaching in her mind...
The glove comment..
Letting that poor cat suffer needessly ..
Laughing at the sympathy card...

The mind boggles!

To sum it up, who finds a sympathy card funny? I can imagine them, "A SYMPATHY CARD? HA! IT'S ONLY A CAT!"

Who makes a comment so callous as 'you can sell my dead cat's fur for gloves, I don't care'.?

And the last part in her wanting to leave her cat there while it was PTS in the hands of strangers. After having this cat for 19 years do you not think she owed it this last honour? Just seemed very 'throwaway'.

Just what I thought guys, seemed very selfish to me. It's not the fact she didn't want the tests done at all, it's everything else...

[Grete]

I agree that you know your animals best and only you know when it's time to let them go - *but* She didn't actually know how their health was in the run up to this - could it have been avoided with better vet care or at least caught on a yearly checkup, was it a result of them being un-vaccinated etc.

I think the fact they have never had a (visible) problem in all the time she has had them is down to genetics rather than care. A feed them and leave them to it policy is not being a responsible cat owner.

I can accept that she didn't want to put them through trauma but she also didn't know what was the problem was nor wanted to find out because she felt the vets were fleecing her.

This a woman who is in control of her life and she had to control the situation and I feel it all happened to suit her, not her cats.

I don't advocate prolonging animals lives unless a GOOD quality of life for the pet can be achieved but I bet anyone who has made that difficult choice was in full possession of the facts of the illness and made that choice for their beloved animal, not themselves, not the cost.

[yola]

Grete - I agree 100% you said exactly what I thought but much more eloquently!

[borderdawn]

exactly!..........
But do you put a Cat through endless tests in the hope you can get a couple more months "life" out of them? When does it become in the PETS best interest not to carry on, and your selfishness and need to hang on as an owner be let go of?

I understand the woman, I dont like the way the article was written, but I expect it was done to gauge a reaction, which it has, all the extra "readers" are what its all about.

Re waiting for blood test results, these would of been done withing 24hrs, it says that 2 days after the bloods the cat was worse, he was then admitted and put on a drip and several days after that there was no improvement. I would assume the bloods revealed either something that couldnt be treated or it has been omitted for some reason, but they surely would of had them back.
Dawn.

[Elaine]

Well, just wanted to add my tuppence worth, having been through the whole CRF rollercoaster. Having spoken to many with cats suffering from CRF, its difficult to determine just how long that cat has left, especially when it comes to old age. Winston had quality of life for 2 and a half years after being diagnosed with treatments and regular tests. Kazz' cats had quality of life long after being diagnosed with no treatment then we have Midas, Charlies cat, who sadly went down hill very fast. Owners know their cats better than most vets because its not until your cat falls victim of such illness that you build a relationship with the vet. Winston had never seen a vet since he was a kitten but the last few years of his life he was at the vets many times.
I also changed vets twice with Winston in order to get him and me a vet that was supportive and knowledgable on his condition. First vet was very much about the money he could make out of Winstons condition, second vet told me Winston was also HyperT and it wasnt until I got a 3rd opinion that I discovered that he wasnt.
As you all know, I would have moved heaven and earth for my old boy but once quality of life was lost.........
I agree with many points that people have made about putting an animal through many pointless test if there is no treatment etc.
I think the woman in the article made some very inapropriate comments, but you really do have to take what you read in the press with a pinch of salt. As some one already said it was written to get a reaction.

[smudgley]

well I've just re-read the whole article, thinking maybe I missed a vital piece of info the 1st time, but I hadn't. She's written the article in that way because she's angry with the vets. But I don't agree with all the things that have been said about her, I actually agree with her that the vet should have upon her wishes put the cat to sleep when requested to do so, she knows the cat better than anyone & if she chose not to be with the cat when it was PTS that is her choice, many owners feel they can't be there when their cats are PTS.
I don't think it said she laughed at the card, but that her friends did.
As far as the gloves comment, she was making a point that when the cat is gone, it's gone... nothing will bring it back & she didn't want it's ashes back. Again I don't see a problem with that at all. It's her choice.

