Duluth.Talk

By Jody

September 19, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

I’m a veteran of the dog community, including training, ownership, legislation, and veterinary issues.

I want to admit there are many veterinarians who don’t exactly “love” animals. Several veterinarians have been accused of animal cruelty, over the years. Some have simply lost their passion for the profession. There is an old joke in the veterinary community: Many veterinary students are those who flunked out of dental school.

(A good friend of mine is a veterinarian, and knew absolutely nothing about animals before applying to veterinary college. As childhood friends, I was the one who planned to become a vet. She wanted to go into pharmacy, like her father. I took another path, and she became a veterinarian primarily because it was a viable “profession” for her. She is brilliant, funny, and gentle and kind with animals. She has learned a lot about them, through her schooling and practice. But she didn’t go into it with a passion for animals.

She’d had one pet up until that point. A mouse…which she couldn’t care for and gave to me. She acquired a cat during veterinary school. It developed behavior problems, so she threatened to euthanize it. So I agreed to take him. He’s now eighteen, and has never displayed any behavior problems whatsoever. But I digress…)

Nothing in the description of events suggests that Dr. Innocent is anything but a competent, dedicated professional. Surely, this is not the first time Dr. Innocent has faced this problem, though.

My friend tells me this situation comes up, every now and then. (One ill dog was left languishing at her clinic, over an unpaid $50 bill. She eventually agreed to release the dog to the owners for just the $50 invoice, and not the additional food, housing, and medication the dog received in the interim. From what I can gather, the owners not only didn’t want to pay the $50, but worried they wouldn’t be able to afford the ongoing medical treatment the dog would need, based on the diagnosis. Rather than being abjectly cold-hearted, I think they were overwhelmed at the prospect of lifetime care of this ‘special needs’ dog.)

I will say I can’t imagine the thought process of threatening to turn over a living, feeling animal to complete strangers, and further insinuating it will be killed. It may be a very effect strategy in getting scofflaw owners to pay their tabs, but it’s inherently cruel and unethical. Dogs are not stereos. It’s merely a waste to destroy a perfectly good stereo over an unpaid bill. Threatening the same fate for a living, breathing creature is grotesque.

I have little sympathy for people who capriciously acquire dogs, without planning for their care. At some point, most dogs will require veterinary care above the $500 range. Responsible people purchase pet insurance, or start a bank account, or get a dedicated credit card they only use for veterinary care. If you go into dog ownership knowing you “can’t afford” good quality food or yearly licenses or vaccinations, you simply can’t afford a dog. Period.

But, alas, responsible people won’t put veterinarians in this kind of position.

A good veterinarian will plan for these all too common eventualities. They get approval for services in writing. He/she clearly state fees, and accurately estimate costs to the owner before proceeding. They devise a plan of action, ahead of time, that will be implemented when owners choose not to pay. They make this policy, and all other clinic policies, readily available to clients.

In most cases of this type, the veterinarian works out a payment plan with the owner, and returns the dog before any more expenses accrue. The veterinarian then revises his/her clinic policies to reduce the likelihood of a similar incident occurring in the future.

No, it’s not fair to put the veterinarian in the position of debt collector, but it is not exactly an unknown consequence of being in business. Holding the animal hostage is, again, probably very effective. But it’s cruel to the dog. And that should be any veterinarian’s first concern.

By Loran Hickton

September 19, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

I work in pet health related industries and represent multiple clients that help protect our pets including Pets Best Insurance. I would like to share the story of a puppy named Abby, who snacked on earrings and the surgery costs $7,700.00,Pets Best Insurance Pays 80%, Total paid by family in premiums about $90.00, total received by family about $6,100.00
Value of Abby to Her Family, Nearly Priceless! With the important care provided to our pets by caring veterinarians, it is important to point out that pet insurance is available by many good companies that want to support pet families and veterinarians.

Pet insurance can provide the immediate means to cover costly veterinary care once the policy is in force. Abby is a very good example - before being adopted, this happy and loving Labrador mixed breed puppy had already had a pretty tough life. Both her and her brother were originally dumped on the side of the road, starving, sick and infested with fleas, both were in need of veterinary care. They were sent to a local shelter and put on the list to be euthanized. Funds were not available for needed care and her brother didn’t make it, but Abby was rescued at the last minute. Charles and Virginia Meyer adopted her and paid the hospitalization costs related to her rescue that exceeded $1,000. In very short period of time, she had an injury to her rear leg and other issues that included surgery to remove ingested earrings. In her short life, veterinary care is quickly approaching $9,000.00.

According to Virginia Meyer, “Abby is such a wonderful addition to our family; she is like a child to my husband and me. Her care after she was rescued cost us around $1,000.00. We feel she is worth so much that we can not place a monetary price on her. Once we got Abby home, she had a serious injury to her rear leg. It required a specialist and he suggested that we protect Abby in the future with Pets Best Insurance. A few weeks later while at home, Abby brought a small box to me, minus the earnings it normally contained. Within hours, she was very sick and we rushed her to an emergency clinic. After several surgeries and trips back and forth to the veterinarian, she is now back at home and recovering. For Charles and me, we would have done whatever it would take to care for our puppy. We are thankful that we have insurance coverage because we just cannot imagine having to choose between providing needed care, or having to put Abby down.”

