PDA

View Full Version : Scottie's vet called


Candace
March 12th 06, 02:47 AM
He called around 6pm our time. The girl at his office said he'd be
there at 5 after his seminar. I wasn't here. It's all on my answering
machine tape. He said it's entirely possible that it happened as I
said. He said he didn't know about doxycycline causing it. He read
the articles I gave him, he looked in his Plumb's Veterinary Drug
Handbook and saw the warning. He said he's given it to hundreds, maybe
thousands of cats that way and nothing ever happened. He just didn't
know. He sounded shocked. He said he'd call later, he was on his way
home.

I don't feel elated or vindicated. It made it even sadder that he
acknowledged it, in a way. I don't know if he'll mention money when he
calls back or if I should. I would think he would pay me since he's
basically admitting his error. I suppose it's not provable now that
the cat doesn't exist anymore but it doesn't sound like he's going to
dispute much.

I've always liked him, he seemed like a down-to-earth person, very
sympathetic and understanding. He must feel bad, too. I felt that he
would be honorable about this and I guess I was right. Of course, he
might know vet law and know nothing will be/can be done to him. I
don't know but I guess he's not going to be a dick about it.

Yes, I removed the tape and am saving it.

Candace

cybercat
March 12th 06, 03:07 AM
"Candace" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> He called around 6pm our time. .

Wow, Candace. What a mess of mixed feelings--sad that it happened just as
you suspected and Scottie died needlessly, and happy--in a way--that the vet
is decent enough to say, "I didn't know." I would be very surprised if he
did not
refund your money, given his admission. Nothing can make this right but it
is the
least he can do and I bet he will feel the same way.

Candace
March 12th 06, 03:08 AM
D. wrote:
>
> I think he probably feels pretty badly; I get the feeling he just didn't
> know any better. I was thinking how, for humans, we have pharmacists who
> tell us things about medications and interactions that the doctors don't
> or can't, but veterinarians don't have that.
>
> At least now he knows. :(

You're right, I hadn't really thought of that. Not that that excuses
it but, years ago, I used to be a pharmacy tech in a hospital. That is
one of a hospital pharmacist's main purposes, to catch drug
interactions, dosing errors, etc. and call the doctor about it. Even
good doctors don't know everything about every drug. I suppose it's
true of vets, too. Maybe they just can't keep up with all the
literature and some things fall through the cracks.

Or maybe he's just incompetent. He's probably in his early 60's, maybe
he doesn't bother with the reading anymore. It would be interesting to
know how many vets know this about doxycycline. Maybe a lot don't.

None of it can help Scottie, though. And why did I have to find out
about it at all if it was after the fact? It's kind of like a cruel
joke God is playing. If I had just been left with the feeling it was
probably cancer as the vet said, it wouldn't be so awful. He'd still
be dead and we'd still miss him but it would have been "his time."
This wasn't his time.

Candace

Charlie Wilkes
March 12th 06, 04:13 AM
On 11 Mar 2006 17:47:31 -0800, "Candace" > wrote:

>He called around 6pm our time. The girl at his office said he'd be
>there at 5 after his seminar. I wasn't here. It's all on my answering
>machine tape. He said it's entirely possible that it happened as I
>said. He said he didn't know about doxycycline causing it. He read
>the articles I gave him, he looked in his Plumb's Veterinary Drug
>Handbook and saw the warning. He said he's given it to hundreds, maybe
>thousands of cats that way and nothing ever happened. He just didn't
>know. He sounded shocked. He said he'd call later, he was on his way
>home.
>
>I don't feel elated or vindicated. It made it even sadder that he
>acknowledged it, in a way. I don't know if he'll mention money when he
>calls back or if I should. I would think he would pay me since he's
>basically admitting his error. I suppose it's not provable now that
>the cat doesn't exist anymore but it doesn't sound like he's going to
>dispute much.
>
>I've always liked him, he seemed like a down-to-earth person, very
>sympathetic and understanding. He must feel bad, too. I felt that he
>would be honorable about this and I guess I was right. Of course, he
>might know vet law and know nothing will be/can be done to him. I
>don't know but I guess he's not going to be a dick about it.
>
>Yes, I removed the tape and am saving it.
>
>Candace

This is why I have been cringing over some of the militant rhetoric
I've been reading. Fortunately you are enough of an adult not to
start banging out certified letters full of high-handed nonsense.

I would ask the guy for a refund of professional fees, pointing out
that it was a big financial hardship for you to fork over that dough
in the first place. Keep the same cordial tone he has used.

You could drag him into court, but you wouldn't get much. And courts
always look favorably on a party who has attempted to reach an
agreement prior to litigation.

This is a very sad saga, Candace, but you have contributed to the
man's understanding of feline care, and perhaps by doing so you will
prevent another cat lover from having this same experience. That's
the highest outcome possible in a situation like this.

Charlie

Charlie

PawsForThought
March 12th 06, 04:33 AM
Candace wrote:
> He called around 6pm our time.

I'm glad to hear that he called. I bet he's feeling pretty bad right
about now. I can't imagine being a vet and doing something like this.
If he's a nice guy like you say, I'm sure he'll offer you a full
refund. Hang in there.

Hugs,
Lauren

March 12th 06, 08:43 AM
Candace wrote:

> None of it can help Scottie, though. And why did I have to find out
> about it at all if it was after the fact? It's kind of like a cruel
> joke God is playing. If I had just been left with the feeling it was
> probably cancer as the vet said, it wouldn't be so awful. He'd still
> be dead and we'd still miss him but it would have been "his time."
> This wasn't his time.
>

I know what you mean. When Jasper died, we figured it was because he
was so underweight before he was hit by the car. A stray with
pre-existing conditions. Then 5 years later, I learned about the change
in pepto bismal. I felt like he died all over again, only now it was
possibly my fault. And of course, it is way too late to test for
anything to find out for sure. It made a bad experience worse.

-L.
March 12th 06, 09:25 AM
Candace wrote:
>
> You're right, I hadn't really thought of that. Not that that excuses
> it but, years ago, I used to be a pharmacy tech in a hospital. That is
> one of a hospital pharmacist's main purposes, to catch drug
> interactions, dosing errors, etc. and call the doctor about it. Even
> good doctors don't know everything about every drug. I suppose it's
> true of vets, too. Maybe they just can't keep up with all the
> literature and some things fall through the cracks.
>
> Or maybe he's just incompetent. He's probably in his early 60's, maybe
> he doesn't bother with the reading anymore. It would be interesting to
> know how many vets know this about doxycycline. Maybe a lot don't.

FWIW, we never prescribed it - never. Not once. I didn't even know it
was used in cats.

>
> None of it can help Scottie, though. And why did I have to find out
> about it at all if it was after the fact? It's kind of like a cruel
> joke God is playing. If I had just been left with the feeling it was
> probably cancer as the vet said, it wouldn't be so awful. He'd still
> be dead and we'd still miss him but it would have been "his time."
> This wasn't his time.
>

Well, Candace, it *was* his time or he wouldn't have died. You will
never know why. We all go when it's our time whether it's in a car
wreck, a heart attack, lingering disease or murder. It's our time.
Somewhere, someway, some good will come of this. You may never know
about it, but rest assured, it will.

-L.

-L.
March 12th 06, 09:36 AM
Candace wrote:
> He called around 6pm our time. The girl at his office said he'd be
> there at 5 after his seminar. I wasn't here. It's all on my answering
> machine tape. He said it's entirely possible that it happened as I
> said. He said he didn't know about doxycycline causing it. He read
> the articles I gave him, he looked in his Plumb's Veterinary Drug
> Handbook and saw the warning. He said he's given it to hundreds, maybe
> thousands of cats that way and nothing ever happened. He just didn't
> know. He sounded shocked. He said he'd call later, he was on his way
> home.
>
> I don't feel elated or vindicated. It made it even sadder that he
> acknowledged it, in a way.

What is he going to do? He has to acknowledge it. He knows you are
right.

> don't know if he'll mention money when he
> calls back or if I should. I would think he would pay me since he's
> basically admitting his error. I suppose it's not provable now that
> the cat doesn't exist anymore but it doesn't sound like he's going to
> dispute much.
>
> I've always liked him, he seemed like a down-to-earth person, very
> sympathetic and understanding. He must feel bad, too. I felt that he
> would be honorable about this and I guess I was right. Of course, he
> might know vet law and know nothing will be/can be done to him. I
> don't know but I guess he's not going to be a dick about it.

Vets never want a complaint filed with the vet board. He will do
whatever you want to make sure that doesn't happen.

>
> Yes, I removed the tape and am saving it.

I am so sorry, Candace but please feel some comfort in knowing you are
educating people about the use of this drug. Nothing will bring your
sweet boy back, but some good will come out of it.

-L.

