Hello.

A friend of mine recently bought a bichon frise (aged 8 weeks). They noticed that the dog was crying all the time, and the first day or two they thought it was him settling in and he was missing his mother/father.

They took him to the vets however, 4 days after purchase to find poor little Alfie might have meningitis.
It was stated that if left Alfie would die, and that he MIGHT pull through if operated upon.

They kept him in over night and did an operation (cost around £1,000), in which they removed a hernia.

Alfie wakes up from the operation, only to find out he may have a shunt in his liver.

Currently been told that they are going to give Alfie a set diet and antibiotics, and if that doesn't work, the best chance of his survival is a second operation.

These people love the life out of that dog, its filled some voids in their life that they had, and they don't want to see a young puppies life come to a sad end, and so are detirmined to do everything they can to make sure Alfie is okay and pulls through

Is the breeder liable (as the illness was inhibited in the puppy already) for the vetenary costs and a refund for the cost of their dog?

Did the new owners of the puppy get the free Kennel Club insurance? All of my last litter were vet checked a day before they went to their new homes and I as the breeder activated the free 4 week insurance for each pup before it went with it's new owners. I asked (and mentioned it again when speaking to each owner on the phone afterwards) what their plans were for insurance, and as far as I'm aware, they all purchased insurance when the 4 weeks ran out.

Very sad situation, I hope the pup will be alright. My advice would be to speak to the breeder and see what he/she says.

Good luck.

They took him to the vets however, 4 days after purchase to find poor little Alfie might have meningitis.
It was stated that if left Alfie would die, and that he MIGHT pull through if operated upon.

They kept him in over night and did an operation (cost around £1,000), in which they removed a hernia.

Why did they do the hernia operation? The hernia will surely not have had anything to do with it, and to carry out surgery on an already seriously ill pup sounds like pure madness to me. (As does the vet's fees!!) Most hernias are safe to be left alone as they will fuse by the time the pup is around 6 months old.

I'd never heard of meningitis in dogs, but Googled it and foound this, which claims it isn't infectious and the cause is unknown:
http://www.vetbase.co.uk/information/meningitis-dogs.php

Is the breeder liable (as the illness was inhibited in the puppy already) for the vetenary costs and a refund for the cost of their dog?

Was the puppy unwell when they collected it? What did the breeder say when they contacted them? Good breeders sell their pups already insured (it's free both from the Kennel Club and Pet Plan, so absolutely no reason whatsoever to not activate it for each pup that is sold) and unless the pup showed symptoms before being collected, the insurance should be valid straight away for 4 weeks. Legally, if it is a normal breeder that breeds and shows  as a hobby, then they are not liable for any expenses unless they knew the pup was ill when they sold it. (Have a look at http://www.doglaw.co.uk ) However if it was a commercial breeder, then they would be. MORALLY, I think any good breeder would feel awful about what's happened and would want to know as much as possible (to ensure it never happens again) and if the pup doesn't make it, give them another (which of course could be easier said than done as good breeder may go years between litters, so there may not be another.) This again though is why we all make sure our pups are insured when they are sold -it's peace of mind for both breeder and buyer.

The big question is, where did this puppy come from? It kind of gives the impression it was not a responsible breeder, but at the same time I wonder a lot about the hernia operation and "may" have liver shunt -is the vet assuming too much here? If I was the breeder, the very first thing I'd do would be to ask the buyers to give their vet permission to speak to my vet so my vet could get all the details (and all test results) and find out exactly what is what.

Is the breeder a KC Accredited Breeder and if so did they complete the recommended puppy sales contract

Not sure the breeder would be liable in law as they may have done all things they could and the pup could have developed symptoms after it left them. Although a good breeder would consider themselves morally responsible but they would want to know from the very start of the problem what was going on not after a vet had performed (strange) operations on the puppy.

I am puzzled by the vets behaviour why would anyone do an unnecessary operation on a tiny sick puppy and then suggest it may have an additional problem although as far as I can see there was no reason to come to this conclusion.

I know of a dog that had meningitis who has survived through it, its not hereditary nor is it catching.

