Vet holding pet as collateral

[g-n-c]

of just owning up to the fact that you are WRONG about this being ILLEGAL in most states.

Excuse me, let me substitute for "illegal" with "against the rules"

There now....happy? You are still fired. The person the OP is talking about most likely does have recourse....regardless what the "mouths" on this site say....

To the OP....file a complaint with the state board......the board can compel him/her to release the pet back to the owner or face the consequences....

To the most recent "mouth," I believe the Attorney General says under Texas LAW....

under Texas law a veterinarian does not have a possessory lien on such an animal and may not, therefore, refuse to return the animal to its owner upon demand, even if the fee has not been paid.

If a veterinarian has complied with the notice requirements of section 801.357 of the Texas Occupations Code, he must, during the first 12 days after mailing the notice, release to the owner upon demand an animal for which he has performed veterinary medical services, without regard to the inability or unwillingness of the owner to pay the accrued charges. On the 13th day after the veterinarian has mailed the notice, the animal is deemed "abandoned," and the veterinarian may dispose of the animal as he sees fit. If the veterinarian has not complied with the statutory notice requirements, he may not at any time refuse to return the animal to its owner upon demand. A veterinarian may have an equitable lien on an animal for which he has performed medical services, but such lien is not possessory. A veterinarian is required by both common and criminal law to continue medical treatment for an animal in his custody if such care is required for the animal's well-being. A veterinarian who provides necessary treatment to an animal in his custody is entitled to recover from the owner the veterinarian's reasonable expenses in performing that treatment and boarding the animal.

Can't get much clearer than that. You are WRONG. Face the facts.

Hopefully I've helped the OP, which none of you did, and I'm done arguing with you idiots. Cya.

 

[ceara19]

Excuse me, let me substitute for "illegal" with "against the rules"

Can't get much clearer than that. You are WRONG. Face the facts.

I see that since you have been unable to find ANY state where this is ILLEGAL, you are trying to use semantics to try and justify your original comment instead of just owning up to the fact that YOU ARE WRONG!

"Illegal" and "against the rules" are not even close to being the same. It's "against the rules" to cheat when you play a game of Candyland, but you sure as hell won't be ARRESTED for it.

Hopefully I've helped the OP, which none of you did, and I'm done arguing with you idiots. Cya. [/QUOTE]

What did you think was most helpful to the op, your first reply where you told her the you don't know what the laws are in her state or the next few replies where you were giving even more information that is completely USELESS to the op or the last few replies where you are trying to talk your way around the fact that you are WRONG?

 

[g-n-c]

What did you think was most helpful to the op, your first reply where you told her the you don't know what the laws are in her state or the next few replies where you were giving even more information that is completely USELESS to the op or the last few replies where you are trying to talk your way around the fact that you are WRONG?

This is EXACTLY the kind of B.S. I am talking about. Adversarial.... Confrontational...

The FACTS are that YOU are the one who is WRONG. You are absolutely pathetic....

If I said that 2 + 2 = 4, you would spend the next day posting on this board about how I was wrong....why don't you admit your defeat or STFU. I have backed up my statements with FACTS. YOU ARE WRONG! GET OVER IT! YOU WOULD BE FIRED! GET OVER IT!

You "MOUTHS" that just HAVE to put your two cents in...and ridicule, belittle, and disparage others here on a regular basis...you show how truly classless you are.

You DISGUST me. Go ahead...post again....it will not change the FACT that you were PROVEN WRONG.

 

[stealth2]

Actually, gnc - you were the one who started the nastiness.

 

[ceara19]

Actually, gnc - you were the one who started the nastiness.

And apparently not just in THIS thread. Oh well, with that kind of attitude they won't be around long.

 

[g-n-c]

Actually, gnc - you were the one who started the nastiness.

Perhaps you should look a little closer...there was a full day between my first and second post.....during which posts were directed at me in an adversarial and confrontational manner....direct the criticism where it is due......same thing in the ONE other thread.....the posts were designed to start a confrontation......absolutely ZERO people skills.....this is a VERY frequent complaint amongst your visitors....perhaps you all should reexamine why you are here.....Don't worry about me...I'll be long gone from here....too many bulldogs foaming at the mouth.....

 

[stealth2]

I have, several times. You were asked to provide the names of states where it was illegal. You didn't do so. And THEN you came back with your slams. At the very least, you're no better than those you vilify. Perhaps that's something YOU should think about.

 

[butterscotch]

...two hours searching

Okay, since you can't seem to name 10 States, can you name 5? Hell, for that matter, can you name ANY? Just give me the name of 1 lousy State where "the vet CANNOT hold the pet."