Wendy
March 12th 06, 05:40 PM
"Candace" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> He called around 6pm our time. The girl at his office said he'd be
> there at 5 after his seminar. I wasn't here. It's all on my answering
> machine tape. He said it's entirely possible that it happened as I
> said. He said he didn't know about doxycycline causing it. He read
> the articles I gave him, he looked in his Plumb's Veterinary Drug
> Handbook and saw the warning. He said he's given it to hundreds, maybe
> thousands of cats that way and nothing ever happened. He just didn't
> know. He sounded shocked. He said he'd call later, he was on his way
> home.
>
> I don't feel elated or vindicated. It made it even sadder that he
> acknowledged it, in a way. I don't know if he'll mention money when he
> calls back or if I should. I would think he would pay me since he's
> basically admitting his error. I suppose it's not provable now that
> the cat doesn't exist anymore but it doesn't sound like he's going to
> dispute much.
>
> I've always liked him, he seemed like a down-to-earth person, very
> sympathetic and understanding. He must feel bad, too. I felt that he
> would be honorable about this and I guess I was right. Of course, he
> might know vet law and know nothing will be/can be done to him. I
> don't know but I guess he's not going to be a dick about it.
>
> Yes, I removed the tape and am saving it.
>
> Candace
>

They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just worrying about
yours. I'm sure most do the best they can and they all make a mistake some
time. That's why it's called the 'practice' of medicine. At least your vet
was man enough to admit he could have blown it and didn't give you a bunch
of excuses to cover it up. You have to respect the man for that at least.

I'm truly sorry for your loss. I know how hard it is when we lose one of our
babies. We should be better prepared because we know from the start that we
are going to outlive them but we never are.

Wendy

CatNipped
March 12th 06, 06:52 PM
"D." > wrote in message
nk.net...
> In article om>,
> "Candace" > wrote:
>
>> I've always liked him, he seemed like a down-to-earth person, very
>> sympathetic and understanding. He must feel bad, too. I felt that he
>> would be honorable about this and I guess I was right.
>
> I think he probably feels pretty badly; I get the feeling he just didn't
> know any better. I was thinking how, for humans, we have pharmacists who
> tell us things about medications and interactions that the doctors don't
> or can't, but veterinarians don't have that.

Too true. I was just told by my pharmacist that I shouldn't be taking
over-the-counter Sudafed with the Flexeril I'm taking for Fibromyalgia - it
can cause kidney damage.

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/



>
> At least now he knows. :(
>
> --
> Web site: http://www.slywy.com/
> Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/
> Journal: http://slywy.blogspot.com/

CatNipped
March 12th 06, 07:03 PM
"Candace" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> D. wrote:
>>
>> I think he probably feels pretty badly; I get the feeling he just didn't
>> know any better. I was thinking how, for humans, we have pharmacists who
>> tell us things about medications and interactions that the doctors don't
>> or can't, but veterinarians don't have that.
>>
>> At least now he knows. :(
>
> You're right, I hadn't really thought of that. Not that that excuses
> it but, years ago, I used to be a pharmacy tech in a hospital. That is
> one of a hospital pharmacist's main purposes, to catch drug
> interactions, dosing errors, etc. and call the doctor about it. Even
> good doctors don't know everything about every drug. I suppose it's
> true of vets, too. Maybe they just can't keep up with all the
> literature and some things fall through the cracks.
>
> Or maybe he's just incompetent. He's probably in his early 60's, maybe
> he doesn't bother with the reading anymore. It would be interesting to
> know how many vets know this about doxycycline. Maybe a lot don't.
>
> None of it can help Scottie, though. And why did I have to find out
> about it at all if it was after the fact? It's kind of like a cruel
> joke God is playing. If I had just been left with the feeling it was
> probably cancer as the vet said, it wouldn't be so awful. He'd still
> be dead and we'd still miss him but it would have been "his time."
> This wasn't his time.

{{{{{{{{{{Candace}}}}}}}}}}

Candace, by finding this out you may have helped keep many other cats from
dying this way because of your vet's ignorance about this drug. FWIW, I
don't think we ever feel it's time for someone we love to die. But if there
can be a higher purpose found beyond mere dying when it's our time, then we
should try to take what little consolation that gives.

I am sure that Scottie knows how much you loved him, I'm sure he knows that
you would have done anything to help him, and I'm sure he feels there is no
need for forgiveness because there was nothing you did wrong.

--

Hugs,

CatNipped

See all my masters at: http://www.PossiblePlaces.com/CatNipped/



>
> Candace
>

Phil P.
March 13th 06, 03:39 AM
"D." > wrote in message
nk.net...
> In article om>,
> "Candace" > wrote:
>
> > I've always liked him, he seemed like a down-to-earth person, very
> > sympathetic and understanding. He must feel bad, too. I felt that he
> > would be honorable about this and I guess I was right.
>
> I think he probably feels pretty badly; I get the feeling he just didn't
> know any better. I was thinking how, for humans, we have pharmacists who
> tell us things about medications and interactions that the doctors don't
> or can't, but veterinarians don't have that.

All the more reason why he should know more about the drugs he's
prescribing.

P

Phil P.
March 13th 06, 03:48 AM
"Wendy" > wrote in message
...


> They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just worrying about
> yours.


As is every owner of the 'many animals'.


I'm sure most do the best they can and they all make a mistake some
> time. That's why it's called the 'practice' of medicine.


I don't want a vet 'practicing' on my cats unless its an experimental
treatment and I agree to it. The warnings about doxy-induced strictures
have been known for >20 years- its even printed on the package insert.


At least your vet
> was man enough to admit he could have blown it and didn't give you a bunch
> of excuses to cover it up. You have to respect the man for that at least.

He didn't have any other choice. I still think he agreed to euthanize
Scottie to get rid of the evidence hoping Candace would never find out.


P

Charlie Wilkes
March 13th 06, 08:14 AM
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:48:41 GMT, "Phil P." >
wrote:

>
>"Wendy" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just worrying about
>> yours.
>
>
>As is every owner of the 'many animals'.
>
>
>I'm sure most do the best they can and they all make a mistake some
>> time. That's why it's called the 'practice' of medicine.
>
>
>I don't want a vet 'practicing' on my cats unless its an experimental
>treatment and I agree to it. The warnings about doxy-induced strictures
>have been known for >20 years- its even printed on the package insert.
>
>
>At least your vet
>> was man enough to admit he could have blown it and didn't give you a bunch
>> of excuses to cover it up. You have to respect the man for that at least.
>
>He didn't have any other choice. I still think he agreed to euthanize
>Scottie to get rid of the evidence hoping Candace would never find out.
>
That is bull**** conjecture. If he was being devious, he would not
have called and left the message he did. Real ****heads never admit
they were wrong or at fault, no matter how obvious it is to everyone
else. The only possible reason he would do so is because he feels bad
about what happened, and he wants to mitigate the rotten feelings that
have arisen because of it.

Charlie

-L.
March 13th 06, 08:24 AM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> That is bull**** conjecture. If he was being devious, he would not
> have called and left the message he did. Real ****heads never admit
> they were wrong or at fault, no matter how obvious it is to everyone
> else.

You're extremely naive. Most animal guardians aren't educated at all
in vet medicine. It's not uncommon for vets to do exactly what Phil
claimed - euthanizing the animal to get rid of the evidence of
malpractice. If the guardian never finds out, they are off scott-free.
In this case he had no other option but to admit it - he knew he was
wrong. It was a mistake - negligence - one he is responsible for,
whether or not he realized what was going on at the time or not.


>The only possible reason he would do so is because he feels bad
> about what happened, and he wants to mitigate the rotten feelings that
> have arisen because of it.

Or he got caught with his pants down and has no other option now except
to confess and play stupid.

>From what Candace has said, I think the guy is just inept. He's still
liable, though.

-L.

Helen Miles
March 13th 06, 11:59 AM
"Candace" > wrote in message
oups.com

> None of it can help Scottie, though. And why did I have to find out
> about it at all if it was after the fact? It's kind of like a cruel
> joke God is playing. If I had just been left with the feeling it was
> probably cancer as the vet said, it wouldn't be so awful. He'd still
> be dead and we'd still miss him but it would have been "his time."
> This wasn't his time.////

{{{BIG HUGS}}} for the loss of Scottie. Have you thought that maybe you
had to find out about it after the fact was so that Scotties death
wasn't wasted and now other cats may be safer because of what happened
and the lessons learned?

It won't bring Scottie back, and I really feel for your loss as it *IS*
so very hard for you to have to go through this, but by you being able
to educate the vet, Scotties death wasn't in vain.

Scottie remains in our thoughts.

Helen M


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Phil P.
March 13th 06, 02:52 PM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:48:41 GMT, "Phil P." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Wendy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> >> They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just worrying
about
> >> yours.
> >
> >
> >As is every owner of the 'many animals'.
> >
> >
> >I'm sure most do the best they can and they all make a mistake some
> >> time. That's why it's called the 'practice' of medicine.
> >
> >
> >I don't want a vet 'practicing' on my cats unless its an experimental
> >treatment and I agree to it. The warnings about doxy-induced strictures
> >have been known for >20 years- its even printed on the package insert.
> >
> >
> >At least your vet
> >> was man enough to admit he could have blown it and didn't give you a
bunch
> >> of excuses to cover it up. You have to respect the man for that at
least.
> >
> >He didn't have any other choice. I still think he agreed to euthanize
> >Scottie to get rid of the evidence hoping Candace would never find out.
> >
> That is bull**** conjecture. If he was being devious, he would not
> have called and left the message he did. Real ****heads never admit
> they were wrong or at fault, no matter how obvious it is to everyone
> else. The only possible reason he would do so is because he feels bad
> about what happened, and he wants to mitigate the rotten feelings that
> have arisen because of it.


Charlie, I think you've been pounding your pud to old Brandy videos too
much. You really need to get off that island once in awhile to see what's
happening in the real world.

The vet was caught red-handed, dead-to-right-- no ambiguity there. He has
no choice but to play dumb and remorseful so not to antagonize Candace and
inflame the situation. Sure, he probably feels bad, but he's worried more
about his own ass.