Is the Bichon know to be a breed that suffers from Liver Shunt? If so then the whole litter should of been tested.. All depends on the type of breeder this pup was purchased from..

I find this very strange, all these problems aren't even related to each other, they must have signed a consent form for surgery so what surgery was planned?

Routine blood tests would show up liver problems[I have first hand experience of a pup with a liver shunt,full story on my website] but a more extensive test would need to be done, the pup would be fasted, blood taken and the pup given a high protein meal and after a delay more bloods taken and compared with the normal levels, the pup should then be referred to a specialist who will do a scan, the full extent of the problem may not show up till the pup is being operated on, the operation entails putting a clip on the blood vessel which has allowed the blood to bypass the liver, this clip closes down over 6-8 weeks forcing the blood to flow through the correct vessels, there are 4 possible outcomes from this condition, do nothing and the pup dies, operate and the pup dies because the unused vessels won't allow blood to flow through them, operate and the dog has to remain on a special diet for life and the best outcome,operate, special diet till bloods return to normal and then a low protein diet for life with a normal life expectancy. In our case all the investigations,operations and follow ups came to just under £5000,luckily she was insurred and we got the best outcome.

As has already been said a hernia isn't normally emergency surgery,to make it so the dogs bowel would be protruding through a gap in the abdominal wall and surely no breeder would sell a pup in that condition as it would have been present at birth and may cause gangrene if the bowel gets twisted, it would also be obvious to the puppy buyer when they picked the pup up from the breeders.

Why was it thought meningitis was involved? Was it because the puppy had a high pitched cry? That symptom could also happen in hydrocephalus causing raised intracranial pressure, a tell tale sign is the "setting sun" look to the eyes where the coloured part of the eye has partially disappeared due to pressure from the brain above.

As to the breeder taking responsibility it will depend on whether any of these conditions were present at the time of sale and the breeder knew, had the pup been health checked by a vet just prior to being sold and would any insurance be null and void because the pup was already ill before the insurance was taken out.

I truly hope that this pup gets better soon, due to all the conflicting conditions mentioned I would be tempted to get a second opinion at a different surgery.

Somethings the vet has said don't quite add up. I hope they are not fresh out of school with the cut and see approach.

Samg What is the latest on this pup?

TBH your friend should have discussed this pups diangonses every step of the way with the breeder, if they haven't that is a problem they really can't go ahead with operations and spending £1,000 and expect the breeder just to cough up on this vets say so, they certainly are not legally obliged to do so unless agreed prior to an operation. So there is no recompense from the breeder.

If this were a pup of mine and diagnosed with all these 'problems' regardless of insurance being to hand or not, I would ask for it back after all it was only 4 days owned by them, they should have returned it and under the trading standards act they were at this point entitled to have a full refund, though a responsible breeder would have done so automatically.

On the flip-side there are plenty of breeders out there breeding from unchecked dams and sires who know little about breeding and the health checks needed, so if they are producing sick puppies then trading standards need to be contacted along with the kennel club, if the pup is registered at all? As already said depending on whether they have gone to a responsible breeder or not often makes the difference to what quality pup and service from the breeder you get.

What your friends should have done is return the pup immediately for a full refund, not pay out through insurance or otherwise £1,000 sorry but are they mad!!! If they are silly enough to do that then on their heads be it I'm afraid. They cannot now go asking the breeder good or bad to pay out for things they have taken full responsibility for, the moment they agreed to operate and spend this sort of money it is out of the breeders hands.

A responsible breeder should have been in the middle of all of this and the question you ask should never arise, therefore I take it the pup has not come from a good source in which case they should never have bought a pup from them in the first place and certainly not kept it, after just 4 days they should have used their common sense.

I'm sorry for your friend and sorrier for the pup going through ops, so young, I hope that the diagnoses are correct and not a vet jumping the gun, to me the vet is lining their pockets and taking your friend on a jolly good ride, but that is just my opinion as it all sounds so implausible.

Yes, of course the pup is filling a hole and much loved by them, but any pup would have done this, researching for a good breeder could have saved all this heartache and expense. They should not have paid out for anything without discussing first with the breeder, sorry, but it is too late now to think of that.

