Pdsa

[sea-sidelady]

I have recently acquired a dog. Lovely thing. A giant Jack Russell. He is about 19". Odd thing. :grin: But cute.

 

Anyhow I was told I could get help with vet fees through the PDSA. I filled the forms, got the £5 postal order, only to be told by the receptionist the PDSA wont help as he has an allergy in his feet. Which he has a spray for.

 

Does anyone know any restrictions PDSA impose on an application?

 

Vets wanted to charge me £300 - £400 for allergy tests...

 

And that's only the start!!!

[slick132]

Hi SSL,

 

Did you acquire the dog privately or through a dog home charity.

 

If the latter, have you approached them to seek help with fees, or to see if they would have checks done through their usual vet.

 

How old is the new dog.

[Jan4a]

Have you tried Blue Cross? I've noticed people have said they've helped them with vets fees if you have to go that route.

[sea-sidelady]

I got him privately. I have spoken to the previous owner who says this is a load of rubbish. He has never had allergies. And was seen by a vet 3 weeks ago for his spray. And given a clean bill of health. I do trust the owner as it is a close friend of mine.

 

We have worked things out concerning the dog. But I am still curious about the PDSA thing

[hightail]

I think vets can sometimes be a bit too keen on expensive testing nowadays. It's the explosion in pet insurance that has caused the shift in thinking. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the PDSA will want to ensure its limited funds are used carefully. It could pay out for expensive allergy testing only to find the spray you have is the correct treatment. The testing in itself is not going to make any difference to the length or quality of your dog's life.

 

And was seen by a vet 3 weeks ago for his spray. And given a clean bill of health.

Was he prescribed a spray for an allergic reaction on his feet or was he given a clean bill of health? There's plenty you can do yourself to find out what's causing the problem before paying out for expensive tests if you can start to narrow down where the problem arose.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Sea-Sidelady

just wondered...What exactly is in the spray and what are the symptoms/signs on his feet? Eg dry, scaly, red/weepy / itchy etc

Is it on pads or between toes or on upper surface of paws? Red staining?

Also, is there any fusty or sickly smell? Is he constantly licking?

Elsa x

[sea-sidelady]

Was he prescribed a spray for an allergic reaction on his feet or was he given a clean bill of health?

 

The vet said he was irritating it by licking it, but apart from that he was ok. Sorry I didn't mean to sound like I was contradicting myself.

 

just wondered...What exactly is in the spray and what are the symptoms/signs on his feet? Eg dry, scaly, red/weepy / itchy etc

Is it on pads or between toes or on upper surface of paws? Red staining?

Also, is there any fusty or sickly smell? Is he constantly licking?

Elsa x

 

He licks between his toes. There is no smell or weeping, in fact none of those you asked.

 

He apparently has never liked his feet being touched, even when he was a puppy. The only thing you can notice is the fur between his toes is slightly reddish from the licking.

My Westie goes the same colour when she has been playing in puddles.

 

The spray given is Cortavance

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Seaside-lady,

Ahhh ok..its a steroid spray then. Doesn't sound as if there's any underlying fungal infection etc

You could perhaps, as Hightail suggests, do your own detective work on the allergy but maybe he's just got into the habit.

[sea-sidelady]

I didn't think it was that bad. I will look into it further on my own.

 

It just annoyed my with the receptionist saying the dog wasn't entitled due to this.

 

Thank you both.

[jackieandwayne]

Could be no more than a habit which is now a comfort to him - you've just acquired him, he's in a strange place, and is comforting himself by licking his feet, which creates a vicious circle. How old is he? Have you tried to distract him by treats when you catch him doing this? Has he plenty of chewable toys on hand to distract him from his feet? If I'm right, this is a bugger to cure as quite simply, he likes licking his feet which causes problems!

[sea-sidelady]

He has more toys, chews and treats than any dog I know. He is used to being here, as he used to visit a lot before. This is why I have got him, because he knows me so well. He is 3. And still sees his previous owner a lot, so there is no stress for him.

 

In other words he is a spoilt mut!!

[hightail]

He could have an allergy. Some allergies do manifest themselves specific to the allegen eg obvious skin problems with a flea allergy or around the mouth if the dog reacts to a plastic bowl. Others, for some reason, cause the most obvious problems in the dog's feet. The vet wasn't being completely ridiculous in suggesting the tests - just a bit quick. As you know the previous owner well and this problem was not apparent before you took the dog in, why not get together and work out the differences between the two homes to see if you can eradicate the cause of the problem.