There was absolutely no excuse for his blunder. Many human drugs have
potentially severe adverse effects when used in cats. Its the vet's
obligation and responsibility to prescribe them correctly- that's what we
pay them for. He was simply negligent- and a cat died needless because of
it.

Charlie Wilkes
March 13th 06, 03:34 PM
On 12 Mar 2006 23:24:13 -0800, "-L." > wrote:

>
>Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>> That is bull**** conjecture. If he was being devious, he would not
>> have called and left the message he did. Real ****heads never admit
>> they were wrong or at fault, no matter how obvious it is to everyone
>> else.
>
>You're extremely naive. Most animal guardians aren't educated at all
>in vet medicine. It's not uncommon for vets to do exactly what Phil
>claimed - euthanizing the animal to get rid of the evidence of
>malpractice. If the guardian never finds out, they are off scott-free.

Killing people's pets strikes me as a damn poor way for a vet to
manage risk.

> In this case he had no other option but to admit it - he knew he was
>wrong. It was a mistake - negligence - one he is responsible for,
>whether or not he realized what was going on at the time or not.
>
>
> >The only possible reason he would do so is because he feels bad
>> about what happened, and he wants to mitigate the rotten feelings that
>> have arisen because of it.
>
>Or he got caught with his pants down and has no other option now except
>to confess and play stupid.

He has the option to not say anything. If he was worried about the
legal angles, it's the first thing any lawyer would tell him -- don't
admit anything, let your attorney speak for you. The fact that he
admits blame suggests he isn't too worried, maybe because he has been
sued over this kind of thing in the past and knows it doesn't go
anywhere.

What bothers me is that you and Phil have nothing at stake here, and
you are acting as firebrands, passing pre-emptive judgement on someone
you don't know and encouraging Candace to nurse a grudge. I don't
think it makes sense for her to do that. I think it makes more sense
for her to accept the guy's good faith at face value, negotiate with
him in a cordial manner, and try to get at least some of her money
back.

Charlie
>
>>From what Candace has said, I think the guy is just inept. He's still
>liable, though.
>
>-L.

-L.
March 13th 06, 06:56 PM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>
> Killing people's pets strikes me as a damn poor way for a vet to
> manage risk.

No, it's the *only* way they can manage risk when they've ****ed up.
It's the only way they can cover their asses. Well, that, and they can
lie. I have had the vet I worked for lire right to my face and say he
never ordered something when I wrote in my notes in the cat's file that
he did.

>
> He has the option to not say anything. If he was worried about the
> legal angles, it's the first thing any lawyer would tell him -- don't
> admit anything, let your attorney speak for you. The fact that he
> admits blame suggests he isn't too worried, maybe because he has been
> sued over this kind of thing in the past and knows it doesn't go
> anywhere.

He knows if he resolves the case himself, he's likely to be out less
money. Just like an insurance adjustor.

>
> What bothers me is that you and Phil have nothing at stake here, and
> you are acting as firebrands, passing pre-emptive judgement on someone
> you don't know and encouraging Candace to nurse a grudge.

I'm not encouraging her to "nurse a grudge". I am encouraging her to
seek justice.

> I don't
> think it makes sense for her to do that. I think it makes more sense
> for her to accept the guy's good faith at face value, negotiate with
> him in a cordial manner, and try to get at least some of her money
> back.

I agree, but she needs to get more than "some" of her money back. She
needs to get all of it back.
-L.

Phil P.
March 13th 06, 10:46 PM
"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...


> I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV.


Ain't that a hoot! You went on Court TV to try to sue a boyfriend for
breaking up with you- and lost. If this happened to your cat, you'd be
screaming SUE SUE SUE all over the internet. You'd milk the tragedy for
every drop of attention for yourself that you could ring out it.

Matthew AKA NMR \( NO MORE RETAIL \)
March 13th 06, 10:48 PM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV.
>
>
> Ain't that a hoot! You went on Court TV to try to sue a boyfriend for
> breaking up with you- and lost. If this happened to your cat, you'd be
> screaming SUE SUE SUE all over the internet. You'd milk the tragedy for
> every drop of attention for yourself that you could ring out it.
>
>
Remember the judge even laughed at her along with the audience

Brandy Alexandre
March 13th 06, 10:58 PM
Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) <10 points a troll
@linethetrollsup.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:

>
> "Phil P." > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>
>>
>>> I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV.
>>
>>
>> Ain't that a hoot! You went on Court TV to try to sue a
>> boyfriend for breaking up with you- and lost. If this happened
>> to your cat, you'd be screaming SUE SUE SUE all over the
>> internet. You'd milk the tragedy for every drop of attention for
>> yourself that you could ring out it.
>>
>>
> Remember the judge even laughed at her along with the audience
>
>
>

Yeah right. You've seen it. Is that what you're lying about this
time? I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was
undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not awarded.

--
Brandy Alexandre

-- Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=

-L.
March 13th 06, 11:39 PM
Brandy Alexandre wrote:
> BTW, why are you always so willing to let Phil make a fool out of
> you leading you down these garden paths? You've become part of his
> psychosis.
>
> http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm

Oh yes, Karleen, you're such a victim!!!

Don't flatter yourself.

-L.

Matthew AKA NMR \( NO MORE RETAIL \)
March 13th 06, 11:39 PM
Here we go again

ROFTLMAO stop it please you are making me laugh so hard you. Oh god call
911 my side are splitting
at least you are good for something thank you for the laugh


I thought you plonked me I suggest you do so if you don't like what I have
to say.

You don't have worry about me being a stalker of you. For that to happen
you would actual have to matter to and in my world and definitely not sorry
to say you will never have that stasis of being in it.



What was it Phil that judge said on the peoples court what was that link so
she can remember what the judge said



"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
> Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) <10 points a troll
> @linethetrollsup.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>>
>> "Phil P." > wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ain't that a hoot! You went on Court TV to try to sue a
>>> boyfriend for breaking up with you- and lost. If this happened
>>> to your cat, you'd be screaming SUE SUE SUE all over the
>>> internet. You'd milk the tragedy for every drop of attention for
>>> yourself that you could ring out it.
>>>
>>>
>> Remember the judge even laughed at her along with the audience
>>
>>
> BTW, why are you always so willing to let Phil make a fool out of
> you leading you down these garden paths? You've become part of his
> psychosis.
>
> http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
>
>
> Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
> following and harassing of another person"
>
>
> Types of stalkers
>
>
> The Resentful:
>
>
> * The goal of this stalker is to frighten and distress the victim.
>
>
> * These stalkers may also experience feelings of injustice and
> desire revenge.
>
>
> The Predatory:
>
>
> * The power and control that comes from stalking a victim gives
> these stalkers a great deal of enjoyment.
>
>
> * The stalker often strives to learn more about the victim.
>
>
> * The stalker may even mentally rehearse a plan to attack the
> victim.
>
>
> * Most of these stalkers are diagnosed paraphilias and, compared to
> the previous four categories, they were more likely to have
> histories of sexual offense convictions.
>
>
> http://www.bullyonline.org/related/stalking.htm
>
>
> The stalker exhibits a familiar pattern of behaviour. Stalking often
> starts as a result of rejection; rejection rage and abandonment rage
> motivate the stalker to seek revenge through a predictable pattern
> of stalking behavior. The stalker, usually a loner and socially
> inept, becomes obsessed with their target and bombards them with
> messages, emails, gifts, or abuse. The stalking behaviour can last
> for years and the intensity of abuse increases over time. The abuse,
> initially consisting of psychological violence, often escalates and
> culminates in physical violence.
>
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm
>
>
> A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or harassing messages
> by the simple push of a button; more sophisticated cyberstalkers use
> programs to send messages at regular or random intervals without
> being physically present at the computer terminal. California law
> enforcement authorities say they have encountered situations where a
> victim repeatedly receives the message "187" on their pagers - the
> section of the California Penal Code for murder. In addition, a
> cyberstalker can dupe other Internet users into harassing or
> threatening a victim by utilizing Internet bulletin boards or chat
> rooms. For example, a stalker may post a controversial or enticing
> message on the board under the name, phone number, or e-mail address
> of the victim, resulting in subsequent responses being sent to the
> victim. Each message -- whether from the actual cyberstalker or
> others -- will have the intended effect on the victim, but the
> cyberstalker's effort is minimal and the lack of direct contact
> between the cyberstalker and the victim can make it difficult for
> law enforcement to identify, locate, and arrest the offender.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Brandy Alexandre
>
> -- Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=

Matthew AKA NMR \( NO MORE RETAIL \)
March 13th 06, 11:42 PM
What her a victim? L
Please tell me you are joking
Please
Please
Please
Tell me you got to be joking please say so
< [email protected] eating grin >


"-L." > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Brandy Alexandre wrote:
>> BTW, why are you always so willing to let Phil make a fool out of
>> you leading you down these garden paths? You've become part of his
>> psychosis.
>>
>> http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
>
> Oh yes, Karleen, you're such a victim!!!
>
> Don't flatter yourself.
>
> -L.
>

Phil P.
March 14th 06, 12:11 AM
"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
> Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) <10 points a troll
> @linethetrollsup.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
> >
> > "Phil P." > wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >>
> >> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
> >> message ...
> >>
> >>
> >>> I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ain't that a hoot! You went on Court TV to try to sue a
> >> boyfriend for breaking up with you- and lost. If this happened
> >> to your cat, you'd be screaming SUE SUE SUE all over the
> >> internet. You'd milk the tragedy for every drop of attention for
> >> yourself that you could ring out it.
> >>
> >>
> > Remember the judge even laughed at her along with the audience
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yeah right. You've seen it. Is that what you're lying about this
> time? I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was
> undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not awarded.


