Why I think Scottie died

Phil P. wrote:
On second thought, there's a lot you can do about it.
Doxycycline-associated esophageal stricture in cats has been reported in
veterinary medical journals since 1980- 26 years. I think your vet agreed
to euthanize Scottie because he wanted to destroy the evidence of his
negligence and malpractice. That's probably why he failed to mention
balloon dilation to resolve Scottie's esophageal stricture.

Even though you can't prove your vet caused Scottie's esophageal stricture
you can prove he failed to instruct you in the proper administration of the
medication. If I were you I'd consult a lawyer. I think your case is strong
enough for a lawyer to take the case on a contigent basis. If you don't
want to sue him for the money- do it to avenge Scottie and donate the
proceeds from the suit to an animal shelter, and also so other cats won't
suffer from his negligence.

I totally agree that she has a case. If she approaches the vet with
the evidence and discusses malpractice, it may be enogh for him to fold
and clean her bill. Wouldn't be the first time such a thing has
occurred.

Like I said before, it won't bring Scottie back but it will help her
financial burden and teach the asshole vet a lesson.

-L.

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

Phil P. wrote:
On second thought, there's a lot you can do about it.
Doxycycline-associated esophageal stricture in cats has been reported in
veterinary medical journals since 1980- 26 years. I think your vet
agreed
to euthanize Scottie because he wanted to destroy the evidence of his
negligence and malpractice. That's probably why he failed to mention
balloon dilation to resolve Scottie's esophageal stricture.

Even though you can't prove your vet caused Scottie's esophageal
stricture
you can prove he failed to instruct you in the proper administration of
the
medication. If I were you I'd consult a lawyer. I think your case is
strong
enough for a lawyer to take the case on a contigent basis. If you don't
want to sue him for the money- do it to avenge Scottie and donate the
proceeds from the suit to an animal shelter, and also so other cats
won't
suffer from his negligence.

I totally agree that she has a case. If she approaches the vet with
the evidence and discusses malpractice, it may be enogh for him to fold
and clean her bill. Wouldn't be the first time such a thing has
occurred.

Like I said before, it won't bring Scottie back but it will help her
financial burden and teach the asshole vet a lesson.


Absotively. Some risks can't be avoided- but I'm certain this was clearly a
case of negligence. Who knows how many other cats this vet has harmed and
the owners never knew?

Phil

Phil P. wrote:

Even though you can't prove your vet caused Scottie's esophageal stricture
you can prove he failed to instruct you in the proper administration of the
medication. If I were you I'd consult a lawyer. I think your case is strong
enough for a lawyer to take the case on a contigent basis. If you don't
want to sue him for the money- do it to avenge Scottie and donate the
proceeds from the suit to an animal shelter, and also so other cats won't
suffer from his negligence.

That's exactly right. I have indisputable evidence that I was not
instructed in the proper use of doxycycline and that my cat died of the
number one cause of esophageal stricture in cats. I am definitely
pursuing this, don't worry. I know I'm right. I'm not positive I will
need a lawyer but if I do, I will get one. This is not going to go
unnoticed. A beautiful cat died before his time and it's something I
cannot get over...it's my first waking thought everyday and the last
thing I think about at night. I am soooo sorry he died and sooo sorry
he was hospitalized for a fever for 7 ****ing days and meanwhile was
being made more ill from the doxy. The poor little animal, it's
heinous. I feel so much that I let him down. One of my friends told
me that I did what I was supposed to do, I took my sick cat to a vet,
paid him a huge amount of money, and he is the one who failed at his
job...not me...but it doesn't matter, I feel culpable and I am the one
who will always have the vision of him sitting in a cage, hospitalized,
while he was getting a caustic agent rammed down his throat twice a
day. I cannot even grasp it. And the worse thing is, even if the vet
gives me way over my expenses (which I know is very unlikely), it's not
going to assuage my guilt and sadness one bit.

Thank you for the additional citations, I did not have all of those.

Candace

Margarita Salt wrote:

I hate to play devil's advocate here, but you have to work out the
scenario had you not aborted your vet's decision to administer
baytril in favor of something else. That is precisely why I leave
things in the hands of my vet, who has more education that I can
gleen from the net, to decide what medications are best for my cat.