[Kazz]

Well I have read the article 4 times now over the last couple of hours since leaving work and have to say I can't see anything wrong with it.

I would not say I am hard hearted but I totaly agree with the lady who has written the article.

If she has never been to the vets, then she would not think of "looking around" if your first visit was like hers a bit of a nightmare you would think twice about going through the same again but woud think "Right I'll sort it" out before hand" which I assume she thought she had phoning first.

But vets are a law I think to themselves at times.

I took Oscar to be PTS and not questioned but had I have been I would have exploded, same with Cleo.

And in one respect I agree with her once an animal is dead they are dead, the remark about gloves may have been a little "non politicaly correct" but I tend to agree.
I brought Oz and Cleo home but have never brought any of the dogs home even after 16 and 17 years.

The amount of money vets charge for things seems to me to be unbelivable, and my previous vets did try to push me to put Oscar on a drip but I refused totaly.

And with regard to no wanting to be present, there I cannot blame her, some people just cannot take that my Dad amongst them he cannot bear to be there when an animal of the family is PTS.

I think the lady seemed to be saying vets are out for money and she did not think they were there for the care of her cats or any animal. Which I tend to agree with in some cases.

Karen

[smudgley]

Totally 100% agree with Kazz.

I have never brought a dog home to be buried or had their ashes back. I don't have a problem with people who do bury their animals ( we buried one of our cats) and I don't have a problem with people having the animals ashes back if they so wish, but it's not for me. When they're gone, they're gone in my opinion.When my rottweiler died I was a mess, in pieces, he was my buddy, my best mate, my loyal friend, but he was gone. I had no reason to want him back. When one of our Bullmastiffs died at an emergency vets appointment, there was only a nurse there (the vet was on way, but she died before the vet arrived).. my husband helped the vet nurse put her in a body bag, the vet nurse didn't want him to, but he couldn't just leave her there, so he put her in the bag with the nurse. Call me whatever you want to, but she was dead and as much as we loved her & we cried when she was gone, she wasn't going to come back & he wasn't going to leave a young nurse struggling to move a great big dog on her own.

[Kazz]

I agree totaly with you there Smudgley, as much as I adore my cats when they were gone they were gone. I brought them home and buried them because I wanted to, but in my opinion they had had a good life like the lady who wrote the article's two cats.
But coming home they were simply bodies not my Oz and Cleat. As the life and what made them them had gone.

[angieh]

I really had to go away and think about this one. It seems to have split opinions of Catsey members somewhat - and I agree that it was an article probably written to do just that.

I disliked the whole way the article was written, whilst agreeing with the writer's final decision and especially with what Dawn and Luke have written above, having been there myself.

Would it be unfair to comment on the actions of the vet practice in question without having their view on what happened? From the writer's point of view, and going only by her article it would seem that the vet's only consideration was the fees they were charging.

The thing that really upset me however, was the way the vet finally ended the cat's life and upset Julia Langdon even further. I am guessing that's what has set the tone of her article. The vet, myself and my husband all came to agreement about ending my cat Smudge's life and we stayed with her until she was gone. It was not an experience that I would like to go through again, but certainly I could not in all conscience desert Merlin when the time comes for him too. And is it stupidly sentimental to want to bury your cat or his/her ashes in a safe and familiar place if you are able to do so?

What point do you think we are missing Smudgely?

[dandysmom]

I really had to go away and think about this one. It seems to have split opinions of Catsey members somewhat - and I agree that it was an article probably written to do just that.

I disliked the whole way the article was written, whilst agreeing with the writer's final decision and especially with what Dawn and Luke have written above, having been there myself.

Would it be unfair to comment on the actions of the vet practice in question without having their view on what happened? From the writer's point of view, and going only by her article it would seem that the vet's only consideration was the fees they were charging.

The thing that really upset me however, was the way the vet finally ended the cat's life and upset Julia Langdon even further. I am guessing that's what has set the tone of her article. The vet, myself and my husband all came to agreement about ending my cat Smudge's life and we stayed with her until she was gone. It was an enot xperience that I would like to go through again, but certainly I could not in all conscienstupidly sece desert Merlin when the time comes for him too. And is it ntimental to want to bury your cat or his/her ashes in a safe and familiar place if you are able to do so?