According to research, pet families are doing more to care for their pets. In the United States, 71% of households have pets and 37% of pet owners consider their pets important family members. Spending on pets has more than doubled from $17 billion in 1994 to over $38.4 billion in 2006, according to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA). The association projects $15.2 billion will be spent on food, $9.3 billion on supplies and over-the-counter-medications, and $9.4 billion on veterinary care in 2007.

Abby’s story is an important reminder for families. Her surgeries and care are a little more common than most pet families may realize. Many loving pet owners will spend whatever it takes to try to save their four-legged family members when they become seriously ill. For some families it can be a terrible and agonizing situation. Without insurance, the costs for care can quickly go beyond what is available in family savings or can be placed on a credit or charge card. Pet insurance provides the financial safety net and peace of mind that assures needed care will be provided for their beloved pet.

By James

September 19, 2007 10:05 PM | Link to this

I have worked for several vets and no longer want to work for them. I had two vets at two different clinics kick dog in the jaw, that I was holding for examination. I ask one of the vets are all vets like this and he said “pretty much” I found out a year later he was correct when a another vet kicked a dog in the jaw three times. I have a lot of work treating parvo dogs. It’s not fun when you have to treat up to ten a day. usually one or two a week are found dead. Many owners never come back for them and in my state it’s thirty days before you can turn one over to the pound.

So blame the system lack of education greed ($27 a day for boarding $5.00 a day even with can food (ID). Veterinarians are not practive in the comunity. if they were they would be speaking in schools about pet care. This is not a pet or a dog problem it’s a people problem it’s the dog and cats that suffer to the tune of 10 million killed every year.

By Vet med is wrong

September 20, 2007 7:07 AM | Link to this

Vet medicine is slightly over rated. Not saying it isn’t needed but it is very over priced. Most people don’t know that canine rabies has been wiped out in North America yet we still vaccinate for it—hmmm. what other shots are given but are not really necessary? I understand that paying our vet bills are important but to hold a pet hostage is ridiculous—they don’t hold human patients hostage. To some of us our pets are our ‘furry’ children, how dare they hold them hostage.

By Jody

September 20, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this

I understand where the other comments are coming from. I have a different take on it, though.

I’ve found that most veterinary staff are excellent examples of compassion and skill. There are bad apples in every bunch, but I haven’t found that outright cruelty is common in the profession. It happens, but it’s not the rule in my experience. That aspect of my comment was merely reacting to the suggestion in the article that all veterinarians come into the profession because of a love for animals. I haven’t found that to be true. But I haven’t found veterinary staff to be routinely cruel to animals either. I find most veterinary staff behave like most people, in their interactions with animals…for the most part. …Generally acceptable conduct to most people…Not quite up to my standard, though.

I find that most people are cruel to animals in any number of ways, from the benign to the blatant. There are numerous common practices (among veterinary staff, groomers, dog trainers, dog walkers, and dog owners, alike) that I would never subject my dog to.

Many people, for instance, seem to think nothing of choking their dogs via a collar and leash. I find it actually relatively rare to come across people who DON’T choke their dogs. (I would never do so, myself, of course. But, then again, I have decades of dog training experience behind me.) Many people yell at their pets. Some even strike them. As a result of these observations, I don’t leave my dog alone with anyone. I even insist on going in for radiographs with her, to help position her. (There is often a lot of force used to position unsedated dogs for x-rays. And I simply would never subject my dog to that kind of treatment. Instead, using any number of the dozens of commands she knows, I verbally place her the correct position, with then only minor restraint required from that point on.)

I would never let anyone take her behind closed doors. She’s simply never alone with anyone but me (or my husband). Period. I don’t trust that people won’t do something to her that I consider unacceptable…since so many people are knowingly or inadvertently cruel to dogs, in my books. And since she can’t tell me if someone was mean to her, I just insist on supervising her at all times, around other people. It’s not always easy, when dealing with a new veterinary clinic, to get this access. I just demand it, and they usually acquiesce. If they don’t, I end the appointment. It’s that simple. I stay with my dog.

I always discourage people from boarding their pets at veterinary clinics, unless there is a medical reason to do so. Veterinary clinics are busy places, and staff simply don’t have time to interact with the animals, to any degree. Boarded animals are typically in their cages over 23 hours per day. That’s tortuous solitary confinement, more akind to punishment than care, much less a vacation. It’s no way for a dog or cat to live for one day, let alone several days.

The comment about rabies is, unfortunately, not true. There are incidents of rabies in dogs every year in the United States. Recently, a mandatory spay/neuter law led to an outbreak of rabies, because those who didn’t want to spay/neuter their pets couldn’t seek medical attention for them. (If they did, they’d be fined, and their pets would be seized.) The result was an increase in the number of unvaccinated pets in the region, with a subsequent outbreak of rabies in dogs. This is just one of the negative consequences of mandatory spay/neuter laws. While well-meaning, the unexpected consequences can be dire. Voluntary spay/neuter is at an all-time high, around 70%. Education about the benefits of spay/neuter is much more effective and egalitarian, and doesn’t have the same drawbacks as punitive legislation.

It is uncommon, but not unheard of, for a vaccinated dog to later contract rabies. It’s important to keep titre levels high, and adhere to local dog care bylaws. Most regions only call for rabies vaccinations every three years, and that has reduced a great deal of the concerns. If your area still requires yearly rabies vaccination for dogs, consider petitioning authorities to switch to the three-year protocol. It’s pretty much the standard now, anyway. :-)

By look it up

September 20, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this

Canine rabies has been irradicated in North America. There are, however, other types of rabies strains that dogs can contract.