I didn't abort the decision, I *questioned* him about the possibility
of baytril causing blindness. It's my perogative to question either my
own medical care or my cats' veterinary care. I wish I hadn't but
that doesn't excuse his ignorance about doxycycline. In fact, about 2
days later, he did put Scottie on baytril with my permission since
neither the clavamox or doxy seemd to be getting rid of his fever. It
doesn't excuse the fact that he improperly administered the doxy or the
fact that he didn't figure out that the esophagitis and stricture were
caused by the doxy and could have been possibly cured by balloon
dilation of the esophagus. Nor does it excuse the fact that he said it
was "probably cancer." He should have known it was from the doxy and
taken steps to correct it. Doxycycline is the number one cause of
esophagitis nad esophageal stricture in cats. One would think he would
know that and put 2 and 2 together. I don't know if he didn't know
about doxy being caustic or if he was covering something up.
Personally, I feel it was ignorance and not malice. But...sorry, I
paid him about $4,000; he should have known how to administer a drug
and/or recognized the side effects when my cat developed them. That's
a lot of money to pay and only have your cat get sicker and die.

How many cats have you heard of who suffered the various affects of
improperly administered doxy over whatever you heard about baytril?

Well, I've never heard of doxy causing anything bad in cats. If I had
known about this I would have questioned him about its use, too. I
have heard a lot of negative stuff about baytril, though, on this
newsgroup. I wish I hadn't because my cat might be alive if I hadn't
but, don't you see?, the vet is *supposed* to know this stuff. I can
ask questions; he's still supposed to know the answers. It's kind of a
basic thing to know how to properly administer a drug before you give
it. It's listed as a warning in the most widely used veterinary
handbook, Plumb's, and I know they have a Plumb's there, I saw it. I
would think he would have read it at some point. It wasn't really a
side effect, in my opinion, it was a medication error, the kind of
stuff that humans can sue doctors for in a heartbeat.

I sympathize with your situation and your loss, and trying to find a
reason for why it happened, but in our sue-happy society we simply
have to remember that **** happens. You suing your vet for using
another med at your insistence is what raises vet prices for the
rest of us. I don't like--I think it's stupid. Scottie died. I'm
sad, the whole thing is sad. You did your best. The vet did his
best. Cry, and then move on.

I did not insist he use doxycycline. I *questioned* the use of baytril,
he then suggested doxycycline, and I didn't question him about that. I
can hear things, question things, but when it comes down to it, I
didn't go to vet school, and I'm not making a living at being a vet; he
should know something as basic as drug administration. It's like if
your doctor suggested you take hormones. Those drugs were in the news
a lot. You have a right to ask a question, that's all I did about the
baytril. Believe me, I feel a responsibility because I did
that...things could have unfolded so differently if I had not
questioned it but I still had a right to do so and he had an obligation
to know what he was prescribing, how to administer it, and to recognize
a side effect when it developed. It was a greivous error, in my
opinion.

Candace
--
Margarita Salt

"...practically no one in the world is entirely bad or
entirely good... motives are often more important than
actions." -- Eleanore Roosevelt

Margarita Salt wrote:

I sympathize with your situation and your loss, and trying to find a
reason for why it happened, but in our sue-happy society we simply
have to remember that **** happens.

This wasn't a case of "**** happens" and in fact demonstrates WHY we
should question our vets. The vet was CLEARLY negligent in this case -
he administered a drug imporperly and killed the cat. It's a open and
shut case.

You suing your vet for using
another med at your insistence is what raises vet prices for the
rest of us.

Too ****ing bad. This vet was negligent and needs to be called on the
carpet for it.

snip

Cry, and then move on.

Remember those words when you do lose Kami, you ****. How ****ing
insensitve can you be?

-L.

Candace wrote:

I didn't abort the decision, I *questioned* him about the possibility
of baytril causing blindness. It's my perogative to question either my
own medical care or my cats' veterinary care. I wish I hadn't but
that doesn't excuse his ignorance about doxycycline. In fact, about 2
days later, he did put Scottie on baytril with my permission since
neither the clavamox or doxy seemd to be getting rid of his fever. It
doesn't excuse the fact that he improperly administered the doxy or the
fact that he didn't figure out that the esophagitis and stricture were
caused by the doxy and could have been possibly cured by balloon
dilation of the esophagus. Nor does it excuse the fact that he said it
was "probably cancer." He should have known it was from the doxy and
taken steps to correct it.

