|
Post by Brooke on Mar 19, 2004 2:35:16 GMT -5
But where is it drawn?
I was reading a thread at another forum about a veterinarian who refused to do a hip x-ray on a dog that had been bred before. He didn't want to do an x-ray for "no good reason". This dog apparently had grown a bit larger than standard size for his breed and since had been neutured. The woman apparently was looking to make this dog a career in agility...
Is it really right for a veterinarian to refuse any type of testing requested by the owner if willing to pay for it...just because...? This seems like a power thing to me and I'm not understanding quite why a vet would refuse a requested x-ray when the owner has personal reasons for them. Should the vet really have the right to refuse things along these lines if so where does it draw the line?
Should a person be able to go in and request that a perfectly healthy animal be PTS just because they''d rather not deal with it anymore? Should the vet have a right to refuse? And what would the stipulations be?
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Mar 20, 2004 18:36:05 GMT -5
I would find a new vet. Wanting to make sure that the dog is physically sound before competing in agility is an excellent reason to have x-rays. I don't understand why the vet refused. He is a moron. Look at Dobemom's situation. She had to go to three vets before she found one willing to do a thyroid test and it was positive. That is nuts. To answer your question I think that vets should perform testing that is requested. I can't think of a valid reason to refuse unless the test was both unnecessary and life threatening or injurious. As to the PTS issue, I have to think about that one.
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Mar 24, 2004 0:21:48 GMT -5
Veterinarians take their version of the Hippocratic Oath, I believe it's "First do no Harm". So euthanizing a dog without good reason would violate that oath as far as I'm concerned. As for the refusal of the x-rays? Find another vet!
|
|
|
Post by Willow on Mar 24, 2004 11:55:31 GMT -5
Veterinarians take their version of the Hippocratic Oath, I believe it's "First do no Harm". So euthanizing a dog without good reason would violate that oath as far as I'm concerned. I agree, Laura, but most Vets euthanize on owner's request only. A friend of mine took her dog in and had her euthanized because my friends brother was moving in across the road and she knew he would complain that her dog barked when people drove in etc.!!!! The man next door to us had his wife's dog euthanized when the wife died and there wasn't anything wrong with the dog! In both cases the vets never questioned it....just did it, but most vets don't want the trouble of boarding a dog and finding a home for it etc.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Mar 24, 2004 13:15:06 GMT -5
I think that is soooo wrong
|
|
|
Post by Rowan on Oct 1, 2004 13:41:15 GMT -5
Do think the owner has the final say on proceedures or to choose another vet. But they should be fully informed.
That is an interesting question concerning if vets should be allowed to pts a perfectly healthy dog just becuase the owner request it. Just a shock to the reality I am sure people do it all the time.
I don't think a vet should be able to but it saddens me that they would and do.
|
|