By Jody

September 20, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

If my other post eventually shows up, great. If not…

“Canine rabies” and the “canine strain” of rabies are two slightly different things.

It is true the “canine strain” of rabies may have been “eradicated” in the United States (and possibly Canada), yet the common host (or “strain”) of rabies is inconsequential in terms of actually acquiring the disease.

So, unless we’re having a semantic debate, no one should assume that rabies in dogs has been anywhere close to eliminated.

As I pointed out above, the implementation of legislation that discouraged some dog owners from seeking medical treatment for their pets resulted in an almost immediate outbreak of rabies in dogs in the region. (Was it the “canine strain”? Probably not.) But all it would take is a dog imported into the U.S. or Canada, from Mexico or other region where the canine strain is still present, where the imported dog was incubating the virus, and a new wave of infections could occur. Representatives at the CDC worried that the announcement of the canine strain’s eradication in the U.S. might lead to complacency among dog owners, in terms of vaccinating their pets. I’m now worried they were correct in thinking many people would misconstrue the news.

It’s important to note:

Up until 2005, the “canine strain” of rabies was still the most common type of rabies found in dogs in Mexico.

The last known case of the canine strain of rabies in the United States was reported as recently as 2004. (There are, of course, still cases of rabies-infected domestic dogs reported every year, in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.)

While human rabies infections are not widespread in the United States, domestic dogs are still listed as one of the most common sources in those cases, regardless of what “strain” they carry.

Please ensure your dog is vaccinated against rabies. It is required by law.

By Robert Davis

September 20, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

This whole issue turned into one big circus, but in the end, Mr. Gomez and Pilot are back together again. And Carol showed us all what compassion is all about. We have become a society where we fail to help others because there is nothing in it for us….or we become so stiff in our policies so that we are protected that we forget that those in need may not always have the means. I am so glad there are many people in this world, like A. Jolie, the Goodwill Ambassador for the UN, who gets her hands dirty helping those less fortunate. While there are so many of us worried about buying our $10.00 organic chicken for dinner or filling up on premium gas in our gas hogs, when there are others are less fortunate and could use a little compassion and help. I am so saddened to see this happen in of all placec the BIBLE belt, where Christianity is pushed down peoples throats, yet it took how long for one kind soul to show us they practice their own core values and don’t just speak of them. Carol - thank you for being an ambassador for compassion. Hopefully we will all learn from and walk in the steps of your example and “be kind one to another.” Regards, Robert Davis http://www.petfoodtales.com

By dog lover

September 20, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

You know, if my vet was so crash as to do that to my dog, i would find another vet. There are arrangements when a vet bill exceeds your expectations and most reputable vets are more concerned with the health and well being of the animal than with the mundane monetary issues. Dr. Innocent I am glad my dog is not your patient, because if he were, he would not be after reading of your behavior.

By Bill Heffernan

September 21, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

You can sugar coat Dr. Innocent any way you want to but he is a villan. All he wants to do is line his pockets. Why did he not offer the owner a payment plan? No money, dog dies. So he can kill a pet for money! Just like some one else in the news. No excuses accepted, Dr. Innocent is guilty.

By hesnotsoinnocent

September 21, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

I found another Vet after this greedy person routinely quoted me one price and shocked me with over inflated bills. Regardless of whether he is entitled to do that or not, he still accepted over $1,000 while blackmailing this pups owner. There’s a place in Hell for him. He’s a thief and no better than Michael Vick in my opinion.

By hedidit

September 21, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

He needs to change his name or get out of town. Who could possibly trust their pets with this creep?

By Naysayer

September 21, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

I don’t think the situation was handled very well, but I’m just wondering how many of the critics would continue going to work if they were paid 70% of what they were owed?

If I go to a store to buy a sweater, any clerk would likely laugh me out the door if I suggested I take the sweater with me and “promise” to pay for it later.

Once the “leverage” is out the door, collecting the unpaid debt is much more difficult. Veterinarians are not debt collectors, and it forces everyone’s rates up when they have to hire companies to do so.

Of course, a dog is not a sweater, which is why it is even more important for OWNERS to be that much more responsible in acquiring pets in the first place. If you can’t afford a pet’s care, then don’t get one. It’s not rocket science. If this is news, then here’s the news flash: Pets can sometimes require expensive medical treatment. Know this BEFORE you get one!

I’ve worked in animal welfare since the 1970’s, and the sorry tales of blatant owner negligence are remarkably similar, from decade to decade.

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that every other patient at that clinic pays their bills in full, either in advance, or when they retrieve their pets. Had Mr. Gomez just paid for his pet’s medical treatment…like everybody else has to do…none of this would have happened. I bet there are people even more destitute than Mr. Gomez. They manage to care for their pets and their financial responsibilities, and they don’t have 11th hour saviors, either.

I think it was unprofessional and unethical for Dr. Innocent to threaten the dog with re-homing or death, even if it is his legal right to do so. I put the absolute, 100%, and complete blame on Mr. Gomez, though, for not paying his bill. Had he done so, this wouldn’t have happened. He’s the architect of his own demise.

By hedidit

September 21, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Naysayer, if your mother paid 70% of her doctors bill, but needed more time to come up with the rest, would it be ok for the doctor to put her to death because she didn’t have the rest on the spot?

By rukiddingme

September 21, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

It’s not right that a Vet can kill your dog if you don’t give him a blank check. That’s just mean and unreasonable.

By Naysayer

September 21, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

Uh…I said several times that I didn’t agree with the way the veterinarian handled the situation.