[jack1966]

just to add your huge jack russell is probably a parsons jack russell

[sea-sidelady]

just to add your huge jack russell is probably a parsons jack russell

 

I just found this out. Explains a lot. He still looks odd though if you ask me.

 

He is so good natured. He even shares our home with a rat!! But George (rat) was here first so is the boss.

[sea-sidelady]

Oh forgot to mention, I'm entitled to PDSA for the rat, but not the dog

[slick132]

Haha, that's bonkers !!

 

How on earth do you get a Jack Russell, or Parsons, to NOT eat George.

 

 

 

[sea-sidelady]

I have a note I put on the door when George is playing out.

 

" Do not open the door as Dave will eat George!"

 

I get loads of funny looks when people come here :lol:

[moomintrog1]

Firstly - only one animal per household can be a member of the PDSA PetAid scheme and, secondly - it is not something you are ENTITLED to!!! The PDSA is a CHARITY which relies on public donations. Peoples' sense of entitlement to free veterinary care for their animals infuriates me!!! If you cannot afford to care for an animal then it is irresponsible to buy one!!! And the veterinary receptionist was quite right - why should someone else take on the burden of paying for your animal? You are the owner - YOU PAY!!!!

[gemspan]

Erm....no Moomintrog1. You are quite wrong! The PDSA is there to help people who cannot afford to go to a commercial vet. That is why it was formed and if you fall into the entitlement bracket then you are entitled to use it. The dog should not be refused because it has an ongoing condition. What happens to people who go there first off with a sick dog? They fill out the forms and the dog is treated. I have only ever had to use the services of the PDSA once in my life and I found them to be fantastic - the vets that is. The receptionists are shocking! If you fit the criteria then you should be able to get your dog checked and receive treatment. There are plenty of people out there who need to use this service and I, for one, do not begrudge them this. I have given generously to the PDSA over the years and therefore feel I have a right to say that the reason I give is so that people who may not be able to afford the extortionate vet fees can still have a pet. Nothing wrong with that!

 

I would suggest that you rinse Dave's paws in salty water when he comes in from a walk. This could be something as simple as the type of cleaning fluid you are using to clean your floors. It doesnt sound serious or it would be all over his body. This is a lame excuse for the PDSA receptionist to give. The recent introduction of only accepting one pedigree dog per household - but allowing crossbreeds in addition to the pedigree dog confirms your comments are wrong.

 

If you fit the criteria then fight it all the way and only clean your floors with a solution of white vinegar and water to see if that helps. Sheesh......some people...good luck wth your new pet.

 

Gemspan

[moomintrog1]

Hey Gemspan!

 

I suppose what this boils down to is the issue of responsibility.

 

So lets look at it another way. What if there was no such thing as the NHS and someone wanted to have a child? Knowing that the child would need to have vaccinations to protect them from illness and disease (would have to be paid for - no NHS remember), knowing that each time the child needed to see a doctor a consutation fee would be payable plus the cost of any medication, that if the child needed to see a specialist, spend time in hospital etc etc - do you think it would be a responsible thing to do to go ahead and concieve that child if you do not have the means to A) Prevent the preventable or B) treat the treatable?? NO!!!

 

I think that the PDSA is a fantastic charity. And no one likes the thought of any animal suffering if there is any way to prevent/help it. Its great for the likes of an elderly person, for example, who keeps a pet for companionship. But more and more we are seeing people spending hundreds of pounds on 'designer' animals and then claiming that they cannot afford to vaccinate, flea, worm - these are the very basics of owning and caring for an animal. If they know this before they purchase that pet, and the animal falls ill - then whose responsibility should it be to pay the ''extortionate vet fees'' that result from this?? And the rule of only covering one pet per household is quite right!! Going back to what I said earlier, we would not have so many irresponsible people having numerous children they cannot support if the government applied something similar! It is the sense of 'entitlement' to an income and health services paid for by other people that encourages them on to breed as they please without thought or consequence.

 

The receptionist referred to in the original post should not be getting slated for doing her job! It may be an idea to familiarise yourself with the PDSA guidelines before accusing her of making ''lame excuses''. I think, from reading the original post, that this lady did not attend a PDSA hospital but applied to become a member of the PDSA through a local PDSA affiliated veterinary practice. And almost all of these practices specify in their own practice policies that any animal who presents with a pre existing condition should have that condition treated, at the owners expense, before being considered for PDSA membership.

