Veterinary malpractice

"Charlie Wilkes" wrote in message
...

My comments were specific to Lyn and Phil. They are screaming for
vengeance, serving up glib legal certitudes. But they've got nothing
at stake, whereas Candace does, and vengeance doesn't come cheap --
financially or emotionally.


What are you, a troll in training? You can't understand the principal here
because you just don't have an affinity or a strong bond with animals-
especially cats. I picked up on that during your "bathroom ca"t fiasco.

This is not only about vengeance- its about justice. The vet ****ed up and
Candace's cat paid for it with his life. If it happened to my cat, I
couldn't let him get away with it. I'd go the distance. I didn't tell
Candace anything I wouldn't do myself. I talk it like I walk it.

"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...


Most lawsuits are settled out of court. One does not have to pay
expert witnesses to recover losses.

He'll probably hold out until he actually gets a subpoena to see how far
she's willing to go.

I don't think the vet would like to be known as "the
vet who was sued for killing a cat". Even he won, local people would only
remember he was sued for malpractice. In a small city like Phoenix, that
kind of press could be devastating.

At the very least, I think she should get back all the fees charged after
the cat was given the doxy.



I have been reading the advice to Candace over the past week and
wondering how some of you people ever got out of diapers, assuming you
have.


You're such an asshole, Charlie. And yet you still wonder why no woman
wants to sleep with you.

lol.

Miami Jones iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii@iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. com
wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:

The cost of vet care would skyrocket in a matter of one year.

She should take the 1G back, I believe the fella did his best to
heal her buddy, don't you think? sure he did.

However; on the same topic when a professional overcharges the
public lawsuits are inevitable...it's a vaccuum getting filled.
(is why I don't think a cap should be put on any lawsuit)

I mentioned that. The response was soo what, it's all about me.

If anyone wants to see vet care go the way of healthcare, by all means
sue for every little thing. As was mentioned, there was no necropsy
and no diagnosis of the original presenting problem. Scottie could
have been dying anyway and the doxy had nothing to do with it. Yeah,
go ahead and drive up vet prices by making their vet insurance
increase. Drive good vets out of business or into another line of
work, so we get the 20 seconds of HMO-style time and a CEO nixing
expensive diagnostic tools playing the waiting and red tape games,
hoping the patient will die before they have to lay out any money.

--
Brandy Alexandre

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

"Phil P." wrote in message
He'll probably hold out until he actually gets a subpoena to see how far
she's willing to go.

good point, this could also a fleece of sorts

Miami Jones wrote:
was the procedure necessary
was it a good call to move fwd with it, in light of the cats health
(im just saying health can be relative to risk)
were the inherent risks explained
did Candace sign a waiver saying, I understand the risks
was the procedure done properly

With people getting surgery, we usually have 2 operators, in case the one is
unable to complete the procedure (and we pay for two to be there)

MJ

It wasn't a procedure, it was just an antibiotic being administered
orally. I never signed any waiver for anything.

Candace

Miami Jones wrote:
The cost of vet care would skyrocket in a matter of one year.

She should take the 1G back, I believe the fella did his best to heal her
buddy, don't you think? sure he did.

His best wasn't very good and he would agree with that.

Candace

Phil P. wrote:

I don't think the vet would like to be known as "the
vet who was sued for killing a cat". Even he won, local people would only
remember he was sued for malpractice. In a small city like Phoenix, that
kind of press could be devastating.

Oops, gotta correct you on this one. Phoenix is the 5th largest city
in the US. It's a big 'un. Vets are a dime a dozen here. Lucky me,
and lucky Scottie, that I found a quack.

At the very least, I think she should get back all the fees charged after
the cat was given the doxy.

That's what I personally think would be fair and that was my suggestion
to the vet. He did not concur.

Candace

Brandy Alexandre wrote:

If anyone wants to see vet care go the way of healthcare, by all means
sue for every little thing. As was mentioned, there was no necropsy
and no diagnosis of the original presenting problem. Scottie could
have been dying anyway and the doxy had nothing to do with it.

I actually wish that were the case so I wouldn't feel so bad. But I
don't think so because when he came home after his week of
hospitalization, he was no longer lethargic and no longer unwilling to
eat (which were the reasons he went to the vet to begin with). The
poor little cat was starving and wanted desperately to eat. He had 5
days where he was able to eat gruel (after his first steroid injection)
before he began regurgitating again. That's because his stricture was
then developing. It takes a few days for espohagitis to develop into a
stricture. But...my point is, his original symptoms were gone. I
don't think he had anything terminal wrong with him.