I suspect he knew it was from the doxy and knew he was in deep ****.
At that point it was easier to euth the cat and get rid of the
evidence.

Doxycycline is the number one cause of
esophagitis nad esophageal stricture in cats. One would think he would
know that and put 2 and 2 together. I don't know if he didn't know
about doxy being caustic or if he was covering something up.
Personally, I feel it was ignorance and not malice. But...sorry, I
paid him about $4,000; he should have known how to administer a drug
and/or recognized the side effects when my cat developed them. That's
a lot of money to pay and only have your cat get sicker and die.

How many cats have you heard of who suffered the various affects of
improperly administered doxy over whatever you heard about baytril?

Well, I've never heard of doxy causing anything bad in cats. If I had
known about this I would have questioned him about its use, too. I
have heard a lot of negative stuff about baytril, though, on this
newsgroup. I wish I hadn't because my cat might be alive if I hadn't
but, don't you see?, the vet is *supposed* to know this stuff. I can
ask questions; he's still supposed to know the answers. It's kind of a
basic thing to know how to properly administer a drug before you give
it. It's listed as a warning in the most widely used veterinary
handbook, Plumb's, and I know they have a Plumb's there, I saw it. I
would think he would have read it at some point. It wasn't really a
side effect, in my opinion, it was a medication error, the kind of
stuff that humans can sue doctors for in a heartbeat.

I sympathize with your situation and your loss, and trying to find a
reason for why it happened, but in our sue-happy society we simply
have to remember that **** happens. You suing your vet for using
another med at your insistence is what raises vet prices for the
rest of us. I don't like--I think it's stupid. Scottie died. I'm
sad, the whole thing is sad. You did your best. The vet did his
best. Cry, and then move on.

I did not insist he use doxycycline. I *questioned* the use of baytril,
he then suggested doxycycline, and I didn't question him about that. I
can hear things, question things, but when it comes down to it, I
didn't go to vet school, and I'm not making a living at being a vet; he
should know something as basic as drug administration. It's like if
your doctor suggested you take hormones. Those drugs were in the news
a lot. You have a right to ask a question, that's all I did about the
baytril. Believe me, I feel a responsibility because I did
that...things could have unfolded so differently if I had not
questioned it but I still had a right to do so and he had an obligation
to know what he was prescribing, how to administer it, and to recognize
a side effect when it developed. It was a greivous error, in my
opinion.

I am so glad to hear you are persuing this, Candace. Please keep us
updated. I'm ****ed off about it, and hurt for you. Feel free to
Email me if you need an ear.

-L.

-L. wrote:

I am so glad to hear you are persuing this, Candace. Please keep us
updated. I'm ****ed off about it, and hurt for you. Feel free to
Email me if you need an ear.

-L.

Thank you.

Candace

Candace wrote in rec.pets.cats.health+behav:

I did not insist he use doxycycline. I *questioned* the use of
baytril, he then suggested doxycycline, and I didn't question him
about that. I can hear things, question things, but when it comes
down to it, I didn't go to vet school, and I'm not making a living
at being a vet; he should know something as basic as drug
administration. It's like if your doctor suggested you take
hormones. Those drugs were in the news a lot. You have a right
to ask a question, that's all I did about the baytril. Believe
me, I feel a responsibility because I did that...things could have
unfolded so differently if I had not questioned it but I still had
a right to do so and he had an obligation to know what he was
prescribing, how to administer it, and to recognize a side effect
when it developed. It was a greivous error, in my opinion.

I didn't say you wanted Doxy, I am acknowledging you question
baytril and also acknowledging that you snipped the part about me
REQUESTING bayril over clavamox based on prior experience. The fact
remains that if you hadn't questioned your vet who knows more than
you do, this may not have happened. I mean, what are the incidents
of doxy and structure versus baytril and blindness?