However, if you don’t like the fact the law considers a dog left at a veterinary clinic (even due to an unpaid bill) to have been “abandoned”, then fight to change the law, for goodness sakes.

The continued focus on the vet., instead of the deadbeat owner, is amazing to me. If Mr. Gomez just paid his bill, there wouldn’t have been an issue.

The comparison to human medicine is just priceless. First of all, many people go without medical treatment because they can’t afford to pay. It’s pretty common. Second, dogs are considered “property” under the law, and are routinely killed at the request of their owners and the state, simply because they’re no longer wanted.

Many, many pets are put to death because their owners “can’t afford to pay” for medical treatment. What about those people? The ones who choose to kill their pets rather than be responsible, and plan ahead for an unexpected veterinary bill?

Anyone who acquires a dog without realizing they’ll have veterinary bills, at some point, is either irretrievably ignorant or totally oblivious.

I think irresponsible dog owners are just about the lowest rung of society.

What Dr. Innocent was doing wasn’t threatening to kill the dog himself. He was using the threat of sending the dog (which is property, under the law) to a third party, who could then do whatever they wanted with it, as an incentive to get the negligent owner to do what he is required by law to do: pay his freaking veterinary bill. It is highly unlikely that Dr. Innocent would have euthanized the dog himself, simply over an upaid bill. I just don’t believe there are many veterinarians around who would be that heartless. In all likelihood, he was using the possibility of sending the dog to a shelter (and the subsequent ramifications that might ensue) as his only leverage in getting Mr. Gomez to uphold his end of the bargain.

Veterinarians won’t often agree to treat a pet if the owner says upfront that he/she can’t pay for the treatment. It’s just not how it works. Some will, on a case by case basis. But most won’t, because they can’t afford to.

I’ve taken my dog to two different kinds of specialists in the last 10 months and both had me sign a waiver making me liable for any charges that occur during treatment…given the nature of unpredictable nature of medical treatment. One simple exam turned out to be nearly $1,000. The other was straight forward (no surprises) and was under $200. Not only did I pay both on the spot, I EXPECTED to have to pay both before I could leave with my dog. Again…it ain’t rocket science, folks. Pay your freaking bills! Don’t commit to pay something you know you can’t afford. Don’t expect others to wait around until you decide to pay them what you owe.

By rukiddingme

September 21, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

naysayer, The doc took over a thousand dollars from this guy. How can you call him a negligent deadbeat, unless of course you are Dr. Innocent’s wife, the other Dr. Innocent, or perhaps Dr. Innocent himself. I just find it hard to believe anyone could support this bottom feeder knowing that he extorted over a grand before he threatened to kill the dog or have someone else do the dirty work. He raised his quoted bill at the last minute. If your 200 dollar bill turned out to be 1,000, I’d like to see how gracious you would be. You and Dr. Innocent are mean people.

By naysayer

September 21, 2007 7:37 PM | Link to this

“Mean people”??? (giggling) Well…You’d be the first to accuse me of being “mean”…ever.

But help me understand what you and others are saying.

In the example I gave earlier, about anticipating an appointment would cost a couple of hundred dollars, only to find it was nearly $1,000, it just so happens that occurred the same week I rescued a dog from an unfit owner. Immediately I had the dog vaccinated, microchipped, and neutered. Along with some minor surgical complications, my total out of pocket expenses were over $1,300 over a few weeks. By agreeing to take the dog, I also knew I was agreeing to make sure he received proper care. With the help of a reputable rescue group, he is now in a loving, responsible home where he is a cherished family member.

The week prior to that dog’s arrival, my dog had been to our regular vet to diagnose a slight limp. That was just over $200. I was sent to an orthopedist the next week. That exam cost me $350. It was then the specialist told me my dog needed bilateral TPLO surgery, to the tune of $6,500.

$200 + $1,000 + $1,300 + $350 +++ …all inside 3 weeks…with the prospect of another $6,500 bill soon to come?

So, I guess what you’re saying is I should just let the veterinarians think I’m going to pay, but then give them a hard luck tale, take my dog home, and “promise” to pay them at my own convenience.

You know what? Virtually every veterinary clinic in operation requires clients to pay their bills in full before leaving with the pet. This isn’t news, and should be common knowledge among dog owners. If they do allow partial payments, those are usually spelled out and agreed upon prior to treatment.

If this is news to the public, it’s a sad state of affairs. And if that’s the case, the public should also know that many businesses are legally allowed to hold your property until payment for services is received in full. Even with dogs, a boarding kennel, municipal shelters, even some trainers and groomers can hold the dog ‘til the owner pays up.

Pay your bills, folks. Don’t expect others to wait around until you decide when you’re going to pay what you owe.

By rukiddingme

September 22, 2007 6:06 AM | Link to this

The greedy doctor changed the price he quoted. It’s kind of hard to anticipate what figure a crook is going to hit you with.

By naysayer

September 22, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

By rukiddingme September 22, 2007

“The greedy doctor changed the price he quoted. It’s kind of hard to anticipate what figure a crook is going to hit you with.”

Uh…have you never had any serious veterinary procedures done? The veterinarian never quotes an exact price for something like that. Sure, they can tell you how much vaccinations are, or a basic exam, or an uncomplicated spay/neuter. Even then, if there are complications, what should be a simple spay/neuter can cost significantly more than the traditional price. (My recent foster dog’s neuter cost me $320…INITIALLY. Then, he had complications, which resulted in daily care for the next 3 weeks which cost at least $100, a $175 trip to an emergency clinic early one morning, and 3 days spent at another clinic for more follow-up, totalling over $400. That made the neuter, alone, at least $675 MORE than the “quoted” price.) I don’t get to go back to the vet and say, ‘You said it was only going to cost $320.’ That’s not how it works.