You're a sleazy liar:

"The plaintiff, Brandy Alexandre, is a pornographic movie actress who's
suing her ex- lover for royalties she claims he agreed to pay her for one of
the movies she was in, as well as pain and suffering caused by the break-up
of the relationship. She's seeking $5000. The defendant, John Stagliano,
says he doesn't owe Ms. Alexandre a thing, and that any royalties that may
have been due were offset by his payment of medical bills which the
plaintiff incurred while she was in hospital. This is the case we call Porn
To Lose."
Judge Wapner ruled in Alexandre's favor for $1228. But she got nothing for
pain and suffering."If I let you get away with money damages because you
took the break-up harder than he did," said Judge Wapner, "every woman in
California who's ever been jilted would be filing suit tomorrow."

http://www.lukeford.com/stars/female/brandy_alexandre.html



You've got to lay off the crack and cocaine because they're burning out the
few brain cells you have left.

Glitter Ninja
March 14th 06, 12:19 AM
"Phil P." > writes:

>"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...

>> I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was
>> undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not awarded.

>You're a sleazy liar:

>Judge Wapner ruled in Alexandre's favor for $1228. But she got nothing for
>pain and suffering.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what you said and what Brandy said
are the same thing. She said she got unpaid royalties (the $1228,
right?) but nothing else.
Not sure what this has to do with kitties.

Stacia

Phil P.
March 14th 06, 12:27 AM
"Glitter Ninja" > wrote in message
...
> "Phil P." > writes:
>
> >"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was
> >> undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not awarded.
>
> >You're a sleazy liar:
>
> >Judge Wapner ruled in Alexandre's favor for $1228. But she got nothing
for
> >pain and suffering.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but what you said and what Brandy said
> are the same thing.

You're right. You are missing something. The sleaze said she sued her
boyfriend for unpaid royalties and for the "undue hardship for the money not
being paid" when in fact she tried to sue her boyfriend for unpaid
royalties, as well as *pain and suffering caused by the break-up of the
relationship.*. Got it, now?

Matthew AKA NMR \( NO MORE RETAIL \)
March 14th 06, 12:34 AM
Stacia is right Phil this original thread is about Candace's loss of
Scottie and it should remain that way

Us and a few other can stand Brandi , karleen, margarita salt or what ever
she goes by

But Glitter is right Phil we should concentrate on helping Candance if we
can. You are doing a great job of doing it right now. I am glad we have
you and a few others out here to help us.

We just need to ignore the has been if we can I know she is such a easy
target and a good laugh but I think we can restrain ourselves. Whatcha
think there Phil?

We can start our own thread if we want or add her to the other post about
John doe and add her to the voting list ;-)


"Glitter Ninja" > wrote in message
...
> "Phil P." > writes:
>
>>"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was
>>> undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not awarded.
>
>>You're a sleazy liar:
>
>>Judge Wapner ruled in Alexandre's favor for $1228. But she got nothing for
>>pain and suffering.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but what you said and what Brandy said
> are the same thing. She said she got unpaid royalties (the $1228,
> right?) but nothing else.
> Not sure what this has to do with kitties.
>
> Stacia
>
>

Phil P.
March 14th 06, 12:36 AM
"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
> Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) <10 points a troll
> @linethetrollsup.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
> >
> > "Phil P." > wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >>
> >> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
> >> message ...
> >>
> >>
> >>> I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ain't that a hoot! You went on Court TV to try to sue a
> >> boyfriend for breaking up with you- and lost. If this happened
> >> to your cat, you'd be screaming SUE SUE SUE all over the
> >> internet. You'd milk the tragedy for every drop of attention for
> >> yourself that you could ring out it.
> >>
> >>
> > Remember the judge even laughed at her along with the audience
> >
> >
> BTW, why are you always so willing to let Phil make a fool out of
> you leading you down these garden paths? You've become part of his
> psychosis.
>
> http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
>
>
> Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
> following and harassing of another person"


Wow! You really are delusional! First of all, animal abusing crack whore, I
was posting here long before you infested this group. Thus, you followed me
here. Second, I'm not harassing you, sleaze, I'm ridiculing you because
you're an animal abusing crack whore. If you finished high school, you
would have known the difference between harassment and ridicule.

Matthew AKA NMR \( NO MORE RETAIL \)
March 14th 06, 12:41 AM
"Phil P." >

But Phil she admires us so much to calls us NG stalkers.
Psst. I think I know a secret Phil she has a crush on you. She is just
embarrassed to admit it
With her freely admitting that she placed a false complaint against your
facility does that mean she is stalking you? ;-o

Joe Canuck
March 14th 06, 12:59 AM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:48:41 GMT, "Phil P." >
> wrote:
>
>> "Wendy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just worrying about
>>> yours.
>>
>> As is every owner of the 'many animals'.
>>
>>
>> I'm sure most do the best they can and they all make a mistake some
>>> time. That's why it's called the 'practice' of medicine.
>>
>> I don't want a vet 'practicing' on my cats unless its an experimental
>> treatment and I agree to it. The warnings about doxy-induced strictures
>> have been known for >20 years- its even printed on the package insert.
>>
>>
>> At least your vet
>>> was man enough to admit he could have blown it and didn't give you a bunch
>>> of excuses to cover it up. You have to respect the man for that at least.
>> He didn't have any other choice. I still think he agreed to euthanize
>> Scottie to get rid of the evidence hoping Candace would never find out.
>>
> That is bull**** conjecture. If he was being devious, he would not
> have called and left the message he did.


> Real ****heads never admit
> they were wrong or at fault, no matter how obvious it is to everyone
> else.

By golly, you have described Brandy to a T with that statement.


> The only possible reason he would do so is because he feels bad
> about what happened, and he wants to mitigate the rotten feelings that
> have arisen because of it.
>
> Charlie
>

Joe Canuck
March 14th 06, 01:00 AM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2006 23:24:13 -0800, "-L." > wrote:
>
>> Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>>> That is bull**** conjecture. If he was being devious, he would not
>>> have called and left the message he did. Real ****heads never admit
>>> they were wrong or at fault, no matter how obvious it is to everyone
>>> else.
>> You're extremely naive. Most animal guardians aren't educated at all
>> in vet medicine. It's not uncommon for vets to do exactly what Phil
>> claimed - euthanizing the animal to get rid of the evidence of
>> malpractice. If the guardian never finds out, they are off scott-free.
>
> Killing people's pets strikes me as a damn poor way for a vet to
> manage risk.
>
>> In this case he had no other option but to admit it - he knew he was
>> wrong. It was a mistake - negligence - one he is responsible for,
>> whether or not he realized what was going on at the time or not.
>>
>>
>>> The only possible reason he would do so is because he feels bad
>>> about what happened, and he wants to mitigate the rotten feelings that
>>> have arisen because of it.
>> Or he got caught with his pants down and has no other option now except
>> to confess and play stupid.
>
> He has the option to not say anything. If he was worried about the
> legal angles, it's the first thing any lawyer would tell him -- don't
> admit anything, let your attorney speak for you. The fact that he
> admits blame suggests he isn't too worried, maybe because he has been
> sued over this kind of thing in the past and knows it doesn't go
> anywhere.
>
> What bothers me is that you and Phil have nothing at stake here, and
> you are acting as firebrands, passing pre-emptive judgement on someone
> you don't know and encouraging Candace to nurse a grudge. I don't
> think it makes sense for her to do that. I think it makes more sense
> for her to accept the guy's good faith at face value, negotiate with
> him in a cordial manner, and try to get at least some of her money
> back.

....and there you go passing judgement on others yourself.

Nice going Chuckie! :-D


>
> Charlie
>> >From what Candace has said, I think the guy is just inept. He's still
>> liable, though.
>>
>> -L.
>

