Scottie's vet called

"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

"D." wrote in message
nk.net...
In article . com,
"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

"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

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

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.

"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

"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.

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.

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.

"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.