 

As people so often have to be reminded, the PDSA is a CHARITY - over stretched and under stress, funds are very limited and their vets are paid the same as the ''extortionate commercial vets''. You know - the same ones who provide free consults and discounted medicines to practice PDSA members and absorb much of the costs themselves!!!

 

And lastly, I encourage anyone and everyone to give as generously as they can to the PDSA charitable fund. I'm sure Mrs Smith will greatly appreciate it as she leaves her local ''extortionate commercial vets'' practice with her unvaccinated £2000 bulldog after a free consultation, with £150 worth of medication in her handbag - and without leaving a penny donation to the PDSA or a word of thanks. Well, she is entitled!!!!

[gemspan]

Hi moomintrog

 

Firstly, I do agree that I didn't realise she went to her local vet. In that case then you are only entitled to one pet per household. A PDSA hospital is different. Therefore the dog would not be treated as there is already an animal on the PDSA scheme. I apologise for missing that.

 

The PDSA was first set up to help people who were poor - in the days when there was no health service etc., - and it was for that specific reason.

 

I agree that people should not go out and buy expensive animals and then except the PDSA to care for them but as long as you are receiving council tax benefit or housing benefit then you are covered by their scheme. It's not great but they have to have criteria. As far as I am aware the PDSA only treats illness....it doesnt do vaccinations, worming, speying etc., It will only treat an illness.

While I do agree with your sentiment about people who can't afford to keep animal shouldnt have one, what about people who fall on hard times; lose their job or become ill? Should they have to give up their pets; sometimes their only company ? There has to be criteria and if these people fit that criteria then, like it or not, they are entitled to the services of the PDSA.

 

Sadly we live in a throwaway society nowadays and there are far too many people breeding dogs, cats, rabbits etc., without a thought of who they are selling to. The rescues are full to overflowing and thousands of animals are being killed each year through not having enough homes for them. If we got rid of the PDSA that would sky-rocket even more.

 

I do see where you are coming from - and you're not wrong - but by changing the laws and changing the PDSA rules you are always going to include the people who don't abuse the system too.

 

I had to use the PDSA once and my own practice operates as a PDSA local vet so I do apologise for not reading the current thread properly - my fault entirely. My vet is fantastic but on several occasions, as a paying client, I have been talked to in a very unprofessional manner by the receptionists - a bit like some doctor's receptionists....lol

 

The PDSA came under huge criticism lately for changing their rules to only include one pedigree dog in their criteria for treatment. Furore broke out with all the people who owned multiple pedigree dogs. I can understand the reasons why they changed their policy because of all the bad breeding around. Purchasers should always remember though that they have the right of redress through the courts if they buy a sick puppy.

 

It's a no win situation I'm afraid. We do live in a country where people feel they have an entitlement to benefits of every kind and, yes, you are right the PDSA is a charity. With unemployment now at the highest its been fro 17 years there will be more and more people stretching the resources of the PDSA and benefits system through no fault of their own.

 

Where do we start to make changes?

 

So I do apologise for not reading the post correctly. I did think it was a PDSA hospital but you are quite right that only one animal per household is allowed to be registered via a veterinary practice. When I'm wrong I'm not afraid to say sorry! xx

 

Gemspan x

[moomintrog1]

Hey Gemspan!

 

You're right - where would we start?! There's no question that the PDSA is a good thing - a great thing and I hope it will be around for long and weary because there's definitly a place and a need for it in our society.

 

The pedigree thing - some practices now refuse to cover expensive pure breeds. The train of thought is that if you can afford to buy it, you can afford to keep it. Of course, if someone buys an animal and then falls on hard times that changes things. Which is why each case is (as far as I am aware) is considered individually (eg, it could also be that the animal was a pedigree rehomed through a rescue centre or organisation). Another reason for this is that many many people were breeding from these animals and making considerable amounts of money selling pups and kittens - while expecting the PDSA to cover the cost of mis-matings, cesarian sections and post partum problems. I personally think that a ban on pedigrees is a good thing as it encourages more people to think about adopting one of the many animals who, as you rightly pointed out, are waiting for loving homes in rescue centres.

 

A lot of people are quite annoyed that the PDSA does not cover vaccs etc! And this is where I get angry at times because those people don't vaccinate, knowing the risks, but thinking 'well, if the dog gets ill the PDSA will fix it' !! And youre right, they do mainly cover illness but will also help out if the animal has an accident and is injured.