...and reading (it is interesting!) I wonder if the reason you say this is because no state regulates the fee for veterinarian services? I am guessing- the individual state board of veterinary medicine determine standards of practice?

And holding that kitten is violation of ethics?

 

[saminalham]

vettech

At a clinic I worked for, anyone who could not pay for services the day they were performed had to sign a form agreeing to payment before the animal's release. There are notices in every exam room and in the lobby that instruct those who cannot pay that day to talk to the office manager, who gives them this form. This is done before services are performed. Occasionally, we worked out a payment plan, but most people don't pay it.

I agree that if you can't afford a pet, don't buy one.

 

[ceara19]

...and reading (it is interesting!) I wonder if the reason you say this is because no state regulates the fee for veterinarian services? I am guessing- the individual state board of veterinary medicine determine standards of practice?

And holding that kitten is violation of ethics?

It is possible that it MAY be a professional violation in some states, but that is not even close to ILLEGAL. I doubt that any vet that does hold a pet as collateral for payment due will suffer much more than a slap on the wrist IF the owners were to file a complaint. I say IF because many people would not want it known that they decided to skip out on a bill.

The only person suffering any REAL damages in this situation is the vet. The vet is the one that preformed a service without compensation. They are also providing continuing care for an animal that they do not own. One could easily argue that if the owners can not afford to pay veterinary bills for the animal, they also cannot afford to take adequate care of said animal. If the vet can get the state board to reasonably agree with this logic, they can also argue that by keeping the animal, they WERE in fact taking the action that they are professionally and ethically required to do.

While holding an animal in lieu of payment for treatment MAY be against the rules set by the state professional board, vets are ALSO prohibited from knowingly allowing an animal to be in a situation where the animal is not properly cared for.

When a vet is faced with the choice of holding the animal or returning the animal to a person that cannot adequately care for it, the best option to avoid censure from the state board would be to keep the animal.

Therefore, following g-n-c's logic, IF I were the legal council for a vet faced with this particular situation, the proper LEGAL advice would be to hold the animal due to the fact that the punishment for keeping the animal as collateral is much less severe then the punishment for knowingly putting the animal in a situation where it can be reasonably deduced that the animal MAY not receive adequate care from the owner.

This is where g-n-c failed to look at the BIG picture. There are times where the only way to avoid breaking one rule (and sometimes even a LAW) is to break a lesser rule (or law).

 

[g-n-c]

...and reading (it is interesting!) I wonder if the reason you say this is because no state regulates the fee for veterinarian services? I am guessing- the individual state board of veterinary medicine determine standards of practice?

And holding that kitten is violation of ethics?

Butterscotch.....you hit the nail on the head. The state boards regulate the profession and enforce the various Practice Acts....with ethics being the primary theme. The AVMA has a model practice act for states to emulate, so the profession is generally responsible for creating it.

Ceara....you just cannot give it up. Let me explain something to you. Veterinarians are bound by the golden rule. They take an oath upon entering the profession. To quote world - reknowned vet Dr. Carl A. Osborne, DVM, PhD, DACVIM:

...as members of one of the healing professions, our generosity should be motivated by more than a sense of duty or obligation. It should come from our hearts. Whereas it is our mind that conceives there are profits to make, it is our heart that motivates us to give more than take. Hippocrates expressed it this way: "Sometimes give your services for nothing....and if there be an opportunity of serving one who is a stranger in financial straits, give full assistance to such."....

....this is the mindset of the veterinary community, so... Ceara, your argument of defending the decision is absolute garbage. While I somewhat agree with the premise that if you cannot afford the vet, don't get a pet......I cannot fully agree, because if that were the case, millions of pets would have to be euthanized because millions of people cannot afford much more than basic veterinary care (annual shots, monthly flea/heartworm preventative). So you think a person who genuinely loves and cares for their pet and provides at least the basic veterinary care should have their pet taken from them? Let's think about this....the person loves their pet enough to seek care, they love their pet enough to want it back. They were responsible enough to at least seek care....sadly, there are many who do not even do this. If they did not love or care for that particular pet, they would go get another anyway...further aggravating the pet overpopulation situation. Ceara, I'm sorry, but your argument is flawed. You are still fired.

 

[ceara19]

Actually YOU are the one that will not admit you are wrong and throw in the towel. You were asked a DIRECT question,

Can you name 10 States where "the vet CANNOT hold the pet." Forget about "most." Just name ten States.

When you couldn't manage to find 10 states to cite as examples, the question was changed.

Okay, since you can't seem to name 10 States, can you name 5? Hell, for that matter, can you name ANY? Just give me the name of 1 lousy State where "the vet CANNOT hold the pet

You did ATTEMPT to cite state laws. However, as it was pointed out before, ethical and professional are NOT "laws".