Candace

I also read your reply to Brandy, I think you know what is right. and we
know this will not start a chain reaction of suits against vets. Poor thing,
I got ready to post it, but cancelled the post, I don't want add anything to
this for you, in the way of hurt. but it's got to hurt worse thinking
another vet would not have given the wrong antibiotic. If Im understanding
the bottom line now.

of course I see he is open to talk with, have you plainly asked for you
whole amount back?...besides this...I can see where a punative reward is in
order. This thing didn't need to happen.
Im sorry, as I say, that's got to sting a little, but I would think he would
be VERY willing to give all of your money back Candace.

MJ

"Candace" wrote in message
oups.com...
Miami Jones wrote:
The cost of vet care would skyrocket in a matter of one year.

She should take the 1G back, I believe the fella did his best to heal
her
buddy, don't you think? sure he did.

His best wasn't very good and he would agree with that.

Candace

Charlie Wilkes wrote:
I found this quite interesting, especially as it is published by the
Animal Defense League of Arizona, where Candace lives.

http://www.adlaz.org/factsheets/malpractice.html

Yes, this is where I got my preliminary information...that made it seem
unlikely that contacting a lawyer would be fruitful. I have not
decided yet. The vet credited my credit card $1K yesterday. I feel
like I need to take a few weeks to decide what to do further. There
definitely is an emotional aspect involved and it won't hurt to wait a
few weeks and think about it. I already have the evidence I would need
if I proceed.

I am trying to be logical and rational, though. I posted about this in
alt.med.veterinary under a thread called, "Improper Doxycycline
Administration Kills Cats." If you read that newsgroup, you have
probably read posts by VetinNZ, who seems like a competent, decent guy.
This is what he responded to me:

"Unfortunately it is not common enough knowledge as it takes time for
this
sort of information to trickle through to all members of the
profession. It
has only been recognised as a problem in cats in the past few years
(studies
documenting such cases I have seen are dated later than year 2000) and
although the info has been doing the rounds on the internet and has
been
known about in academic circles it is only more recently that the
average
practitioner has become aware of this. The info has not yet reached the
drug
information leaflet that comes with the drug (atleast not in NZ) and it
is
not mentioned as a possible side effect in many of the 2004 veterinary
pharmacy books around my clinic. It is mentioned in my 2005 UK small
animal
formulary however. It is a shame that this sort of information can not
be
more readily dispersed to the whole profession, especially such an
important
topic as this. I believe the profession lets itself down in not
ensuring
this sort of information reaches all practitioners quickly. Basically
it is
left up to individual practitioners to keep themselves upto date but
this
very much depends upon what sources of info they use. The drug
manufacturers
should be responsible for updating vets as soon as info is available.
Perhaps in the USA this has been the case but not so in NZ. In New
Zealand
we are fortunate to have a doxycycline paste for cats which is much
safer
but for this reason few vets in NZ are aware of the problem with
tablets. I
myself learnt of this problem a few years ago when surfing the
internet but
i have still not seen mention of it in the vet journals that i read. I
know
it will have been mentioned in many but it has not appeared in the ones
I
read regularly. I suppose I can take some blame for not passing the
info I
learnt onto one of the vet journals. I guess that is the problem, no
one has
taken the responsibility for dispersing this sort of info."

and:

"Yep its very difficult to keep up with all the latest info. As far as
doxy
goes you can simply feed it with food rather than having to chase it
with
water. I believer tablets cut in half are a bigger risk as the sharp
edges
will likley slow transit time down the oesophagus and will also put the

unprotected pill surface in contact with the oesophageal mucosa. Dont
be too
hard on your vets for not knowing this as it is relatively recent
proven
info in cats though has been suspected for longer. I think it is the
profession as a whole that is responsible for not having an efficient
system
for distributing this sort of info to all practitioners. I am sorry you
had
to go through this with your own cat. "

So...I don't know. Some say it's common knowledge, he says not, my
(former) vet says not. I do wonder at the lack of response from the
many other vets who post regularly over there. Either they didn't find
the topic interesting, or they didn't know about the problem themselves
and didn't want to comment on it, or...they didn't want to implicate a
fellow vet. The latter is how human docs work very often...they might
think another doc is a major quack but they aren't gonna admit it and
testify against him because they don't want the same thing to happen to
them at another time.

Candace