A seller ie the breeder is liable if they sell a puppy that is defective.  This is under Section 13 of the SOGA 1979.  Buying a puppy is the same as buying a fridge/freezer in that you have consumer rights after purchase.  Even if a breeder carries out all the health screening required for their breed, if they sell a puppy that is defective they are still liable to either refund the purchase price on return of the puppy or pay to have the puppy's defect fixed - if that is possible!  If a breeder points out the defect and reduces the price accordingly then their liability ends at that point in time.  If a defect arises that is different from the defect pointed out to the purchaser then the breeder is liable.

If a vet is charging £1000 for a hernia op, however, then the puppy owners would have to verify that this is the "going rate" for the surgery.  I suspect that this isn't the best type of breeder to have bought a puppy from but purchasers are entitled to redress under the SOGA 1979 whether they buy from a good breeder or a bad breeder.  It's all stated very clearly in SOGA  1979.

Anybody who breeds more than one litter is a breeder/trader (even breeding just one litter does not absolve the breeder from their obligations under consumer legislation) and therefore even if you did everything possible to protect yourself from producing any health defects in your puppies, you will still be liable UNLESS you point out the defect prior to purchase..and you have reduced the price accordingly.

The buyer can take a breeder to the small claims court if the breeder refuses to pay for any "repair" to correct the defect.  The purchaser does not have to return the puppy under SOGA 1979 but is entitled to do so.  If they want to keep the puppy then they can seek reasonable damages ie the cost of ops to put it right.

Also, under SOGA 1979 a condition is deemed to have been present at purchase if it arises within the first 6 months following sale.  A purchaser also has 6 years (5 years in Scotland) to bring an action to court.  While it is courteous to advise the seller prior to surgery or treatment being carried out...there is no obligation on the part of the purchaser to do so - and especially not if it's an emergency situation (which of course a hernia op isn't).  In Court the judge would take the evidence of the veterinary surgeon as being above that of a seller.

I'm sorry that this has happened but I do suggest that breeders read up on Consumer Law as it's very pertinent when breeding puppies.  It's not only bad breeders that can be sued for selling defective goods ie puppies....very good breeders can be sued too.  It's reasonable to expect that a puppy when purchased is fit for purpose ie healthy.  That's the law unfortunately.  The law has to, and does, account for every eventuality and cannot differentiate from volume breeders, BYBs or hobby/show breeders.

Surely the sellers financial liability should not exceed the purchase price of the item? 

I know if I bought and item like a washing machine they would replace or refund if it cost more to fix it.

Same goes with Car Insurance, they will 'write off' if it costs too much to fix.

Because of the emotional attachment to a pet this is why a buyer must really make sure they buy carefully and if pup proves unhealthy within a reasonable time frame on vets inspection return it.

Puppy Farmers count on the attachment factor knowing that often the new owner will not want to return the 'faulty goods'.

Also a puppy is still an unfinished product when sold and it's future development affected by it's ongoing treatment.  A living entity cannot be guaranteed in the same way as an inanimate object, there are too many variables, of which many will be beyond the breeder/sellers control.

There does apear to be a difference re teh sale of goods act in whether the person selling was selling as part of carrying on a business, which will not be the case of most hobby driven reputable breeders:

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/animal-law/sale-of-defective-dog.htm

".....As a general rule the principle "caveat emptor" ("let the buyer beware") applies to the sale of animals and, therefore, the buyer will ordinarily be responsible for checking the suitability of a dog before purchasing it. 

Where a seller sells animals in the course of a business and if an animal is sold for a particular purpose and that purpose is made known to the seller before the agreement was made and the buyer relied on the skill and judgment of the seller, then it will be an implied term of the agreement that the animal was reasonably fit for that purpose....."

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/animal-law/law-relating-to-the-sale-of-dogs.htm

reply to sick puppy help

In this case there is no prof that the puppy was sick when it left the breeder, there is no prof as to why the vet has diagnosed the problems without tests or why the pup was operated on, we just do not have the information that would tell us one way or the other.