This is where you decided to get defensing and belligerent in you subsequent posts in order to try and draw attention away from the fact that you were WRONG.

While you are correct that all veterinarians do take an oath, citing the OPINION of renowned vet Dr. Carl A. Osborne, DVM, PhD, DACVIM, has nothing to do with this discussion.

The American Veterinary Medical Association's House of Delegates adopted the first oath in July of 1969. The oath was last amended in November of 1999. The oath was reviewed and reaffirmed in April of 2004.

Veterinarian's Oath

Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.

I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics.

I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.

Would you care to show everyone where it states that the veterinarian swears to generous to those that can't or won't pay their vet bills?

It is painfully obvious to everyone else that you are wrong in regards to your original claims. This entire matter was definitively answered long ago, but I'm sure that you will continue to try and grasp at straws by posting more useless and incorrect information until someone FORCES you to stop.

 

[g-n-c]

Actually YOU are the one that will not admit you are wrong and throw in the towel. You were asked a DIRECT question,


When you couldn't manage to find 10 states to cite as examples, the question was changed.


You did ATTEMPT to cite state laws. However, as it was pointed out before, ethical and professional are NOT "laws".

This is where you decided to get defensing and belligerent in you subsequent posts in order to try and draw attention away from the fact that you were WRONG.

While you are correct that all veterinarians do take an oath, citing the OPINION of renowned vet Dr. Carl A. Osborne, DVM, PhD, DACVIM, has nothing to do with this discussion.

The American Veterinary Medical Association's House of Delegates adopted the first oath in July of 1969. The oath was last amended in November of 1999. The oath was reviewed and reaffirmed in April of 2004.



Would you care to show everyone where it states that the veterinarian swears to generous to those that can't or won't pay their vet bills?

It is painfully obvious to everyone else that you are wrong in regards to your original claims. This entire matter was definitively answered long ago, but I'm sure that you will continue to try and grasp at straws by posting more useless and incorrect information until someone FORCES you to stop.

Oh yes, Ceara YOU KNOW ALL(...maybe in Candyland). You seem to forget the OP in this anyway...you have never once offered them any useful information. You started posting on this thread in an attempt to discredit me. I merely attempted to let the OP know that they may, indeed, have recourse against the vet. I have been attacked ever since. i have proven that there is recourse in the two states previously mentioned. I guarantee you most state boards view this the same way. The original reply made it appear that there was not a thing the OP could do. Well, you have admitted that the vet could face professional censure....so, you, yourself validated my whole argument. You make a fool of yourself when you attempt to portray yourself as having a better grasp of the veterinarian mindset than the highly respected Dr. Osborne. Get a grip on reality. You have offered NOTHING here. I attempted to HELP the OP with my personal knowledge of having dealt with the vet board before, which entailed months and months of research that has gone on for a few years. Have you ever dealt with a vet board before? I highly doubt it. I am confident that I have MUCH more knowledge on this particular subject than you do. So, go ahead, keep spewing your venom. It won't change the FACT that I CLEARLY PROVED my position. It may come as a shock to you...but you ARE NOT always right. This is one of those occasions. Case closed. End of discussion.....I BET YOU can't let it go....so who are you to criticize me? This is my last post.....UNLESS.....LOL.....your response in 5....4....3....2....1....

 

[ceara19]

You stopped making this about the OP long, long ago. You were asked a very clear and concise question:

NAME ONE STATE WHERE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO HOLD A PET AS COLLATERAL?

You have NEVER answered that question correctly. Instead, you're trying to use semantics and change the subject in order to draw attention to the fact that you are WRONG in regards to the above question!

So, one more time,

NAME ONE STATE WHERE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO HOLD A PET AS COLLATERAL?

I have in no way attempted to portray myself as having a better grasp of the veterinarian mindset than the highly respected Dr. Osborne.

There is no need to, as this is not a veterinary forum. It is a legal forum and you obviously have no grasp on how the law works.

 

[g-n-c]

You stopped making this about the OP long, long ago. You were asked a very clear and concise question:

NAME ONE STATE WHERE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO HOLD A PET AS COLLATERAL?

You have NEVER answered that question correctly. Instead, you're trying to use semantics and change the subject in order to draw attention to the fact that you are WRONG in regards to the above question!

So, one more time,

NAME ONE STATE WHERE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO HOLD A PET AS COLLATERAL?

See....I KNEW you could not let it go....THE ANSWER? TEXAS. I stated this LONG AGO!

HERE IS YOUR QUESTION:

ARE THERE STATES WHERE A PERSON HAS RECOURSE IN THIS SITUATION?

Your answer will say all there is to say about you as a person....answer yes and we can finally give this a rest.