 

You don't have to look far into neighbouring countires to see what happens to animals where this type of scheme is not available to owners so it would be awful to lose such a valuable scheme and I hope it doesn't happen. So long as people such as yourself continue to generously support the service

they will surely survive!

 

If they are looking for ideas on how to change the PDSA - they could always ask us! Lol!!!

 

And we've all encountered the receptionist who should just have stayed in bed that day!! Ha ha!

 

Happy Christmas! Moomintrog1 xx

[gemspan]

My dad used to have a landscaping business before he retired and he had a contract to look after the grounds of a PDSA hospital. He used to tell me tales of the people driving into the car park in their BMWs etc., and going in there and giving nothing towards a donation. I think if they restricted it to only one animal per household more needy people would be able to benefit. Perhaps stretch the rules a bit for the elderly....

 

I have to say that when I have used the PDSA I probably ended up giving a donation equivalent to the amount of a consultation anyway so probably didn't really cost them anything.

 

I always grew up with a family dog that was a crossbreed....and always a rescue. I then went on to own rescue dogs myself - as well as rescue cats. Its only in recent years that I've dipped my toes into a pedigree breed and paid a substantial sum for my chosen dog. That said, I still have rescue dogs too and would desperately love to give another needy dog a home but I know my limits and now is not the time. I have fostered recently which was very rewarding but it was so difficult to part with her when a perfect home came up.

 

Too many people now are able to buy pets on a whim and the only losers are the pets. Very sad. I think the PDSA do a fantastic job and for the needy they are a godsend. I've noticed vet fees sky rocketing in the past few years and its becoming even more expensive to own a pet.

 

Last night there was a report on the One Show on how some pet insurance companies are pulling out because of all the claims and it not being profitable. Even when you do your best by your animals you get shot in the foot at every turn nowadays.

 

that said, I would go without myself to make sure my pets were happy and well cared for but other people don't seem to take the responsibility so seriously.

 

Gemspan xxx

[ellie1997]

From my POV...

 

My other half has always worked, I've stayed at home and raised our kids and gained a degree at the same time. Just as I finished Uni he was made redundant. He's never been out of work since the day he left school and his redundancy came from a job he had been in for 14 years. It was one heck of a shock. Fortunately we had mortgage protection in place so the major worries were dealt with.

 

We have 2 dogs, an ageing 11 year old Westie and a rather energetic 9 year old Scottish Terror, neither of which were practical to insure at their ages, even if they had been insured at that point all non essential expenditure needed to stop. Within weeks of him losing his job it became apparent our Scottie was very very sick. The PDSA were amazing, we seemed to be there 2 or 3 times a week and each time would try and donate at least £20. Without going into the weeks of tests and treatments and culminating operation I will tell you that they saved his life. He had a very serious liver condition and though his prognosis is still very guarded the dog we were warned wouldn't last a week back in August 2011 is currently sat here next to me happily snoring.

 

My observations from those few weeks had me fuming. I lost count of the number of people who would walk in showing off Shih Tzu Pups, Bull dog pups, boxer pups etc. Each time I'd question why on earth would you buy an animal knowing full well you cannot afford to offer it basic medical care without assistance? The amount of people who would come to the counter demanding treatment as if it were a right rather than a privilege and the amount of people who would throw a few coppers on the counter then head outside into new cars.

 

Receptionists could range from the lovely to the downright patronising. Some of them really did look down on you and make you feel small.

 

The Pedigree issue is tricky though, I did consider what we would do should our other dog become sick, we couldn't have afforded his treatment yet here we were using the PDSA for the first time ever under genuine circumstances, yet they could in theory let us down because we had 2 pedigree dogs who had been loved and looked after all their lives until our life was turned upside down. I do think the blanket policy of 'only 1 pedigree dog' needs to have some leeway, perhaps looking at each case individually rather than excluding people in genuine need.

 

Anyway, we had a happy ending, other half found a new job, our little Scottish Terror is still reasonably well and we try and donate to the PDSA whenever we can in an attempt to pay back the enormous amount we owe them.

[gemspan]

What a lovely post Ellie. I'm so delighted that your dog now is recovering and its all down to the PDSA. I think people do forget that it is a charity and I too feel that people shouldnt buy pets if they can't afford to keep them. Its a sad fact of the world we live in though.

 

I'm delighted that things have turned around for you and that you found help for your dog in your hour of need.

 

A very uplifting story and written with such passion. thank you

 

Gemspan