I wonder quite how the welfare of animals act would look at the situation where someone purposely places an animal into a position where it may well need costly veterinary care to save its life without previously making sure the funding for that scenario is in place ?
Could this be construed as placing an animal in danger and not having proper concerns for its welfare ?
If you went to a horse auction and purchased a foal but had no idea how to look after it or feed it or had no money to care for it but still did it, is that a pre-meditated lack of care ? If that foal then became ill because of it would that constitute a lack of care ?
Should we be taking such people to task ?
The law states that :-
Unnecessary suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c)the animal is a protected animal, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.
Does this go far enough to cover it ?
If a person put an animal into a position that resulted in a lack of care because funding was not available to deal with the possible results would he be committing an offence under current law ?
We often give the excuse in the UK that the person did not mean to land the animal in trouble but "Did not realise" it might happen.
Should the law change to cover this and to punish those people who do this. Should it be a legal requirement that, prior to obtaining an animal or subjecting one to something that could compromise its health,  steps should be taken to ensure that if necessary its needs can be met.
In a court of law ignorance is not  accepted as an excuse, should it be the same in the welfare of animals act ?
Aileen

Yes I feel it should.
But on the flip side putting your dog through say an agility course could lead to injury but one would hope that the owner would have the guns to pay for such injury and likewise could be insured.
Pregnancy I have spent a lot on my last litter and still have a hefty bill to pay, it will be paid once they've sorted out their bits and pieces.
However to put a dog through pregnancy without the financial backup is purely irresponsible.
If and I will highlight the if I should have another litter again I will be getting the KC insurance which covers pregnancy and the litter. Yes I may need to pay for a set number of months but had I for that this time then I would have saved a lot of money, hindsight eh?

If you can't afford to pay for your pet, be it food, medical treatment etc then you shouldn't own one

Thought provoking Aileen. 

Don't think it would stand up Merlot, after all we already prosecute for cruelty, the ending result, don't see how we could also prosecute for a pre-meditated (perhaps) action too, as cruelty is the worser charge and will get the worst sentence. It would be nice, but people have been having animals for centuries who cannot afford them or have proper facilities, many get by and the animals are still loved, it is when their lack of forethought leads to cruelty we/or rather the RSPCA/Dog wardens etc act.

The law can only protect against what has happened, not what may happen........with animals and human children sometimes it is too late, but that is why we must all make sure we pick up that phone and call whenever we see cruelty immediately.