The vet maimed my cat! - Page 3

[Lily's_Mom]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

I'm sorry the other vet wasn't very co-operative. Did you at least get something confirming the inflammation in her toes?

All we got was a bill.

The doc seemed sort of nervous about me asking for his opinion on this; I think he didn't want to burn any bridges in the community here if he'd like to join a different practice in the future.

Kitty is doing just fine now, so I think we will hold off on having any other vets examine her. Don't want to make her hate the carrier before our flight to Europe next monday!

[Narmowen]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

No, it's not completely wrong. Yes, you can trim a little at a time. However, in extreme cases, usually when the dog can't walk, it's sometimes necessary. Which is what makes this all the more disturbing. A cat like this would NOT need to have its nails cut back like this!

Uh, yes, it is. You stated that it was "really the only way". Which implies (and states) that is is the ONLY way. Which makes you completely wrong, because there are other ways. If you had said that it's a drastic way to get the quick bad, I wouldn't have said anything. But by stating (incorrectly) that it's the only way...

I didn't say it wasn't disturbing. I, personally, wouldn't be taking any more animals to that vet.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by Narmowen

Uh, yes, it is. You stated that it was "really the only way". Which implies (and states) that is is the ONLY way. Which makes you completely wrong, because there are other ways.

No, I did not. You were actually responding to Lonegirl and I jumped in. What *I* said was this:

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

SOMETIMES when the quick grows out so much that the nail growth affects their paws (sometimes actually causing deformations in the bone) it's necessary to cut the quicks back. It's usually done under anesthesia, and then the quick (a vein) is cauterized to prevent bleeding.

However, this is usually only done in severe cases of neglect, like when the nails curl around and are digging into the under side of their pads. I DOUBT that was the case with your kitty.

Your response to Lonegirl is here:

Originally Posted by lonegirl

What it looks like they did is while your kitty was under they cut the nails right back (not as common of a thing to do with cats unless the nails were out of control) We do this sometimes with dogs whose nails have grown out so far that the quick has grown out (really the only way to get it back to a healthy length).

Originally Posted by Narmowen

I'm sorry, but the bolded part is completely wrong. If you trim back close to the quick (without knicking the quick), you trim a little more every couple of days, the quick will recede without injuring the quick. It does take longer, but it's a better method, IMO, and doesn't cause the animal any pain.

I responded to your adamancy that in extreme cases it's the only way to restore range of motion as "completely wrong" because while you're technically right - you can, over time, get the quick to recede with regular close trims, but really, that's not a prudent form of action when a dog can't walk.

Long story short, you're right. You CAN get the quicks to recede without cutting them. However, in certain situations it's probably best not to make the animal endure the discomfort of not being able to walk properly. The recovery from having the quicks trimmed back is far shorter than trying to recede the quicks by trimming them close. Probably to the tune of a few days versus a couple of weeks.

Today I had a dog that I was able to take 3/4 inch of length off the nails before hitting the quick. As soon as I saw the dog I thought of this thread. The middle nails on all four feet were so long they were crossed, and you could see the incorrect wear on the pads of her feet (one was almost blistered from walking on skin, not pad!). It was OBVIOUS when the dog walked that it was extremely uncomfortable. And boy, what a difference once her nails were trimmed. She was like a totally different dog. Had the quicks have been long on this dog we would have definitely referred her to the vet. She could barely walk.

Lonegirl was not completely wrong. Sometimes it is the only way. Not technically. But for the sake of the dog.

[MrsMike]

I saw this when it was originally posted and didn't get a chance to comment. I know you are in Switzerland now and I hope your move went well and that kitty (who looks so sweet, btw) is feeling much better.

Did you ever pay the bill in full? The first thing I would have said to the vet is, "if your staff can't handle cutting a cat's claws, then how were they able to clean and extract teeth? Should I worry that her dental was botched as well?" Seriously. I may be getting snobby in my old vet tech age, but how the hell do you screw up cat's claws...under sedation for goshsakes? It's pretty standard to trim a pet's nails under anesthesia (except for emergency procedures - it;s a superstition for us). However, my clinic states that on the authorization form and plenty of clients opt out.

Poor kitty. Give her some butt or chin scratches for me.

[Lily's_Mom]

Thanks Jenn. The move did go well, and kitty is so happy that we brought her with us! Except for the flight, though. It was quite turbulent and she probably thought the world was ending.

We did pay the bill in full when dh picked up Kitty the same day as her surgery. No one mentioned to us about her claws, so there was no reason to dispute any of the charges!

The dental work was great, the vet we went to for the second opinion commented on that. The nail-trimmer just didn't have a clue what they were doing.

Kitty is still being spoiled with canned food. We figure she is getting to be a senior cat and deserves wet food from now on anyways!

Thanks again for your comments.

[lonegirl]

Originally Posted by Narmowen

I'm sorry, but the bolded part is completely wrong. If you trim back close to the quick (without knicking the quick), you trim a little more every couple of days, the quick will recede without injuring the quick. It does take longer, but it's a better method, IMO, and doesn't cause the animal any pain.

I am sorry it may not be the ONLY way....but I have seen many very severe cases of neglect in the nail department and the ONLY way in those cases to help those pets was to do a cut back of the nails. (These are cases where nails have grown into the pads and cause infection and lameness)

[babygirlie]

That was incredibly cruel. No excuse. Just wrong. If the quick on an animal is too long then you trim and wait for the quick to recede and trim again a month later.

That was so near a declaw it's not even funny. Terribly sick and I would expect all my money back. That's so beyond abnormal for a nail trim!

[rachel527]

go to the news!

If this happened to me I would threaten to take those pictures to the media... that is totally unacceptable that they will not regard their mistake. I would make them reimburse the total $700.00 for making your poor kitty suffer like that.