I can point you to HUNDREDS of website laying out horror stories
about how horrible LASIK for vision correction is. The facts,
however, indicate that there is a 3% severe side effect rate that
does not mean that 97% percent of people will not be ecstatic with
the results. (Similar to the behavioral problems with declawing.)
I will still, with all my heart, recommend LASIK to people as long
as they do the research and ask the right questions educating
themselves FULLY on every aspect of the procedure.

Mind you, I said I was playing devil's advocate. I'm not taking a
stance one way or the other, and I certainly don't mean to put you
on the defensive. I'm simply trying to be another voice trying to
temper those of the people who are screaming for you to sue the vet.
Are you SURE that given what a vet knows about the level of risk
that he didn't take proper care of Scottie? As I said, LASIK
carries a 3% risk, and still ophthamologists perform the procedure.
Does that make them negligent somehow? I'm only asking you to calm
down and think about it. What until the grief passes and look at
ALL of the facts. You can get plenty of people to preach on your
side, but is it the correct route to take? Was it foreseable? Have
you asked other vets how they administer the drug? And so on...

Ad I mentioned, I only thought of this because I ask for baytril
where you have questioned it. Could I inadvertantly cause Kami
hamr? Absolutely! But to me, it's worth the risk because she has
always done well with baytril and totally crappy with anything else.
It is a crap shoot.

--
Margarita Salt

"...practically no one in the world is entirely bad or
entirely good... motives are often more important than
actions." -- Eleanore Roosevelt

On 9 Mar 2006 19:53:52 -0800, "Candace" wrote:

Phil P. wrote:

Even though you can't prove your vet caused Scottie's esophageal stricture
you can prove he failed to instruct you in the proper administration of the
medication. If I were you I'd consult a lawyer. I think your case is strong
enough for a lawyer to take the case on a contigent basis. If you don't
want to sue him for the money- do it to avenge Scottie and donate the
proceeds from the suit to an animal shelter, and also so other cats won't
suffer from his negligence.

That's exactly right. I have indisputable evidence that I was not
instructed in the proper use of doxycycline and that my cat died of the
number one cause of esophageal stricture in cats. I am definitely
pursuing this, don't worry. I know I'm right. I'm not positive I will
need a lawyer but if I do, I will get one. This is not going to go
unnoticed. A beautiful cat died before his time and it's something I
cannot get over...it's my first waking thought everyday and the last
thing I think about at night. I am soooo sorry he died and sooo sorry
he was hospitalized for a fever for 7 ****ing days and meanwhile was
being made more ill from the doxy. The poor little animal, it's
heinous. I feel so much that I let him down. One of my friends told
me that I did what I was supposed to do, I took my sick cat to a vet,
paid him a huge amount of money, and he is the one who failed at his
job...not me...but it doesn't matter, I feel culpable and I am the one
who will always have the vision of him sitting in a cage, hospitalized,
while he was getting a caustic agent rammed down his throat twice a
day. I cannot even grasp it. And the worse thing is, even if the vet
gives me way over my expenses (which I know is very unlikely), it's not
going to assuage my guilt and sadness one bit.

Thank you for the additional citations, I did not have all of those.

Candace

I don't think conventional legal action -- filing a civil claim -- is
necessarily the best way to go.

Lots of people put up web pages alerting fellow pet owners about
dangers to their pets... I looked at quite a few of them after Tweaker
developed lesions in the wake of his one and only vaccination. I
doubt if your vet wants to be Exhibit A on your prospective web site.
But he could be, right? Unless he gives you back your money and
promises not to treat future cats in the same manner.

The trick is to communicate your concerns and proposed solutions in a
non-confrontational, non-threatening manner.

Good luck.

Charlie

Charlie

"Margarita Salt" wrote in message
...

snipped ignorant, insensitive ****

Brandy, I usually don't mind a good troll, I even get a kick out of the
outrage they can generate (like "Nomen's" male chauvinist pig troll).

The one place I draw the line, however, is when it comes to using a greiving
"parent" - at which time it becomes sickening. Inhumane doesn't cover it -
inhuman is more like it. But I guess you can't expect anything else from a
dried up old ex crack whore.

Candace, I hope you consider the source and ignore the ****'s pathetic,
attention-seeking, acidic spew. Remember that this is coming from someone
who considers caring for a cat to be having it's toes amputated for her
convenience.