Joe Canuck
March 14th 06, 01:03 AM
Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) wrote:
> Here we go again
>
> ROFTLMAO stop it please you are making me laugh so hard you. Oh god call
> 911 my side are splitting
> at least you are good for something thank you for the laugh
>
>
> I thought you plonked me I suggest you do so if you don't like what I have
> to say.
>
> You don't have worry about me being a stalker of you. For that to happen
> you would actual have to matter to and in my world and definitely not sorry
> to say you will never have that stasis of being in it.
>
>
>
> What was it Phil that judge said on the peoples court what was that link so
> she can remember what the judge said
>
>
>
> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) <10 points a troll
>> @linethetrollsup.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>>
>>> "Phil P." > wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
>>>> message ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV.
>>>>
>>>> Ain't that a hoot! You went on Court TV to try to sue a
>>>> boyfriend for breaking up with you- and lost. If this happened
>>>> to your cat, you'd be screaming SUE SUE SUE all over the
>>>> internet. You'd milk the tragedy for every drop of attention for
>>>> yourself that you could ring out it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Remember the judge even laughed at her along with the audience
>>>
>>>
>> BTW, why are you always so willing to let Phil make a fool out of
>> you leading you down these garden paths? You've become part of his
>> psychosis.
>>
>> http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
>>
>>
>> Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
>> following and harassing of another person"
>>
>>
>> Types of stalkers
>>
>>
>> The Resentful:
>>
>>
>> * The goal of this stalker is to frighten and distress the victim.
>>
>>
>> * These stalkers may also experience feelings of injustice and
>> desire revenge.
>>
>>
>> The Predatory:
>>
>>
>> * The power and control that comes from stalking a victim gives
>> these stalkers a great deal of enjoyment.
>>
>>
>> * The stalker often strives to learn more about the victim.
>>
>>
>> * The stalker may even mentally rehearse a plan to attack the
>> victim.
>>
>>
>> * Most of these stalkers are diagnosed paraphilias and, compared to
>> the previous four categories, they were more likely to have
>> histories of sexual offense convictions.
>>
>>
>> http://www.bullyonline.org/related/stalking.htm
>>
>>
>> The stalker exhibits a familiar pattern of behaviour. Stalking often
>> starts as a result of rejection; rejection rage and abandonment rage
>> motivate the stalker to seek revenge through a predictable pattern
>> of stalking behavior. The stalker, usually a loner and socially
>> inept, becomes obsessed with their target and bombards them with
>> messages, emails, gifts, or abuse. The stalking behaviour can last
>> for years and the intensity of abuse increases over time. The abuse,
>> initially consisting of psychological violence, often escalates and
>> culminates in physical violence.
>>
>>
>> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm
>>
>>
>> A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or harassing messages
>> by the simple push of a button; more sophisticated cyberstalkers use
>> programs to send messages at regular or random intervals without
>> being physically present at the computer terminal. California law
>> enforcement authorities say they have encountered situations where a
>> victim repeatedly receives the message "187" on their pagers - the
>> section of the California Penal Code for murder. In addition, a
>> cyberstalker can dupe other Internet users into harassing or
>> threatening a victim by utilizing Internet bulletin boards or chat
>> rooms. For example, a stalker may post a controversial or enticing
>> message on the board under the name, phone number, or e-mail address
>> of the victim, resulting in subsequent responses being sent to the
>> victim. Each message -- whether from the actual cyberstalker or
>> others -- will have the intended effect on the victim, but the
>> cyberstalker's effort is minimal and the lack of direct contact
>> between the cyberstalker and the victim can make it difficult for
>> law enforcement to identify, locate, and arrest the offender.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Brandy Alexandre
>>
>> -- Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=
>
>

I see the sleaze is tryna stir the pot again. :-D

Charlie Wilkes
March 14th 06, 01:38 AM
On 13 Mar 2006 09:56:45 -0800, "-L." > wrote:

>
>Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>>
>> Killing people's pets strikes me as a damn poor way for a vet to
>> manage risk.
>
>No, it's the *only* way they can manage risk when they've ****ed up.
>It's the only way they can cover their asses. Well, that, and they can
>lie. I have had the vet I worked for lire right to my face and say he
>never ordered something when I wrote in my notes in the cat's file that
>he did.
>
>>
>> He has the option to not say anything. If he was worried about the
>> legal angles, it's the first thing any lawyer would tell him -- don't
>> admit anything, let your attorney speak for you. The fact that he
>> admits blame suggests he isn't too worried, maybe because he has been
>> sued over this kind of thing in the past and knows it doesn't go
>> anywhere.
>
>He knows if he resolves the case himself, he's likely to be out less
>money. Just like an insurance adjustor.
>
>>
>> What bothers me is that you and Phil have nothing at stake here, and
>> you are acting as firebrands, passing pre-emptive judgement on someone
>> you don't know and encouraging Candace to nurse a grudge.
>
>I'm not encouraging her to "nurse a grudge". I am encouraging her to
>seek justice.

If you feel so strongly, I suggest you offer to reimburse Candace for
whatever it costs to "seek justice," on the off-chance it doesn't
produce a financial windfall.

Charlie
>
>> I don't
>> think it makes sense for her to do that. I think it makes more sense
>> for her to accept the guy's good faith at face value, negotiate with
>> him in a cordial manner, and try to get at least some of her money
>> back.
>
>I agree, but she needs to get more than "some" of her money back. She
>needs to get all of it back.
>-L.

Charlie Wilkes
March 14th 06, 01:57 AM
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 23:11:27 GMT, "Phil P." >
wrote:

>
>"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
>> Matthew AKA NMR ( NO MORE RETAIL ) <10 points a troll
>> @linethetrollsup.com> wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>>
>> >
>> > "Phil P." > wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]
>> >>
>> >> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
>> >> message ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> I agree with you Charlie. That's paranoia and too much TV.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ain't that a hoot! You went on Court TV to try to sue a
>> >> boyfriend for breaking up with you- and lost. If this happened
>> >> to your cat, you'd be screaming SUE SUE SUE all over the
>> >> internet. You'd milk the tragedy for every drop of attention for
>> >> yourself that you could ring out it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Remember the judge even laughed at her along with the audience
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yeah right. You've seen it. Is that what you're lying about this
>> time? I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was
>> undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not awarded.
>
>
>You're a sleazy liar:
>
>"The plaintiff, Brandy Alexandre, is a pornographic movie actress who's
>suing her ex- lover for royalties she claims he agreed to pay her for one of
>the movies she was in, as well as pain and suffering caused by the break-up
>of the relationship. She's seeking $5000. The defendant, John Stagliano,
>says he doesn't owe Ms. Alexandre a thing, and that any royalties that may
>have been due were offset by his payment of medical bills which the
>plaintiff incurred while she was in hospital. This is the case we call Porn
>To Lose."
>Judge Wapner ruled in Alexandre's favor for $1228. But she got nothing for
>pain and suffering."If I let you get away with money damages because you
>took the break-up harder than he did," said Judge Wapner, "every woman in
>California who's ever been jilted would be filing suit tomorrow."
>
>http://www.lukeford.com/stars/female/brandy_alexandre.html
>
>
>
>You've got to lay off the crack and cocaine because they're burning out the
>few brain cells you have left.
>
HORK!

I didn't know about this one. But what lessons are presented in this
story, Phil? I can see a couple right off.

One is that Brandy is a brash character who thrives on notoriety. But
we already knew that, right?

Two is that personal feelings are not the basis of a successful
lawsuit. That is the point I have been trying to make.

Charlie

-L.
March 14th 06, 02:30 AM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>
> If you feel so strongly, I suggest you offer to reimburse Candace for
> whatever it costs to "seek justice," on the off-chance it doesn't
> produce a financial windfall.

I won't cost her a penny, Dingbat. "Contingency fee" - look it up.

-L.

Phil P.
March 14th 06, 03:47 AM
"Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in message
...



> Two is that personal feelings are not the basis of a successful
> lawsuit. That is the point I have been trying to make.


I hate to break it to you, Charlie- but you failed to make your point.
Suing an incompetent doctor for gross negligence is not remotely
similar to suing a boyfriend because he dumped her.

Candace
March 14th 06, 04:28 AM
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>
> If you feel so strongly, I suggest you offer to reimburse Candace for
> whatever it costs to "seek justice," on the off-chance it doesn't
> produce a financial windfall.
>
> Charlie
> >
> >> I don't
> >> think it makes sense for her to do that. I think it makes more sense
> >> for her to accept the guy's good faith at face value, negotiate with
> >> him in a cordial manner, and try to get at least some of her money
> >> back.
> >
> >I agree, but she needs to get more than "some" of her money back. She
> >needs to get all of it back.
> >-L.

Hmmm, well, 1,000 measly bucks is what he is willingly giving me as a
credit to the credit card I used. He called me at work this
a.m.--apologetic, but basically saying that **** happens (he didn't
phrase it that way at all and was being very polite, etc) and he can't
know everything. He said he takes 150 hours of continuing education a
year when 20 is all that is required (both those facts are true because
I googled him and found that out) and he never has heard about it in
any of his seminars/classes. He has used it on hundreds of cats and
administered it without water, never had a problem, so he never saw a
point in looking at the Plumb's. He is sorry and will never administer
it that way to a cat again but he basically said **** happens and
everyone makes mistakes sometimes. I didn't mention filing a complaint
or small claims court or anything. He must feel invincible, either
because he's had similar experiences or knows others who have. Maybe
he knows it would all pan out in his favor. I don't know. It's
troubling, sad, complicated. Tony prefers to drop it at this point but
he always assumes the best of people; he thinks the guy is genuinely
sorry and is doing everything in good faith. I'm really surprised at
the small amount and it was only when I brought it up; he was not
offering it of his own accord. I guess I'll know how I feel about it
and what I will be willing to do about it in a couple of days as it
sinks in.

He also said his partner, who only graduated from vet school in 2003,
had never heard about it either.

And I must also say that a vet emailed me privately and said the
balloon dilation is not a cure but merely a treatment, that the
stricture usually recurs. I don't know if he meant after only one
treatment or after a series of treatments are performed because I did
read that it takes 2-10 times to be effective. This vet also said the
whole doxy thing is common knowledge among vets. I told this to my
(former) vet and he said by asking on the internet, I would not get a
fair sampling--only vets who *do* know about it would answer me. He
said I should randomly call 10 vets and ask them how they administer
doxycycline to cats. I doubt if I will do that.

I was thinking of asking him to also make a nice donation to some
veterinary education organization in Scottie's name but that would only
be if I didn't seek further compensation.

My poor cat is going to remain dead regardless of what I do now.

Candace

cybercat
March 14th 06, 04:50 AM
"Candace" > wrote
>
> My poor cat is going to remain dead regardless of what I do now.
>

I'm so sorry, Candace.

Phil P.
March 14th 06, 05:09 AM
"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
> >
> > "Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >
> >
> >
> >> Two is that personal feelings are not the basis of a successful
> >> lawsuit. That is the point I have been trying to make.
> >
> >
> > I hate to break it to you, Charlie- but you failed to make your
> > point. Suing an incompetent doctor for gross negligence is not
> > remotely similar to suing a boyfriend because he dumped her.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Try looking up the legal definition of "gross negligence," you idiot.
> "GROSS NEGLIGENCE - Failure to use even the slightest amount of care in
> a way that shows recklessness or willful disregard for the safety of
> others." That's not what this is.