Many dog owners are thrilled to pay whatever it costs to save their dogs’ lives. (Not Mr. Gomez, though.)

Anything that takes days of treatment, multiple prodedures, exploratory surgery, etc., can only be estimated. When the veterinarian stated he told Mr. Gomez that the treatment cost would be “at least” this or that, I totally believe him. Why did Mr. Gomez give the go ahead, even for the initial $1,400 quote, if he knew he didn’t have the money??? That says everything. Knowing the MINIMUM was going to be $1,400, that should’ve tipped off Mr. Gomez that it could easily amount to more.

Personally, I think Mr. Gomez went into the clinic knowing he couldn’t pay, and just assumed his hard luck story would absolve him of his financial responsibilities. Either that or he is so vacuous, he didn’t understand the difference between estimates, fixed quotes, and his liability for any and all charges resulting from his dog’s treatment.

He also apparently didn’t realize that veterinary clinics can, and do, hold dogs until the bill is paid. It is perfectly legal. If he’s merely naive, then he’s forgiven, I suppose. I mean, we don’t know what we don’t know. But I really find it hard to believe any mentally-competent adult could be that ignorant. Even more so, when one makes the choice to become a dog owner. It’s reprehensible to get a dog and know nothing about its care.

Then, when Mr. Gomez chose not to pay his bill, and left his dog at the clinic, daily boarding rates accumulated as they do at every veterinary clinic in the free world.

As far as I can tell, the only thing “wrong” with this case is that the vet actually used the threat of the dog being given away, or potentially killed, as a more imperative incentive to get Mr. Gomez to pay his bill. I don’t think most vet’s take it to that level, even though they’re perfectly legally allowed to do so.

And, you’ll notice, it ultimately worked. Mr. Gomez did, in fact, “find a way” to have his bill paid. Without the threats, I suspect Mr. Gomez never would’ve paid the clinic what he owed.

Again, I don’t think the situation was handled very well. Still, there would have been no story if Mr. Gomez had just paid his bill like everyone else does. Oh…these people and their demands for special treatment…

By j hart

September 22, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

I am appalled a Vet would threaten to send a animal to certain death at a pound. The humane thing to do is waive the boarding fee and work out a payment plan. Then he should find another profession. Surely there must be animal lovers who who be willing to donate a small sum toward saving this innocent dog.

By j hart

September 22, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

“Me thinks naysayer doth protest too much” not to be either Dr Innocent or someone close to him. I hardly think the man is a deadbeat as he has paid you $1000. already. Even lawyers do some pro bono work. Have some compassion or go into another line of business, Perhaps with Dr Kevorikan. I probably spelled it wrong but you know who I mean.

By naysayer

September 22, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

By j hart September 22, 2007 1:09 PM

“Me thinks naysayer doth protest too much” not to be either Dr Innocent or someone close to him.”

I think I’ve heard it all now. Good grief! The apologists will stop at nothing…even lies and scurrilous insinuations…to make excuses for some loser who not only refuses to pay what he owes, but who made the decision to acquire a dog knowing full well he didn’t have the necessary resources to ensure it would be well cared for throughout its life.

For the record, I don’t live anywhere near the veterinary clinic, and don’t know anything about Dr. Innocent (whose name, at first, I assumed was just a euphemism for an actual veterinarian the paper didn’t want to name), or Mr. Gomez, beyond what has been reported in the media.

I will say if you can’t afford a pet, and all that goes along with that, then don’t get one!

As I spelled out several times already, not only have I HAPPILY paid thousands of dollars in veterinary bills for my own pets, but I even pay for medical treatment for dogs that aren’t my own. I’ve been working in animal welfare for decades. Negligent and apathetic owners come up with the same excuses over and over and over again.

In fact, I’m assisting a friend in starting a charity to help the TRULY needy (terminally ill pet owners, handicapped pet owners, etc.) cover the costs of necessary medical prodedures for their pets.

This friend thought of the idea after her dog was the victim of one veterinarian’s mistake. That led to a lengthy stay at a veterinary hospital, and a bill over $10,000.

Being an able-bodied person herself, I don’t think she ever considered blaming the hospital for her concerns about her ability to pay. She did immediately wonder how someone even less well off than her would cope, though. She’d be the first to admit she was negligent in not planning ahead for this kind of thing.

What she did do was reach out for help. Friends, family members, and even complete strangers heard about her need, and pooled their resources so the bill was paid by the time the dog was ready to leave the hospital. (Naturally, I donated some money, too.)

THAT’s how it’s done, Mr. Gomez…not by just refusing to pay your bill. If you want to use the media, then do so in a positive way, to help raise the money you need. But badmouthing the veterinarian, who is well within his legal rights, is a reallly low blow. (Almost as low as threatening to give away the dog.)

Neither Mr. Gomez nor Dr. Innocent have anything to be proud of here. But the fact remains that Dr. Innocent is within his legal rights, and Mr. Gomez was the party at fault. Had he just paid his bill, there would be no need for threats.

Some veterinarians will offer payment plans for large bills. Most don’t. Don’t commit to pay for things you know you can’t afford.

