This is a vet who provides low cost/free spaying and neutering, who tests all animals for feline leukemia in order to properly sort them. The vet recommends euthanasia for all luke positive cats but wont tell you the results of the test unless you pay him $31. he will go ahead and let you pay to spay a positive cat but wont inform you of such unless you cough up the dough. my thought is if he is already doing the test without your knowledge and permission why should he withold the results. luke is very contagious and not saying anything could result in more infected cats. many of the cats he does are feral colonies, who is going to pay that kind of money on a stray, knowing these cats will be re-released isn't it unethical to refuse to tell whether the cat is infectious?
2007-03-28 16:53:04 · 14 answers · asked by mindy r 3 in Pets ➔ Cats
im not so worried about my cat, im paying to test her, its the feral colonies i am concerned about. these are cats with no owner and the vet knows the animals are part of a spay/neuter/release program. the volunteers who feed and trap the animals cannot afford to pay $31 per feral just to get the information released and a test the vet chooses to do anyway. if anything else i think he should euthanise the positives even if he wont revel the exact status of the test. funny enough if you pay to get the results he will not spay or neuter the animal without a $25 fee and a written release. i ask because i think his practices may have caused the death my cat from luke. one of the ferals was hanging around and sniffing my cats through the screen door, i have since found out from a volunteer that they had him luke tested because he was getting very ill and the same cat is luke positive.
2007-03-28 18:12:32 · update #1
i just got another cat to keep the surviving felv neg cat company. both cats were neg prior to the incident and both were vaccinated for luke less than a year before. i know the vaccine is not 100% effective but had he shared this info when the feral was brought in to be fixed maybe my little girl sissy would be here today.
2007-03-28 18:15:29 · update #2
another problem with this issue is i have inherited the feral colony. i just got a house and a barn with a flock of about 10-12 feral cats. literally as i write this i am still in my old house. i dont want to have to destroy the colony but i spoke with the volunteer who has been maintaining the colony and she just informed me that the felv status of the cats are unknown except the 1 known positive cat. it will cost her $300+ dollars to get the results which the vet knows but just wont say.
2007-03-28 18:21:17 · update #3
That does sound unethical to me. If you are in the United States, call your state veterinary medicine licensing board and ask them. If they agree it's unethical, file a complaint.
A vet who gets too many complaints filed against them can lose their license to practice. Which sounds reasonable to me.
2007-03-28 17:01:15 · answer #1 · answered by maxximumjoy 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is very unethical for the vet to withhold incormation about FELV or even FIV. If the vet does the test without asking the owner of the pets the test should be 'on the house' It seems that he is out for money. Its a shame. Both are contagious and usually the same test is used to test. I would call the Veternarian board for your state and make a statement to them, maybe they can do something to help. They regulate Vets in their own states.
2007-03-29 00:05:20 · answer #2 · answered by Samantha B 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, I personally wouldn't expect a person to pay for a test that she didn't ask to (or give permission to) have done on her kitty. As far as the law, well, I'm not a lawyer, but should he be forced to eat the cost of the test? He already is a low-cost clinic. And I suppose it may be a liability issue for his clinic, he has to be informed about his patients, so that other cats don't catch FeLV, or pass it to others. I'm on the fence here...I think he would have told you if your kitty was FeLV+ (man, I hope so, otherwise, he shouldn't be a vet.) You're lucky, though, my vet charges $51 plus the $39 office visit. Multiply that by four cats....I'm eating ramen noodles!!
2007-03-29 00:11:56 · answer #3 · answered by sippigrrrl 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That is probably the most outrageous thing I have ever heard! Contact the local ASPCA and find out what is up with this quack! This is akin to not informing the human public of an outbreak of infectious disease! The records should be public knowledge. As such the vet should be held accountable for not providing preventable information to the public regardless of cost.
2007-03-29 00:12:06 · answer #4 · answered by MMM 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is very unethical for the reasons you pointed out. You could take your cat home and expose it to other animals. And for only $30, what a cheap person. If I were you I would call the state licensing board in your state and report him. I would also report them to the humane society or the local animal control. Animal Control can fine them.
2007-03-29 00:03:16 · answer #5 · answered by Serinity4u2find 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is unethical although you have no right to a test you have not paid for eg if xrays are done and you do not pay for them then you do not own the xrays.
However it is unethical for him to with hold information that may affect your animals life.
I would ring the veterinary association (Veterinary board) and ask them their opinion on his practice
2007-03-29 00:11:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Thats really weird. I have 2 cats, and i got there leukemia tests done and i payed after they told me the results. Of course they wanted payment afterwards but not before they told me.. Leukemia will kill other cats from what ive been told so it is important to know, but i've never heard of paying before your told and ive had cats all my life.
2007-03-29 00:01:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
As far as I know it is against the law for a vet to perform any test or procedure without your consent. Make sure you read anything carefully before you sign it.
2007-03-29 00:11:25 · answer #8 · answered by Shalvia 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, he shouldnt hold the information from you. If anything he should charge for the test... but leave whether the test is done, up to the owner. Since he tested without your knowledge, he should just tell you if it came out pos. or neg.
2007-03-29 00:01:56 · answer #9 · answered by Traffy 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, I do not think the vet is doing anything unethical. He has done the luke test, obtained the results, in his time and by his efforts and equipment and supplies. This costs money and know-how. You want the information: you must pay for it. Put yourself in his shoes.
2007-03-29 00:05:21 · answer #10 · answered by Phoebhart 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