It sure is, bimbo. He didn't instruct his client how to administer the
medication properly, now did he, sleaze?


Didn't you say you killfiled me about 1000 times, lowlife? What's the
matter-- is your ego as big as your banjo butt? LOL!

Brandy Alexandre
March 14th 06, 05:33 AM
Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:

>
> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>>
>> >
>> > "Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in
>> > message ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Two is that personal feelings are not the basis of a
>> >> successful lawsuit. That is the point I have been trying to
>> >> make.
>> >
>> >
>> > I hate to break it to you, Charlie- but you failed to make your
>> > point. Suing an incompetent doctor for gross negligence is not
>> > remotely similar to suing a boyfriend because he dumped her.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Try looking up the legal definition of "gross negligence," you
>> idiot. "GROSS NEGLIGENCE - Failure to use even the slightest
>> amount of care in a way that shows recklessness or willful
>> disregard for the safety of others." That's not what this is.
>
>
> It sure is, bimbo. He didn't instruct his client how to administer
> the medication properly, now did he, sleaze?
>
>
> Didn't you say you killfiled me about 1000 times, lowlife? What's
> the matter-- is your ego as big as your banjo butt? LOL!
>
>
>
>
>
>
I saw you making such a fool out of yourself again in the quotes, I
didn't want to miss it.

Since you're trying to spew gross negligence as a cause of action,
you are absolutely wrong. 100% (but what else is new). The
statutory defintion of gross negligence is willful and reckless
disregard for the consequences of actions. I know in your little
pinhead you've dreamt up some huge conspiracy for this vet, but the
fact is people only imagine things they are personally capable of.
All you've proven is that it's what YOU would do in your 501(c)(3)
fraudulant, tax-evading world. (You know, you shouldn't brag about
your tax evasion in newsgroups as if the messages aren't going to be
around forever.)

Sticking to causes of action, ordinary negligence, that is, failure
to use reasonable care, might be more to the facts. Reasonable care
may be considered as continuing education and staying aprised of the
latest studies on medications and administration.

And keep arguing with me so you look more dumb. I do work for an
attorney and he knows more than you because you are NOT an attorney,
just like you aren't a vet. And it shows in every single post you
make. You and your butt buddies have LONG claimed to be as good as
a vet because you work closely with them, so go ahead and contradict
yourselves in this case. I dare you.

The sad fact remains that the law considers pets nothing more than
property. They may only be allowed greater status if they are
service animals, but they're still property and awards rarely will
include pain and suffering on the basis of sentiment.

I agree with Charlie that you're trying to incite Candace to actions
that will only keep wounds open, hopes up, only to be dashed by the
grim reality that the vet can likely provide a great deal of
anecdotal evidence showing that his practice has never had such a
problem with doxy regardless of the fact that it make have been
incorrectly administered. She should take the high road, accept his
apology, acknowledge that he does, more likely than not, feel bad
about what happened, and negotiate to recover the money invested in
Scotties care during this illness. And then move on.

I know I'm a bad guy about it, but don't forget that she came to the
group saying she thought she was at fault because of certain facts
and I only agreed and stated why. Shame on me. Unlike you and your
cohorts, I don't sit her and make up a bunch of **** trying to make
her look or feel bad. I'm sure she does. If she only said that so
she could hear a bunch of people reassure that she had no hand in it
whatsoever, shame on her.

--
Brandy Alexandre

--Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=

Phil P.
March 14th 06, 06:18 AM
"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
> >
> > "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in
> >> > message ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Two is that personal feelings are not the basis of a
> >> >> successful lawsuit. That is the point I have been trying to
> >> >> make.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I hate to break it to you, Charlie- but you failed to make your
> >> > point. Suing an incompetent doctor for gross negligence is not
> >> > remotely similar to suing a boyfriend because he dumped her.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Try looking up the legal definition of "gross negligence," you
> >> idiot. "GROSS NEGLIGENCE - Failure to use even the slightest
> >> amount of care in a way that shows recklessness or willful
> >> disregard for the safety of others." That's not what this is.
> >
> >
> > It sure is, bimbo. He didn't instruct his client how to administer
> > the medication properly, now did he, sleaze?
> >
> >
> > Didn't you say you killfiled me about 1000 times, lowlife? What's
> > the matter-- is your ego as big as your banjo butt? LOL!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I saw you making such a fool out of yourself again in the quotes, I
> didn't want to miss it.
>
> Since you're trying to spew gross negligence as a cause of action,
> you are absolutely wrong. 100% (but what else is new). The
> statutory defintion of gross negligence

Don't ya think you should finish high-school before you try tackling law,
low-life?

Did you satisfied your pathological need for attention by highjacking yet
another thread? Why don't you go back to your porn and gossip newsgroups,
animal abusing sleaze- that's where you belong- and spare the cat people
your self-serving bull****?

<brandy bull**** snipped>

IBen Getiner
March 14th 06, 07:03 AM
Candace wrote:
> He called around 6pm our time. The girl at his office said he'd be
> there at 5 after his seminar. I wasn't here. It's all on my answering
> machine tape. He said it's entirely possible that it happened as I
> said. He said he didn't know about doxycycline causing it. He read
> the articles I gave him, he looked in his Plumb's Veterinary Drug
> Handbook and saw the warning. He said he's given it to hundreds, maybe
> thousands of cats that way and nothing ever happened. He just didn't
> know. He sounded shocked. He said he'd call later, he was on his way
> home.
>
> I don't feel elated or vindicated. It made it even sadder that he
> acknowledged it, in a way. I don't know if he'll mention money when he
> calls back or if I should. I would think he would pay me since he's
> basically admitting his error. I suppose it's not provable now that
> the cat doesn't exist anymore but it doesn't sound like he's going to
> dispute much.
>
> I've always liked him, he seemed like a down-to-earth person, very
> sympathetic and understanding. He must feel bad, too. I felt that he
> would be honorable about this and I guess I was right. Of course, he
> might know vet law and know nothing will be/can be done to him. I
> don't know but I guess he's not going to be a dick about it.
>
> Yes, I removed the tape and am saving it.
>
> Candace

I still say you're ****ing negligent. And what do you expect the Vet to
****ing say....? He probably thinks by now that he's dealing with a
nut-cast (i.e.: a KOOK).
Just let it go and learn from it.. I wouldn't go around exclaiming the
details of the whole situation like you do, though. Makes it look like
you're trying to aire your guilty ****ing conscience.


IBen

Matthew AKA NMR \( NO MORE RETAIL \)
March 14th 06, 07:06 AM
harassing yes you are definitely a target since your comments not to long
ago about the investigation

you a one real [email protected] piece of work If you think I am stalking you. Hey is
that me knocking at your windows guess what NOT!!!!

Do we need the crayons again for you the dollar store has a whole bunch we
can buy as many as it takes

"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
> Glitter Ninja > wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
>> "Phil P." > writes:
>>
>>>"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
>>>message ...
>>
>>>> I sue my boyfriend for unpaid royalties and I won. The rest was
>>>> undue hardship for the money not being paid, which was not
>>>> awarded.
>>
>>>You're a sleazy liar:
>>
>>>Judge Wapner ruled in Alexandre's favor for $1228. But she got
>>>nothing for pain and suffering.
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but what you said and what Brandy
>> said
>> are the same thing. She said she got unpaid royalties (the $1228,
>> right?) but nothing else.
>> Not sure what this has to do with kitties.
>>
>> Stacia
>>
>>
>>
>
> He's just a stalking and harassing. He's also quoting hearsay. He
> hasn't seen the actual clip. He's easily led around by his mania.
>
mania (mn-, mny)
n.
1. An excessively intense enthusiasm, interest, or desire; a craze: a mania
for neatness.
2. Psychiatry A manifestation of bipolar disorder, characterized by profuse
and rapidly changing ideas, exaggerated sexuality, gaiety, or irritability,
and decreased sleep.
3. Violent abnormal behavior. See Synonyms at insanity.

Who has mania here I will admit to number 1 you became a perfect target
after your little tift a couple weeks ago about the supposed investigation
rememebr I am sure One of us can provide the post listing for you again

Damn but who has number 2 and 3 there to bad Kami can't talk that poor
cat deserves a medal for survival



Are you sure I have not seen the clip I love the People court been
watching for years even when Judge judys' husband was judge

could be true that i have not seen it but Remember i am a stalker to you so
makes you think I have not looked it up and order it just to watch over and
over and over again.

could be I am saying this to drives you nuts

could be that it gets under your skin that is why I keep saying it

could be lots of could be's

But as long as it is doing what it is doing to you. I will keep doing it.