By rukiddingme

September 22, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

naysayer, I’d really like to know the name of the organization you are associated with, because I don’t want to go anywhere near anything you have anything to do with. You and Dr. Innocent have lousy attitudes. It seems like you have both found an emotional toy to play with that will net the big bucks. Even Grady hospital doesn’t kill when someone can’t pay the whole bill. As a matter of fact, I double dare you to name the charity you claim to be associated with. You just don’t sound like a good person to me and I am convinced you are close to Dr. notsoInnocent.

By naysayer

September 22, 2007 5:47 PM | Link to this

By rukiddingme September 22, 2007 4:02 PM

“I double dare you to name the charity you claim to be associated with. You just don’t sound like a good person to me and I am convinced you are close to Dr. notsoInnocent.”

Shouldn’t that be “double dog dare”? (rolling eyes)

Well, with an invitation like that, rukiddingme, I certainly would not name the charity my friend is organizing. Sounds like the lies you’re telling about me would quickly switch to the good work she is trying to do, before it even gets off the ground. Shame on you. I pity filthy liars.

Unlike you, I donate tens of thousands of dollars to all kinds of charities, every year, as well as countless hours of my time. When I couldn’t donate a lot of money, I donated my sweat and tears.

In terms of animal-related philanthropy is concerned, I spent the better part of the last three decades helping new or needy dog owners work with their dogs and navigate through the services available to them.

I worked with a charity that helped get pet food to seniors and HIV patients who couldn’t afford it, making sure their beloved pets could remain with them at a time in their lives when they’re most important.

Two years ago, I donated $3,000 in legal fees to help a handicapped man sue the person who killed his service dog.

Last year, I donated at least $10,000 to efforts bettering canine legislation.

If anything, my more recent experiences have been more like the woman who came forward to pay Mr. Gomez’s bill, as I’ve done that a few times, too, for (actually) needy people. But I would never support the kind of hostility being directed at Dr. Innocent.

I’ve also worked in rescue for the last 20 years, making sure my favorite breed doesn’t fall into dire straits with the precise kinds of irresponsible owners I’m talking about (those who whimsically go out and get a dog, and don’t plan for its care at all).

I worked in the media for many years. Here’s a tip: Don’t believe everything you read in media reports. Stories are often slanted.

Nevertheless, it’s as plain as the nose on your face how this story developed. Dr. Innocent threatened to send the dog to a shelter, if Mr. Gomez refused to take care of his responsibility…as Dr. Innocent has every legal right to do. He also (probably in a childish or vindictive moment) further turned the screws by suggesting that the dog could then be killed (given that it has parvo., or just in general terms, as per shelter regulations). I have no doubt this was all meant to emphasize to Mr. Gomez that he must pay his bill. I strongly doubt Dr. Innocent was merely thinking out loud about his plans for the dog.

I have every confidence Dr. Innocent meant these threats as a tactic to encourage Mr. Gomez to pay the money he owes to the clinic…like every other dog owner must.

Whether Dr. Innocent would’ve followed through with his threat to send the dog to a shelter is anyone’s guess. (You, being psychic and all, can enlighten us, I guess.) In reality, his threat worked to put a fire under Mr. Gomez, and get his bill paid. Last time anyone checked, Dr. Innocent wasn’t running a charity.

Should Dr. Innocent set up a system to help pet owners make payments over time when the bill is rather large? Maybe, although it’s totally up to him and clearly, before Mr. Gomez’s antics, he never needed such a system. I think it would be the charitable thing to do, but it’s not my clinic, is it?

Now, according to you and people like you, I should be able to benefit from any service, and then, after the services are rendered, cry hardship and not pay, or demand to pay when it’s convenient for me. That’s great to know, because there are all kinds of bills I’d like to put off ‘til later. Thanks for the go ahead, rukiddingme! I’ll let you know how it goes! (I’m sure retailers and service people will be just fine with it…) (laughing almost as hard as the salespeople will when I try to walk out without paying)

By rukiddingme

September 22, 2007 6:20 PM | Link to this

I could tell you all of the wonderful things I do to, how I saved the world single handedly, as long as I didn’t have to identify myself. Of course, if your practices are as underhanded as Dr. Innocent’s are, you probably have a wad of money to show what a good person you are and maybe get a lot of recognition too. It also makes for great tax write offs, doesn’t it?. You’re so full of yourself, you really are sickening.

By naysayer

September 22, 2007 11:01 PM | Link to this

Well, here’s the proof. There’s just no pleasing the vacuous apologists. If we don’t share their opinions, we’re “sickening”, “full of ourselves”, “underhanded” and on and on.

When I merely share my views, I’m called childish names by a member of Mr. Gomez’s debtors fan club. When I elaborate more about myself, to prove my accuser doesn’t know a thing about me, I’m accused of bragging or lying.

That’s just rich!

There’s no reasoning with people like this. They’ll never be happy, as can clearly be seen by the angry commentary.

Yet ‘rukiddingme’ still goes on hurling insults at me, and never addresses the real issue I continuously address: people who would rather skip out on their financial responsibilities and bad mouth those to whom they owe the money, rather than take care of business.

Mr. Gomez had every opportunity to help raise funds for his dog’s care. He could’ve done so in a positive way, irrespective of Dr. Innocent. He didn’t. Instead, he threatened a law suit and chose to publicly disparage the veterinarian who saved his dog’s life. That’s some gratitude. Shame on him and shame on anyone so dishonest he/she won’t admit those basic truths.

