>and then pressured the owner give the pup up when they couldn't afford that
My wife is a vet and I hear about this often.
From the vet's perspective, if the owner gives up the puppy then they don't have to put the puppy down. Putting down a puppy is heart-wrenching.
You can't give out free medical care, she regularly gives as many discounts as she's allowed to give away, even some she's not supposed to, especially for cases like that. But in the end, the choice is A: put the puppy down or B: do the procedure for free but then the owner has to give up the animal.
When presented that choice it's obvious you should try and convince the owner not to put the animal down.
Why is it like that though? Like what are the economics of performing the procedure that it's possible for it to be free if the owner gives it up? Does someone different ultimately foot the bill?
You can do this a few times, and sometimes they do actually just do the procedure for free and the owner gets to keep the animal. But it does not scale. As soon as it becomes a rule then it becomes abused. One thing you realize quickly when running a clinic that deals with the public is any rule/policy that can be abused, WILL be abused. People try all kinds of tricks to not pay for their bills. And the clinic has to fight a constant battle with Yelp reviews as well, which greatly affect their business. If someone gets free treatment for one animal but not another they will destroy the business with Yelp reviews.
You get a wide range of clients at a vet clinic, some people are very nice and deal honestly, but there are a ton of people out there, I would say they are "less than savory" characters who recklessly adopt a lot of pets (like 5 dogs, 5 cats, and no money to pay for any bills) and will abuse these policies all day.
At my wife’s clinic they have shelters that pay for the procedure on condition of taking the animal.
Like there is a shelter in the city that will pay for medical bill and take the dog.
I do sort of see the logic. Part of responsible pet ownership is being able to keep your animal alive and healthy, if you don’t have the resources to do that then you maybe aren’t ready to be a pet owner. They make insurance to cover this exact thing, called pet insurance. If you can’t afford to have pet insurance and you can’t afford to pay for the medical bills then you can’t afford to have a pet. There are other people who will provide the care that the animal needs, but at that point they will become the owner.
I understand that this sounds heartless WRT the owner, I didn’t make these rules this is just how it works at my wife’s clinic and that’s the justification I have heard from the shelter and the company that owns the clinic.
I can't see it as anything other than emotional extortion. It's not like the animal shelter is paying for that care. It's being written off, and the reason it's being written off is they make so much from the owners that do pay they can afford to do so.
It is NOT being written off. It is being paid for.
It wouldn’t make any sense otherwise. It would be a lose lose for an animal shelter to receive this deeply fragile animal and the vet to do this expensive surgery for free.
From a microeconomic perspective (which is also my own), I agree completely. I am trying to consider the macroeconomic perspective as well though, which quickly spirals into bankruptcy if they just start doing treatment for free for people who can't/won't pay for it. Unless/until we make it easier and cheaper for people to go to vet school, they have to make money.
How does that work, though? Is there a constellation of dog-seeking people hovering around veterinary offices that only want dogs that cost $10k and have recently had major surgery? People who are willing to donate $10k to save a dog's life but consider it very important that the current owner no longer have the dog anymore for some reason?
$10k means very different things to people of different socioeconomic statuses, but the new owner took a rinsing to keep this dog alive - german shepherd puppies from almost all breeders cost less than $5k.
Likely the vet simply knew someone with deep enough pockets who loves dogs and was willing to take one for a well above market fee. It doesn't seem unethical to me that person only wants to save dogs they own.
For a well-bred GSD, probably. Waits for puppies can be years, and cost thousands anyway. Paying a bit more in vet bills instead probably seems reasonable to the right owner.
This is going to change how I view yuppies who tell me they rescued their dog. Was the dog really owned by abusive people before they bought it? Or was the dog owned by a family that loved it but couldn't afford a $10k procedure? Is there a tactful way to ask?
I wish I didn't know such arrangements are happening.
Why does the owner have to give up animal in that case? If its to prevent people from casually claiming they are unable to pay for treatment then why is putting that animal down for want of treatment something that they do?
Not trying to hold you accountable for the practice of course, but it seems like you might know
It is a rule for f business. If vets operated on a 'pay if you want basis' they would all go out of business overnight - tragedy of the commons and all that.
My wife is a vet and I hear about this often.
From the vet's perspective, if the owner gives up the puppy then they don't have to put the puppy down. Putting down a puppy is heart-wrenching.
You can't give out free medical care, she regularly gives as many discounts as she's allowed to give away, even some she's not supposed to, especially for cases like that. But in the end, the choice is A: put the puppy down or B: do the procedure for free but then the owner has to give up the animal.
When presented that choice it's obvious you should try and convince the owner not to put the animal down.