And what a minute you said you got rid of this email due to some stalkers
if you kept it that means you must enjoy the attention. Awww the truth
shall set you free

-L.
March 14th 06, 09:20 AM
Candace wrote:
> Hmmm, well, 1,000 measly bucks is what he is willingly giving me as a
> credit to the credit card I used. He called me at work this
> a.m.--apologetic, but basically saying that **** happens (he didn't
> phrase it that way at all and was being very polite, etc) and he can't
> know everything. He said he takes 150 hours of continuing education a
> year when 20 is all that is required (both those facts are true because
> I googled him and found that out) and he never has heard about it in
> any of his seminars/classes. He has used it on hundreds of cats and
> administered it without water, never had a problem, so he never saw a
> point in looking at the Plumb's. He is sorry and will never administer
> it that way to a cat again but he basically said **** happens and
> everyone makes mistakes sometimes. I didn't mention filing a complaint
> or small claims court or anything. He must feel invincible, either
> because he's had similar experiences or knows others who have. Maybe
> he knows it would all pan out in his favor. I don't know. It's
> troubling, sad, complicated. Tony prefers to drop it at this point but
> he always assumes the best of people; he thinks the guy is genuinely
> sorry and is doing everything in good faith. I'm really surprised at
> the small amount and it was only when I brought it up; he was not
> offering it of his own accord. I guess I'll know how I feel about it
> and what I will be willing to do about it in a couple of days as it
> sinks in.
>
> He also said his partner, who only graduated from vet school in 2003,
> had never heard about it either.
>
> And I must also say that a vet emailed me privately and said the
> balloon dilation is not a cure but merely a treatment, that the
> stricture usually recurs. I don't know if he meant after only one
> treatment or after a series of treatments are performed because I did
> read that it takes 2-10 times to be effective. This vet also said the
> whole doxy thing is common knowledge among vets. I told this to my
> (former) vet and he said by asking on the internet, I would not get a
> fair sampling--only vets who *do* know about it would answer me. He
> said I should randomly call 10 vets and ask them how they administer
> doxycycline to cats. I doubt if I will do that.
>
> I was thinking of asking him to also make a nice donation to some
> veterinary education organization in Scottie's name but that would only
> be if I didn't seek further compensation.
>
> My poor cat is going to remain dead regardless of what I do now.
>
> Candace

****er. You have a couple of options:

A.) Take what he offered (notice he didn't offer it in writing), suck
up the rest.
B.) Let him take you to small claims and sue you for the bill - your
defense to not paying can be malpractice, but you need a couple of vets
willing to say via affidavit that he should have caught this. You have
good documentation and the tape of him saying he missed it. You have
good evidence.
C.) Contact an attorney, and see if they will take the case on
contingency fee.
D.) File a complant with the vet board (I would do this anyway - his
negligence needs to be documented).

Sure, mistakes happen, but he's culpable. Ask him now for a full copy
of your veterinary records - call and ask to pick them up in 48 hours.
Legally you can have access to them
..
Personally, I would just refuse to pay the bill and let him sue me in
small claims, but file a complaint with the vet board NOW so that the
complaint is on file before he has a chance to file a small claims suit
against you.

-L.

Charlie Wilkes
March 14th 06, 10:40 AM
On 13 Mar 2006 19:28:41 -0800, "Candace" > wrote:

>Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>>
>> If you feel so strongly, I suggest you offer to reimburse Candace for
>> whatever it costs to "seek justice," on the off-chance it doesn't
>> produce a financial windfall.
>>
>> Charlie
>> >
>> >> I don't
>> >> think it makes sense for her to do that. I think it makes more sense
>> >> for her to accept the guy's good faith at face value, negotiate with
>> >> him in a cordial manner, and try to get at least some of her money
>> >> back.
>> >
>> >I agree, but she needs to get more than "some" of her money back. She
>> >needs to get all of it back.
>> >-L.
>
>Hmmm, well, 1,000 measly bucks is what he is willingly giving me as a
>credit to the credit card I used. He called me at work this
>a.m.--apologetic, but basically saying that **** happens (he didn't
>phrase it that way at all and was being very polite, etc) and he can't
>know everything. He said he takes 150 hours of continuing education a
>year when 20 is all that is required (both those facts are true because
>I googled him and found that out) and he never has heard about it in
>any of his seminars/classes. He has used it on hundreds of cats and
>administered it without water, never had a problem, so he never saw a
>point in looking at the Plumb's. He is sorry and will never administer
>it that way to a cat again but he basically said **** happens and
>everyone makes mistakes sometimes. I didn't mention filing a complaint
>or small claims court or anything. He must feel invincible, either
>because he's had similar experiences or knows others who have. Maybe
>he knows it would all pan out in his favor. I don't know. It's
>troubling, sad, complicated. Tony prefers to drop it at this point but
>he always assumes the best of people; he thinks the guy is genuinely
>sorry and is doing everything in good faith. I'm really surprised at
>the small amount and it was only when I brought it up; he was not
>offering it of his own accord. I guess I'll know how I feel about it
>and what I will be willing to do about it in a couple of days as it
>sinks in.
>
>He also said his partner, who only graduated from vet school in 2003,
>had never heard about it either.
>
>And I must also say that a vet emailed me privately and said the
>balloon dilation is not a cure but merely a treatment, that the
>stricture usually recurs. I don't know if he meant after only one
>treatment or after a series of treatments are performed because I did
>read that it takes 2-10 times to be effective. This vet also said the
>whole doxy thing is common knowledge among vets. I told this to my
>(former) vet and he said by asking on the internet, I would not get a
>fair sampling--only vets who *do* know about it would answer me. He
>said I should randomly call 10 vets and ask them how they administer
>doxycycline to cats. I doubt if I will do that.
>
>I was thinking of asking him to also make a nice donation to some
>veterinary education organization in Scottie's name but that would only
>be if I didn't seek further compensation.
>
>My poor cat is going to remain dead regardless of what I do now.
>
>Candace

You might as well talk to a lawyer. Call the bar association and get
the name of a couple of lawyers who handle professional malpractice
suits. Call them and find out if they think you've got a case, and if
they'd want to handle it on a contingency basis. I've gotten valuable
consultations from good lawyers that way, never cost me anything.

See if they think you should take that $1,000 and let us know.

Charlie

Wendy
March 14th 06, 01:04 PM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Wendy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> They are dealing with many animals every day, you are just worrying about
>> yours.
>
>
> As is every owner of the 'many animals'.
>
>
> I'm sure most do the best they can and they all make a mistake some
>> time. That's why it's called the 'practice' of medicine.
>
>
> I don't want a vet 'practicing' on my cats unless its an experimental
> treatment and I agree to it. The warnings about doxy-induced strictures
> have been known for >20 years- its even printed on the package insert.
>
>
> At least your vet
>> was man enough to admit he could have blown it and didn't give you a
>> bunch
>> of excuses to cover it up. You have to respect the man for that at least.
>
> He didn't have any other choice. I still think he agreed to euthanize
> Scottie to get rid of the evidence hoping Candace would never find out.
>
>
> P
>
>
>

I guess what was in my mind was a family physician we used years ago. My
sister used him as well and he blew a diagnosis big time with her older
daughter. The girl had epiglotitis and he said she couldn't because she was
too old and didn't take the proper action. My niece ended up being admitted
that night because her throat was swelling shut. She spent the following
week in the pediatric ICU of one of the teaching hospitals downtown with a
tube down her throat so she could breathe.

The family physician apologized profusely and it wasn't just bullsh*t. It
was a wake up call to a good practice that they had been in business just
long enough to get a little complacent. Both doctors in that office were far
better practitioners after that. I got better care for my son (with cerebral
palsy) from them than the pediatrician.

My thought was that Candace's vet seemed to freely admit that he could have
been at fault. He wasn't making a bunch of excuses so maybe he is a good vet
who needed a wake up call. If that's the case you can bet he will be a lot
more careful with that medication in the future and probably look more
carefully at other meds as well.

OTOH nobody knows what made Scottie sick to begin with and nobody is certain
that it wasn't cancer that caused the constriction instead of the medication
because a necropsy wasn't done. He offered to credit $1000. Even if the
constriction was caused by the medication, how much of the bill was a result
of that and how much of the bill was for trying to find out what was wrong
with the poor kitty to begin with. Someone other than me will have to
determine what they think is fair.

Either way, I feel so sorry the poor kitty didn't make it. Not knowing what
made Scottie sick to begin with we'll never know if he could have been saved
if a different medication was used. It's possible the outcome would have
been the same.

W

Joe Canuck
March 14th 06, 02:38 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>>
>>> "Charlie Wilkes" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Two is that personal feelings are not the basis of a successful
>>>> lawsuit. That is the point I have been trying to make.
>>>
>>> I hate to break it to you, Charlie- but you failed to make your
>>> point. Suing an incompetent doctor for gross negligence is not
>>> remotely similar to suing a boyfriend because he dumped her.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Try looking up the legal definition of "gross negligence," you idiot.
>> "GROSS NEGLIGENCE - Failure to use even the slightest amount of care in
>> a way that shows recklessness or willful disregard for the safety of
>> others." That's not what this is.
>
>
> It sure is, bimbo. He didn't instruct his client how to administer the
> medication properly, now did he, sleaze?
>
>
> Didn't you say you killfiled me about 1000 times, lowlife? What's the
> matter-- is your ego as big as your banjo butt? LOL!
>
>
>
>
>

Poor Brandy, caught responding directly to someone she says was
killfiled. This is the perfect example of how drugs affects the correct
functioning of the brain. Don't take drugs kids!

Phil P.
March 14th 06, 02:52 PM
"Candace" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> >
> > If you feel so strongly, I suggest you offer to reimburse Candace for
> > whatever it costs to "seek justice," on the off-chance it doesn't
> > produce a financial windfall.
> >
> > Charlie
> > >
> > >> I don't
> > >> think it makes sense for her to do that. I think it makes more sense
> > >> for her to accept the guy's good faith at face value, negotiate with
> > >> him in a cordial manner, and try to get at least some of her money
> > >> back.
> > >
> > >I agree, but she needs to get more than "some" of her money back. She
> > >needs to get all of it back.
> > >-L.
>
> Hmmm, well, 1,000 measly bucks is what he is willingly giving me as a
> credit to the credit card I used.