One of the supposed problems is not contagious or hereditary so it is difficult to blame anyone for that.

One of the others requires tests that it would seem there has not been time to do.

A  hernia in a young pup is not normally thought a problem that requires intervention or even treatment.

If and when we have more information we may be able to answer the OPs question but as it is who knows, could be a figment of the vets imagination.

Can you give an update on pup and also try and reply to some of the questions raised in the responses as I too find it hard to understand why surgery is necessary for meningitis - surely it's a serious condition and should be stabilised before treatment of other issues, ie hernia are tackled , unless life threatening of course, should have been left until pup was fit and well.

Whist lots of the info given by "sick puppy help" is pertinent, it has to be remembered that precedents are not sent in  Small Claims court, and each case is heard on it's merits, the judges own views have a very great effect on the conduct of each case and the outcome.  I have read of cases involving pups with problems being found against the breeder and costs of vet. care plus substantial amounts for upset etc being awarded, and of others where only the vet fees are awarded.  Again, a judge may take into account health tests and careful breeding practices where a previously unexpected condition occurs in a pup, and others have had trouble grasping how much ongoing treatment and care by the purchaser can affect some conditions.  Very little, if it comes to litigation, is cut and dried.

>Also, under SOGA 1979 a condition is deemed to have been present at purchase if it arises within the first 6 months following sale.

That's ridiculous - I can't think of any judge who'd uphold a claim against a breeder for a puppy contracting an illness so long after sale, when most incubation periods are a matter of days. Please would you provide a link to the actual law that states this?

Also there's a difference between buying an animal from a 'hobby' breeder, where the SOGA does not apply, or a commercial breeder, where it does.

> That's ridiculous - I can't think of any judge who'd uphold a claim against a breeder for a puppy contracting an illness so long after sale, when most incubation periods are a matter of days. Please would you provide a link to the actual law that states this?<br />

Sick Puppy Help is quite correct on this point - the SOGA was amended to include this 6 months presumption a few years ago and will apply to purchases of puppies the same as to other consumer goods (where the seller is selling in the course of a business).

Taken from Which's website as I don't have time to go through the actual SOGA legislation:

Six months...and counting
If your claim is about a problem that arises within six months of buying the product, it's up to the retailer to prove that the goods were of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, or 'as described' when it sold them e.g. by showing that the problem was caused by an external factor such as accidental damage. Beyond six months, it's up to you to prove that the problem was there when you received the goods even if it has taken until now to come to light.

Many puppy contracts state that the pup has to be seen by a vet within 72hrs of sale and any problems discussed with the breeder, hereditary problems are covered for 12 months, the breeder can't be responsible for every condition that may arise after the initial vet check, infections, accidents and poor diet could cause problems that have nothing to do with the breeder.

I think being allowed 6 yrs to make a claim is too long, how do you prove the condition of the dog at that age has anything to do with it's condition as a small pup.

I wish the OP would come back and update us and answer any queries.

I suppose it would be sensible for every puppy to be checked by the breeder's vet, and issued with a note stating it was healthy at the time of examination (costs to be added to the puppy price), which would legally cover the breeder regarding illness.

I have never done it, preferring that new owners have their own vet assess pups fitness, but I am thinking it is going to have to be part of future litters.  At least I now have an OH so access to a car.  In my case the report can also include positive Identification of the puppy as I have mien ear tattooed.

From a breeders point of view where it is rare for all pups to be homed within the same week, how is it best to handle it.

Take the whole litter for inspection at 7 1/2 weeks, or take each pup in a day or so before the new owners gave arranged to collect, bearing in mind this can often not give you a lot of notice and several vet visits will be more expensive than just one. 

All additional costs which to be fair will need to be passed onto the buyer, and as a buyer I would want my own vets independent assessment too. 

What happens if the two vets disagree, which we have found happens here on the forum, breeders vet pronounces pups fit and well, new owners vet finds 'something'.

Golly doesn't this part of our hobby get more and more complex.  I bought my foundation bitch with simply a receipt.