What point do you think we are missing Smudgely?

I stayed with Sultan when he had to be PTS, I felt I owed it to him to be there; and it was one of the hardest things I've ever done; I still get a bit weepy even after all these years.
And if it's stupidly sentimental to lay your cat's remains in the garden they loved, then I am stupidly sentimental. And I will do both in the future when the sad time comes..

I know that is only my opinion, and I respect any one's decision to do otherwise. It comes down to individual situations and individual feelings.

[Grete]

I agree with all of your points on quality of life and her choice to be there or not - it's individual and personal to everyone.

But at any point did you decide you knew what was going on without actually having a diagnosis or training to make that assumption yourself? Or indeed any kind of check-ups that could have picked up that a problem like this was starting when treatment could have made a big difference. Or even refused any kind of basic investigation?

That is my issue with this woman.

If she thought she was shoddily treated before, why did she go back to them the second time and with the attitude that she did. She had made her mind up what was going to happen before she had any facts (nor was interested in being educated) and I understand the frustration of the vet (who I doubt was the same one as previously and might have actually cared about animals). Being faced with that and despite all suggestions this woman who was already in fight mode is saying 'I don't care what's wrong, I'm not paying money for tests, he's ill, put him to sleep'.

I said before I don't condone their actions of putting the cat to sleep there and then but I understand how angry they must have felt.

The whole article was designed to shock and if she wanted to get a 'poor me, look what happened' reaction, she fell very short of the mark, she just came across as a very hard nosed, controlling woman who arranges life to suit her pocket. That's fine for some people but not me.

This is of course my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it ;)

[smudgley]

What point do you think we are missing Smudgely?

I didn't say you were missing the point, I asked if I was missing the point as I just didn't get it! Why it was such a big debate about a woman writing an article about her cat & her vet who she obviously was unhappy about.

[Rosie]

I don't think it is a "big debate" it is just something to discuss among cat people which is surely what the chat/debate sections are all about.

[smudgley]

I don't think it is a "big debate" it is just something to discuss among cat people which is surely what the chat/debate sections are all about.
Yeah, I guess so. :)

[Darky]

To me she just seemed like a normal angry person who is not used to expensive veterinary services, and was annoyed that a vet did not listen to the fact that she knew what was wrong with her cat. I thought her writing was irritatingly grumpy, but I could understand her annoyance.

Everyone is different, y'know? I feel lucky because my little village vet is a very capable man who listens and discusses things with me as he would an adult (as I first met him when I was a child).

But when it came to Tiger's inoperable tumour.. I was told to bring her back in, after spending a lot of money on various injections and consultations, when it seemed like "the time."

When it was, he said that if I wanted, he could give her another steroid injection and, if I could help her eat, she could live another week because despite her horrible state, she was happy. I didn't care about the cost, I thought that he was the most wonderful man alive at that moment, and I was in tears as I thanked him for giving me that extra week. He did it for me, not my pet, because he knew that I knew that Tiger was perfectly fine, all but for that dreadful tumour.

I would have paid countless funds every day if it meant that it kept Tiger alive, capable and happy.

[dandysmom]

Thats a very touching story, Darky! Some vets do go above and beyond, don't they? When my Sultan was at the vets with what turned out to be an incurable fungal lung infection, I got a call on Sunday from th vet. The clinic was closed Sundays, but Sultan was fading, and he knew I'd want to be with him. He came in and opened the Clinic for me so I could be with him when he was relieved of his pain. I've never forgotten that kindness.

[Darky]

It's fantastic to know that there are other wonderful vets out there. C:

[Phoenix]

I think her comment about making gloves out of her cat's fur was horrible!

I mean, we had our old cat pts because she became ill, the vet saw her and thought the best course of action was to let her go. We buried her in the garden. We were ever so upset!

I think saying that sort of thing is just not on! Also why was she laughing at the condolescence card?

Just my personal opinion though!