If Mr. Gomez had just paid his bill, none of this would’ve happened. The ball was in Mr. Gomez’s court. He failed, not the vet.

Ever notice that when someone owes money, they often become hostile towards the person they owe the money to? It’s childish, I know. But it’s exceedingly common. They’re so guilt-ridden by their own negligence, they lash out most at the person who reminds them of their negligence.

Based on the hostility, I’m starting to think rukiddingme has a lot of unpaid debt.

By rukiddingme

September 23, 2007 6:08 AM | Link to this

naysayer, I would assume your essays will stop when the vet office opens in the am, but then, I’m sure business isn’t ever going to be what it was before, so you will have plenty of time to trash formerly paying customers. I am convinced you are either the Doctor or his wife, the other Dr. Innocent.

Again, DR. INNOCENT TOOK OVER $1000 AND WAS STILL GOING TO HAVE THE DOG KILLED.

May Pit Bulls turn on you both.

By fedupwiththemedia

September 24, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

Under Georgia law, veterinarians can hold pets when owners don’t pay their bills. If an owner doesn’t settle up within 10 days of receiving a demand for payment, the animal is declared “abandoned.” It can be sold, given away or sent to a shelter and possibly euthanized.

Pilot the dog was not neutered or vaccinated and was successfully treated by the vet for Parvo

The vet disputes Gomez’s claim regarding the cost of his services. He said Gomez was informed about the growing charges every day that he visited the dog. (the amount in each of the newspaper articles is different so who knows what the original ESTIMATE really was?)

Gomez did not pay his bill in full.

Gomez last visited the dog on August 29th.

On September 8th Gomez received a letter from the vet regarding point number 1 regarding Georgia law. So ten days elapsed from Gomez’s last visit to his dog and the issuance of this letter.

Gomez must have contacted the newspaper to put his position out there in the court of public opinion as the first article appeared on September 14th or maybe his lawyer made the call. So six days passed between receiving the letter from the vet and the appearance of the first newspaper article.

Most bloggers/responses to this article vilify the vet. The word “hostage” evokes strong emotions.

Was the lawyer involved in this case working pro bono or for a fee? If for a fee, why not pay the bill first and then take the case the court?

Mr. Gomez was shown the release forms that stated payment must be made in full. No loan options or payment plans are available at PetFirst 24.

Bloggers/responses ask why a payment plan wasn’t worked out for the remaining balance see the point above. All my vets have the same policy and the policy is posted in clear view of the front counter.

The vet made some big PR mistakes, but bottom line is that it is a business and the vet has bills to pay and staff to pay and Mr. Gomez is probably not the only person to not pay for services rendered.

Gomez wanted his dog back without paying any more money and because a good Samaritan stepped up he didn’t have to pay, but what happens to Pilot now? Or the question is what happens to Pilot the next time?

Does Gomez expect the court of public opinion to continue to help him with health issues that Pilot may face in the future? Is he going to neuter Pilot? Does Pilot have a rabies vaccination? Is Pilot on heart worm medication? Dog care is expensive and love alone does not keep a dog healthy.

The lawyer called the police to be present at the exchange of cash for dog. The vet probably demanded cash as payment because there are things called bounced checks and he had no way of knowing that this wasn’t a publicity stunt with a stop payment looming in his future. Since the media was there to take pictures and write the rest of the story the lawyer or Gomez must have contacted them. Why bother with the media unless you want the publicity and are not solely concerned about Pilot’s well being?

Gomez gets his dog back, the good Samaritan makes the news, and the lawyer gets a lot of “free” publicity and the vet is still the “bad” guy.

I believe that there was a lot more to this story that didn’t make the news…sure I feel sorry for Pilot, but I’m sure that the reason that my vet bills are high have something to do with other pet owners walking out on their responsibilities and leaving the rest of us with higher bills as a result. Vets cannot extend payments to everyone, they’d soon go out of business.

It seems like only a few years ago, but I know that it has been longer that my doctor, dentist, and vet did extend payments over time, but now they all ask for payment before you leave. There must be an economic reason for this change in policy…we have a responsibility to pay for services rendered.

There is certainly more than just love, food and water involved in caring for a dog for its entire lifetime. My dog has cost me thousands of dollars in her nine years, but I knew when I agreed to adopt her that for all the good times I’ve enjoyed with her there would be a price to pay for her continued health. Be prepared to pay your bills so responsible owners don’t have to take up the slack.

By rukiddingme

September 24, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

naysayer or fedupwiththemedia, whatever you choose to call yourself, the fact remains that

DR. INNOCENT TOOK OVER $1000 AND WAS STILL GOING TO HAVE THE DOG KILLED.

By rukiddingme

September 24, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

I don’t support deadbeats. This is not about me or the dog owner or you (unless of course your are Dr. Innocent, which it appears your are). My point has only been that you, er I mean…

DR. INNOCENT TOOK A BUNCH OF MONEY FROM THE DOG OWNER BEFORE HE CALLED HIM A DEADBEAT AND THREATENED TO KILL HIS DOG.

By fedupwiththemedia

September 24, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this

I am not naysayer or Dr. Innocent.

Dr. Innocent did not threaten to kill Pilot. He followed the law and held onto Pilot even longer than he legally had to. He indicated that he had the right to turn over Pilot to the Humane Society where Pilot MIGHT be euthanized if the bill was not fully paid.