By the time I bred my first litter there had been a case of a good breeder who hip scored for generations being held liable for a pup with HD as the owners didn't know it was a possibility (no contract), so thought it best to put a puppy contract in place stating I had tested and done my best but nature would have ti's way.  This has evolved over the years with extra clarifications as experience has dictated, explaining endorsements, if and when they may be lifted, re-homing etc, still managing to keep it to two sides of A4 (though the font size has reduced).  Additional more detailed care notes are separate.

> I wish the OP would come back and update us and answer any queries.

With the improbable scenario of so many differing conditions becoming apparent so soon after purchase and the poster not getting back to us it does make me wonder if the post is genuine, or a fishing expedition to get board members opinions for some other reason???

Posts and responses on this forum are often used as article fodder for doggy journalists. 

Anyone remember the non story of whisker removal etc.  I can just see an article, 'breeders want to shirk responsibilities for doggy and owner misery'.

Or have I been hanging out her so long that I have become cynical????

I presume that this wasn't a real scenario.  I very much doubt that a vet would carry out such an operation on a dog so ill with meningitis.  Even more doubtful as the poster has never come back.  Surely if it had so many problems that the new owner would have noticed?

Sick Puppy Help is quite correct on this point - the SOGA was amended to include this 6 months presumption a few years ago and will apply to purchases of puppies the same as to other consumer goods (where the seller is selling in the course of a business).

Commercial breeders being the point in question -like I pointed out right at the beginning of this thread. That basically just leaves puppy farmers and pet shops, not the rest of us.

Anyone remember the non story of whisker removal etc.  I can just see an article, 'breeders want to shirk responsibilities for doggy and owner misery'.

No I can see that too.

But what is the definition of commercial breeder?  Is it those which require a LA license?  If so, then depending upon where you live it could cover a lot of us e.g my LA require you to have a license if you have more than 2 bitches of breeding age....doesn't matter if you only breed every 2 yrs or whatever.

Goodness, it is very muddy .....:-(

> Commercial breeders being the point in question -like I pointed out right at the beginning of this thread. That basically just leaves puppy farmers and pet shops, not the rest of us.

In theory yes, but in practice, it often seems to depend on the whim of the Small Claims Court Judge/Adjudicator - I know personally of two cases involving small hobby breeders who were found liable under SOGA (a pattern of regular breeding, even if only one or two litters a year, was enough to constitute "a part-time business"). As Gwen says, no precedents are set by Small Claims Courts so cases don't get reported and are usually not appealed due to the costs involved.

Hi Brainless I would also question if the OP is genuine as occasionally happens on the forum.

I think people who ask questions and do not return must have an ulterior motive, you would return even it is it is to say thanks or as some do to slate us.

With reference to puppies and the length of time the breeder is responsible falls apart unless the pup is identified before leaving the breeder and the purchaser confirms that the identification does indeed belong to the pup concerned else how can anyone know if the dog that has proved unfit for purpose is the dog a particular breeder sold.

> how can anyone know if the dog that has proved unfit for purpose is the dog a particular breeder sold.

DNA testing.

DNA testing.   Is that not permanent  identification.

> Is that not permanent&nbsp; identification.

DNA could be used to establish the puppy is the offspring of the breeders bitch if a court was faced with a quibble about it being a switch.

If the breeder still had the bitch and the purchaser had proof that they bought a pup from that particular bitch.

My new vet gives my pups a very thorough check over at 8 or 9 weeks when they get their first vac. and the whole process repeated at 12 weeks at the time of second vac, the details of each goes into a booklet for each pup to take home with them.

I realise it is all too common for the OP to not return to answer questions or update us which I see as rude, many members have taken the time to answer and request clarity but the latter has not been forth coming, just as well we don't treat all such threads as a waste of time replying to or the forums reputation would soon go down the swannee.

"I suppose it would be sensible for every puppy to be checked by the breeder's vet, and issued with a note stating it was healthy at the time of examination (costs to be added to the puppy price), which would legally cover the breeder regarding illness."

This is exactly what I do. I have devised my own puppy health certificate which my vet signs and dates, stating that pup was found to be in good health and so deemed fit for his/her new home. There is the option for my vet to leave a comment if applicable. My vet charges me nothing extra for this !