I think he should refund all the money you spent after Scottie was given
doxy.



He called me at work this
> a.m.--apologetic, but basically saying that **** happens (he didn't
> phrase it that way at all and was being very polite, etc) and he can't
> know everything.


Candace, any pill should be followed by water or canned food- not only to
avoid medication-associated esophagitis and stricture formation, but for the
cat's comfort- that's just plain common sense. Dry swallows are painful or
at least uncomfortable for humans, why should he think they're any less
uncomfortable for cats?


He said he takes 150 hours of continuing education a
> year when 20 is all that is required (both those facts are true because
> I googled him and found that out) and he never has heard about it in
> any of his seminars/classes.


Continuing education seminars aren't what they're cracked up to be. A lot
of doctors just sign in and leave and use the trip as a vacation which they
can write off.



He has used it on hundreds of cats and
> administered it without water, never had a problem,


Its possible. The adverse effects and drug warnings don't mean they will
occur with every cat. He was simply lucky- but his luck ran out and Scottie
paid the bet.


so he never saw a
> point in looking at the Plumb's.


So, he admitted administering a drug without knowledge of the dosing
instructions? How did he know how much to prescribe and how often?


He is sorry and will never administer
> it that way to a cat again but he basically said **** happens and
> everyone makes mistakes sometimes.


Everyone does make mistakes- but some mistakes are avoidable. Its his
responsibility to take precautions to reduce the risk of mistakes.


I didn't mention filing a complaint
> or small claims court or anything. He must feel invincible, either
> because he's had similar experiences or knows others who have. Maybe
> he knows it would all pan out in his favor. I don't know. It's
> troubling, sad, complicated. Tony prefers to drop it at this point but
> he always assumes the best of people; he thinks the guy is genuinely
> sorry and is doing everything in good faith. I'm really surprised at
> the small amount and it was only when I brought it up; he was not
> offering it of his own accord. I guess I'll know how I feel about it
> and what I will be willing to do about it in a couple of days as it
> sinks in.
>
> He also said his partner, who only graduated from vet school in 2003,
> had never heard about it either.


I wouldn't expect him to say another vet warned him about the possiblity of
doxy associated esophageal strictures even if one did.


>
> And I must also say that a vet emailed me privately and said the
> balloon dilation is not a cure but merely a treatment, that the
> stricture usually recurs. I don't know if he meant after only one
> treatment or after a series of treatments are performed because I did
> read that it takes 2-10 times to be effective.

You're right, the average number of dilations is two:

J Vet Intern Med. 2001 Nov-Dec;15(6):547-52.

Endoscopic balloon dilation of benign esophageal strictures in dogs and
cats.

Leib MS, Dinnel H, Ward DL, Reimer ME, Towell TL, Monroe WE.

Virginia Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg 24061, USA.

Endoscopic balloon dilation of benign esophageal strictures was performed in
18
dogs and 10 cats with a median age of 4 years. Stricture formation was
associated with a recent anesthetic episode in 18 patients. Regurgitation
was
the most common clinical sign and was present a median of 4 weeks before
dilation. Most animals had a single stricture; median diameter was 5 mm, and
median length was 1 cm. Esophagitis and mucosal fibrosis were detected in 9
patients each. Dilation was performed with progressively increasing diameter
balloons, from 6 to 20 mm. After dilation, mucosal hemorrhage was mild to
moderate in most patients. Esophageal perforation was the only serious
complication and occurred in 1 patient. Postdilation therapy consisted of
administration of cimetidine, metoclopramide, sucralfate, and prednisone in
most
animals. The median number of dilation procedures performed in each animal
was
2, with a range of 1-5. The median interval between dilations was 13 days.
Stricture diameter markedly increased with subsequent dilations. Median
duration
of follow-up was 131 weeks. A successful outcome occurred in 88% of
patients,
with most animals able to eat canned, mashed, or dry food without
regurgitation.
Mucosal fibrosis was associated with a better clinical response score, while
increasing age was weakly associated with fewer dilations. The dilation
protocol
used in this group of animals was safe and efficacious.

PMID: 11817059 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


What disturbs me and makes me very suspicious is the fact that he didn't
even mention ballon dilation. It was *your* decision whether or not to opt
for the treatment- not his. I think he withheld the information because he
knew he most likely have to pay for the treatment because the formation of
the stricture was arguably his fault.


This vet also said the
> whole doxy thing is common knowledge among vets. I told this to my
> (former) vet and he said by asking on the internet, I would not get a
> fair sampling--only vets who *do* know about it would answer me. He
> said I should randomly call 10 vets and ask them how they administer
> doxycycline to cats. I doubt if I will do that.
>
> I was thinking of asking him to also make a nice donation to some
> veterinary education organization in Scottie's name but that would only
> be if I didn't seek further compensation.
>
> My poor cat is going to remain dead regardless of what I do now.
>
> Candace


Candace, you have to do what you feel you can live with. I would probably
be more forgiving if he mentioned and offered to pay for balloon dilation to
try to resolve the problem he caused. The fact that he didn't and agreed to
euthanize Scottie when he knew a treatment with a high success rate was
available makes it impossible for me to be merciful.

As I said, you have to do what you feel is right in your heart and what you
can live with. If you can live with it, take the $1,000 and try to begin
the healing process. If not, go the distance so maybe other animals won't
suffer. When a vet makes such a basic mistake like this, I can't help but
think other animals have died or suffered as a result of his incompetence
and deceit.

If I seem bitter its because I lost a dearly loved cat many years ago
because a vet made a very simple and avoidable mistake. Since then, I've
seen too many animals die needlessly because of blunders. That's one of the
reasons why I research every disease I'm faced with.

I wish you the best in whatever course you choose to follow.

Phil

Phil P.
March 14th 06, 02:54 PM
"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
> >
> > "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
> >>
> >> > Didn't you say you killfiled me about 1000 times, lowlife?
> >> > What's the matter-- is your ego as big as your banjo butt?
> >> > LOL!
> >
> >> I saw you making such a fool out of yourself again in the quotes,
> >> I didn't want to miss it.
> >
> > Another bull**** story: You really are a pathological liar,
> > aren't you? You responded to my post *directly*, - you sleazy
> > animal abusing liar.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Hello? Duh. Read it again.



You replied to me directly, didn't you, bimbo?

Brandy Alexandre
March 14th 06, 03:16 PM
Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:

>
> "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>>
>> >
>> > "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
>> > message ...
>> >> Phil P. > wrote in
>> >> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>> >>
>> >> > Didn't you say you killfiled me about 1000 times, lowlife?
>> >> > What's the matter-- is your ego as big as your banjo butt?
>> >> > LOL!
>> >
>> >> I saw you making such a fool out of yourself again in the
>> >> quotes, I didn't want to miss it.
>> >
>> > Another bull**** story: You really are a pathological liar,
>> > aren't you? You responded to my post *directly*, - you sleazy
>> > animal abusing liar.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Hello? Duh. Read it again.
>
>
>
> You replied to me directly, didn't you, bimbo?
>
>
>

Yes I did, and if you could read, you'd figure out that I took you out
because I didn't want to miss you making a fool of yourself again.

As for snipping my post, nice evasion. Couldn't find a source to
copy/paste your answer from like you usually do?

--
Brandy Alexandre

--Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=

Phil P.
March 14th 06, 03:58 PM
"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
> >
> > "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in
> >> > message ...
> >> >> Phil P. > wrote in
> >> >> rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Didn't you say you killfiled me about 1000 times, lowlife?
> >> >> > What's the matter-- is your ego as big as your banjo butt?
> >> >> > LOL!
> >> >
> >> >> I saw you making such a fool out of yourself again in the
> >> >> quotes, I didn't want to miss it.
> >> >
> >> > Another bull**** story: You really are a pathological liar,
> >> > aren't you? You responded to my post *directly*, - you sleazy
> >> > animal abusing liar.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hello? Duh. Read it again.
> >
> >
> >
> > You replied to me directly, didn't you, bimbo?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yes I did, and if you could read, you'd figure out that I took you out
> because I didn't want to miss you making a fool of yourself again.

I don't think so, bimbo. You're a little slow, aren't you? Must be all the
drugs. The point is, bimbo, you can't kill file anyone because you just
*have* to know what people say about you. Can't handle being a has been, can
you?

Oops. I shouldn't **** you off because you might take it out on Kami, you
****ing sleazy animal abuser.

Phil P.
March 14th 06, 04:50 PM
"Brandy Alexandre" > wrote in message
...
> Phil P. > wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:
>
> > I don't think so, bimbo. You're a little slow, aren't you? Must
> > be all the drugs. The point is, bimbo, you can't kill file anyone
> > because you just *have* to know what people say about you. Can't
> > handle being a has been, can you?
> >
>
> Manufacture motives and actions all you like, just like you're doing
> with Candace's vet,


Really? If the vet wasn't being deceitful and trying to cover his mistake,
why didn't mention balloon dilation to Candace and let *her* make the
decision. huh, bimbo?



but only reflects on how you live your own life.
> Nothing to do with mine.


That's right, sleaze, I hold vets to higher standards than you. You think a
vet is good just because he has good beside manners.


>
> Since you're evading the issues I laid out, I'll put you back in
> theplonk. Happy now?


Absolutely! I don't want to have discussions with you- I just want to
ridicule you because you're an animal abuser.