Can They Really Do This?
Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:46 pm
Having read Opalfruit's thread about the attitude of the RSPCA towards FIV+ cats, I remembered this draft, which I wrote two years ago but never posted.
I know this ought to be in the FIV section but I wrote it originally for the cat chatting section and don't know how to change it over. Anyway. This is the story:-
Mr A was the father of a friend of mine, elderly and widowed, who lived with Blossom, who came to him as a kitten and who, although spayed, often brought her friends home. Her best friend ended up moving in.
Billy was scruffy, thin and un-neutered but loved his new home; he put on weight and condition and spent most of his time on Mr A's bed. However, after a while, he began to lose weight again and Mr A, concerned, and also thinking that Billy really ought to be neutered, took him to his vet.
This is one of those franchised surgeries; it isn't in my home town and I've never visited it, so have no personal axe to grind. Their immediate response was encouraging; they said that they 'knew' Billy, and 'recognised' him as a local 'stray'. They even said that they'd neuter him free of charge. Mr A was quite prepared to pay for any treatment, but thought this was a kind offer, and left him there.
The next thing was a phone call. Billy had enlarged kidneys and was in poor health. Furthermore, they had done blood tests - again free of charge but before they'd consulted Mr A, who as Billy's new owner, SHOULD have been consulted beforehand - and Billy had been found to be FIV positive.
They said that in view of the kidney disease, Billy ought to be euthanased, in case he collapsed while roaming and died a painful death from kidney failure. Good point, but by now Billy, although he did go out sometimes, was virtually a house cat.
They also said that in view of the FIV, it WAS AGAINST THE LAW to release him back into the community as FIV is 'so contagious'. (I think they were getting FIV mixed up with FeLV.) Therefore they had had no choice but to put him to sleep.
In view of the kidney disease this may have been a wise decision, or there again, might it have been possible to treat Billy and neuter him and give him a few more years of happy life? And what gets me is the very high-handed 'against the law' bit.
I realise it's not ideal for an FIV+ cat to roam in a built-up community, but Billy wasn't doing much roaming and furthermore Mr A was prepared to get him neutered. There doesn't seem to have been any evidence of his fighting.
Mr A mourned Billy and felt as if he sent him to his death. He always said that he wished he'd never taken him to be neutered.
Mr A died earlier this year at the age of 90; hopefully he's been reunited with Billy and all the other cats and dogs in his life.
But - can vets really do this?
Be careful out there!
I know this ought to be in the FIV section but I wrote it originally for the cat chatting section and don't know how to change it over. Anyway. This is the story:-
Mr A was the father of a friend of mine, elderly and widowed, who lived with Blossom, who came to him as a kitten and who, although spayed, often brought her friends home. Her best friend ended up moving in.
Billy was scruffy, thin and un-neutered but loved his new home; he put on weight and condition and spent most of his time on Mr A's bed. However, after a while, he began to lose weight again and Mr A, concerned, and also thinking that Billy really ought to be neutered, took him to his vet.
This is one of those franchised surgeries; it isn't in my home town and I've never visited it, so have no personal axe to grind. Their immediate response was encouraging; they said that they 'knew' Billy, and 'recognised' him as a local 'stray'. They even said that they'd neuter him free of charge. Mr A was quite prepared to pay for any treatment, but thought this was a kind offer, and left him there.
The next thing was a phone call. Billy had enlarged kidneys and was in poor health. Furthermore, they had done blood tests - again free of charge but before they'd consulted Mr A, who as Billy's new owner, SHOULD have been consulted beforehand - and Billy had been found to be FIV positive.
They said that in view of the kidney disease, Billy ought to be euthanased, in case he collapsed while roaming and died a painful death from kidney failure. Good point, but by now Billy, although he did go out sometimes, was virtually a house cat.
They also said that in view of the FIV, it WAS AGAINST THE LAW to release him back into the community as FIV is 'so contagious'. (I think they were getting FIV mixed up with FeLV.) Therefore they had had no choice but to put him to sleep.
In view of the kidney disease this may have been a wise decision, or there again, might it have been possible to treat Billy and neuter him and give him a few more years of happy life? And what gets me is the very high-handed 'against the law' bit.
I realise it's not ideal for an FIV+ cat to roam in a built-up community, but Billy wasn't doing much roaming and furthermore Mr A was prepared to get him neutered. There doesn't seem to have been any evidence of his fighting.
Mr A mourned Billy and felt as if he sent him to his death. He always said that he wished he'd never taken him to be neutered.
Mr A died earlier this year at the age of 90; hopefully he's been reunited with Billy and all the other cats and dogs in his life.
But - can vets really do this?
Be careful out there!