I quite like that idea as it doesn't require the vet to draft anything, they just confirm. 

Might ask my vets advise what to include on a proforma, would expect heart, l ears eyes general condition, and probably presence of umbilical hernias, and entirety would be part of the exam.

It still leaves the problem of timing of the vet checks. 

My pups may leave me at anything from 7 1/2 to maybe 12 weeks or on occasion later.

With the improbable scenario of so many differing conditions becoming apparent so soon after purchase and the poster not getting back to us it does make me wonder if the post is genuine, or a fishing expedition to get board members opinions for some other reason???

Posts and responses on this forum are often used as article fodder for doggy journalists.

Anyone remember the non story of whisker removal etc.  I can just see an article, 'breeders want to shirk responsibilities for doggy and owner misery'.

Or have I been hanging out her so long that I have become cynical????
Barbara and the Grey Curly Tails.

B,

I think you are spot on. A put up job. Watch out for the article folks- in the build up to Crufts.

I've always taken my pups for a vet check before they go.

Both litters I've had the pups have been checked by my vet a few days before leaving.  This litter the leaving has been spread out which meant that they've been checked at different times, so it's cost me a bit more.  I haven't passed that cost on to the buyer.  I feel it's my duty if I'm sending them home with a pup I am 'guaranteeing' is healthy, that it means it's been vet checked.  I can't remember what I did last litter, but this litter I have a health sheet that I've made with all their wormings/flea treatments (two will be 5 months before they go), they have their vaccination records, and on the health sheet it states the date of their health checks, what the vet found (or didn't) and state that the vets have permission to forward the pups records to themselves or a vet acting on their behalf, so rather than signing a form, the buyer and/or their vet have access to the vet record where the vets have recorded anything they've found (or not as the case may be).  I also ask that the buyers have the pups checked (as part of the guarantee) by their own vets within a week of purchase and then if there's a discrepancy I would probably ask that pup be returned to me for further investigation.

The reason I give them a week is that I know my vet has recently checked them, and it gives the pup a few days to settle in rather than being carted off to another strange scary place straight away.

I have just never considered taking healthy pups to the vets (the one place sick animals are likely to be), other than eventually for their vaccinations, so if pups are apparently fit and healthy I have never seen it as necessary to have my own vet pass them fit, when the new owners vet will need to do the same.

Also for me in the past with not being a driver, logistically it would have been difficult.  The odd puppy that stayed long enough to need vaccinating I carried to the vet in my arms.

I feel it's my duty if I'm sending them home with a pup I am 'guaranteeing' is healthy, that it means it's been vet checked.

I must admit I see this as a big problem. It's easier with my Papillons because they leave fully vaccinated at an older age, and the same goes for kittens. Even without having something in writing from the vet, it has helped me with kittens in the past that my vet has vaccinated them and noted it down on their computer. I once had a kitten buyer who tried to claim that I'd sold her a sick kitten, she wanted money for vets' fees etc plus the purchase price refunded as the kitten wasn't expected to live (needless to say, the kitten was insured when sold). When I said my vet had checked the kittens when vaccinated and had noted on his computer that there were no problems with them, and asked for her vet to contact mine so we could find out what was wrong -obviously I was really worried!-, all of a sudden she changed her tune and said actually, the kitten was now fine after all! I also have a friend who sold a kitten and the new owner claimed it had died and wanted another for free, when my friend asked for vet records (again putting her vet in touch with the buyer's vet), the buyer's vet said that no, the kitten was alive and well, it was a completely different cat that had died!!

However, I have a problem with Malinois pup as as I let them go from 7 ½ weeks of age. I am not at all happy about taking them to the vet unvaccinated, to potentially be exposed to all sorts of disease, and therefore I have nothing official to fall back on. I've never managed to solve this problem, and as Brainless says, an entire litter seldom goes at the same time, it can be weeks in between the first and the last and a vet certificate is really only valid a few days. So even asking the vet for a home visit would not really help.