A whole bunch of money is NOT payment in full in this case. An estimate is not the final bottom line. I am waiting for my computer to be repaired. I was given an estimate over the phone once the problem had been diagnosed. I know that when I go to pick up my computer the bill will not be exactly the amount quoted. I will pay the bill to get my computer back.

The media used the “hostage” word to appeal to our emotions and you bought into the poor me story of Mr. Gomez.

If the initial article was written in the same way as the article above there would have been less outrage at the vet because this article has more balance and presents BOTH sides.

The vet is not blameless, but he is within the law and the same cannot be said for Mr. Gomez.

“I don’t support deadbeats.”

Well, when you don’t fully pay your bills you are a deadbeat. And this article IS about the dog owner…he or his lawyer initiated this media sympathy blitz and gee it worked, at least this time.

There is a difference between what is morally right and what is legally right. Mr. Gomez was not legally right.

By rukiddingme

September 24, 2007 6:27 PM | Link to this

And Dr. Innocent was morally bankrupt.

By fedupwiththemedia

September 24, 2007 8:42 PM | Link to this

In the court of public opinion Dr. Innocent loses big time.

In a legal court Mr. Gomez would lose. The lawyer’s position was that the Georgia law is unconstitutional, but the law is the law until it is challenged and changed. So if the lawyer is really interested in justice and not just interested in publicity…ACT and continue to attempt to change the law. If the lawyer just walks away without taking any action…shame on him.

So in a sense they are both losers…and if this group online leaving their unfair “hostage” holder message to Dr. Innocent doesn’t step up to the legislative plate and attempt to get the Georgia law changed then YOU aren’t ready to “attack” the real reason this situation happened.

By rukiddingme

September 25, 2007 3:18 AM | Link to this

The real reason this happened is because Dr. Innocent is a greedy amoral crook.

DR. INNOCENT, TOOK A BUNCH OF MONEY FROM THE DOG OWNER BEFORE HE CALLED HIM A DEADBEAT AND A JERK AND THREATENED TO KILL HIS DOG.

By fedupwiththemedia

September 25, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this

rukiddingme you persist in calling Dr. Innocent names and yelling out the same old story about the money, but you missed the point of my last post. Make an attempt to change the Georgia law that led to this situation being able to happen in the first place. Take this situation in a positive direction so it can’t happen again or is yelling the only thing you can do? Are you like the lawyer and Mr. Gomez seeking publicity? Will they continue to pursue “justice” or was it just about getting Pilot back?

By rukiddingme

September 25, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

Regardless what the law is, there is such a thing as human decency. If you’re going to kill the dog, have the decency to let the man keep his $1000 dollars. Put a sign up. Tell people you don’t give a damn about the animals, that this is a money transaction, and that you will kill their dog if necessary to protect your interest. I might respect you then.

By fedupwiththemedia

September 25, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this

Pilot was not going to be killed if he ended up going to the shelter the manager of the shelter was going to give the dog back to Mr. Gomez. The $1000 dollars was a PARTIAL payment for services rendered. The vet did save Pilot’s life. There is a sign up at the vet’s that says something to the effect that payment in full is required for services rendered and credit is not extended.

I have never said that the vet had a “good” attitude regarding this whole situation. All businesses should be fully paid for services rendered.

The point of my last post was that the people involved either directly or indirectly on this blog should become proactive in changing the law and get over the bad vet mantra and move on. If you can’t become part of a new solution and you want the last word, so be it. You certainly do not want to listen to anything not involved in disparaging the vet so I’m out of here.

By doinou

September 26, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this

I will never trust Dr. Innocent with my dog again.

By From a current client of Dr Innocent

September 28, 2007 7:27 PM | Link to this

I can hardly read through all of these postings without noticing that not one comment is from a current or previous client of Dr. Innocents. I am. The reason I am & always will be may shock you. Afer all I have read and heard I am even more convinced I will remain a supporter of him and his practice. We adopted a dog through a local pet adoption agency (who are very reputable). In the process it was Dr Innocent who donated his services and boarding to care for and treat this animal until it could be placed. Upon adoption, we continued to utilize Dr Innocent to treat a severe lick granuloma that we inherited with the dog. We were not well aware of the expense we were about to incure upon adoption. We were under the impression that the wound on this dogs leg was a mere “bug sting” that had been licked while left in his cage.
As it turned out, I lick granuloma is much more severe and difficult to treat ( read about it or look up pictures on the web if you like) Throughout the treatment, our dog was treated in the most humane way by Dr. Innocent and his staff. He was upfront about the diagnosis. He was willing to give us several treatment options that ranged and in cost and expected effectiveness.
As the owners, we had the choice to invest in this dogs care or return it to the agency in which we had adopted it from.
We opted to treat the dog and have never regretted it a bit. The treatments went as planned. They cost as much or less as he said they would.
Everyone did win. Of course we paid our bill. Why wouldn’t we. Don’t get me wrong, I am not made of money but lets look at the cost to me. A $150.00 adoption fee that was extremley reasonable considering the dog came with: all vaccination, was neutered, dewormed, heartworm tested, and was chipped. All of these services that I believe were provided by Dr Innocent. A vet bill to treat the lick granuloma that totaled in the end to more than $1200. All equaled a healthy dog who is member of our family.
Since I chose to keep the dog and incure the cost of his care, should I have been angry at the adoption agency? Should I have called the newspaper and said they lied to me. I don’t think so. I can not believe that Dr Innocent would in any way be cruel to an animal with our experiences with him. We drive over 50 miles to use his clinic and will continue to do so.