Then there is the fact that different vets see different things. For a few litters of kittens I requested written vet's certificates (done at the same time as second vaccination) that I passed on to the new owners -and kept a copy of, of course. One kitten had it noted no problems found, but the new owner's vet claimed they found a heart murmur. Likewise another kitten had a bad bite (didn't case any problems, but was the reason for why she went as a pet), my vet had signed the cert not making a note of it as he didn't see it as a problem, the buyer's vet considered it unacceptable.

I don't know what the answer is.

>I have just never considered taking healthy pups to the vets

Have the vet do a housecall?

> However, I have a problem with Malinois pup as as I let them go from 7 ½ weeks of age. I am not at all happy about taking them to the vet unvaccinated, to potentially be exposed to all sorts of disease, and therefore I have nothing official to fall back on

I have German Shepherds and I always take them to the vets to be checked before they go. Pups need to visit a vet to be vaccinated so I don't really see the difference. I leave the pups in the car and carry them in in several lots with help if need be. I also make sure the vet cleans the table with disinfectant before I put a pup on it.

> an entire litter seldom goes at the same time, it can be weeks in between the first and the last and a vet certificate is really only valid a few days

I would have thought that it would still be a good idea to get the pup checked before it goes even if it does mean the pup gets more than one check. At least you then have proof that the pup has been checked in case of any problem. Suppose there actually is a problem with your pup? I have had a couple who have had heart murmurs over the years. I have then asked the owners to wait a couple of weeks and they usually clear up. Better than letting one go and then having to refund it.

Here is what is on the vet check list

Call name,breed,dob,gender,description, neuter[left empty],owners name,list of vacs given,home address,tel.no., email addy,microchip no/date[left empty till I got it done later],insurance company/policy no[again added later].

Next page

Stickers for vacs and dates given,weight,temperature,appetite,drinking,tick list for eyes,ears,mouth,skin,fleas,diet,heart lungs,worming,nails,abdomen,faeces/urine,scrotum/vulva, what flea/worming treatment used and what diet fed.

The vet asked questions about the above as he was going along.

All this was repeated at the second visit and the cost included in the £44 vac fee per pup, there was no rushing as we were given an appointment each time that fell between surgery times.

The operation and tests itself being a costly process were carried out as they were not sure if it was Meningitis or not, and while carrying these out they removed a hernia that he had in addition.

Alfie has been given a load of medication + a set diet since waking up from his operation on Friday 27th and is allowed back at home, however he is not in the definite clear but has improved!

Pups need to visit a vet to be vaccinated so I don't really see the difference.

The difference is that if they go only for a vet check, they could be exposed to disease WITHOUT having been vaccinated. At least when they go for their vacc the process has been started the same day, which is better than nothing at all.

As my litters are only small, 3 each time so far, they go in a plastic carrier which stays on my lap in the waiting room and then on the table, second time I carried them in as the carrier was too heavy with all 3 at 12 weeks old, again they stayed on my lap or on the vet table to avoid picking up any infections. I find these trips out to be part of their socialization and new experiences.

I don't take dam and newborns to the vet routinely post whelping as some members here mention they do as there is more chance of bringing something home that the pups don't have the antibodies to fight off.

I can understand anyone with big breeds/large litters finding it easier to get the vet to come to the house for such check ups and pay the extra for less hassle.

> Have the vet do a housecall?

Maybe it's due to big city vets being mainly household pets, but none of mine do housecalls, expecting you to visit the surgery.

Really? Do they not have disabled, housebound or elderly clients in cities? There's always a call-out charge (roughly £60 in ordinary working hours) but I thought they all had to make 24-hour cover available.

The cover is from another very expensive practise who charge £130 for out of hours, dread to think what they would charge for a call out.  Most of the vets use one of two large practises.

When I had problems with a litter years ago (lost two pups by morning) the Vet refused to come out, and made me an appointment for the morning.  One of these has a Pet Ambulance service and Pet taxi.

When my Kizi was dying in August and I wanted the emergency Vet to come out to PTS (Saturday early evening, about 7pm) they said I had to go in, she was unconcious by the time we got there and it was  £133 for the consult, coming to nearly £200 with PTS and disposal.