Forums
Posted By: RUDEBOX Would YOU have paid?? - 1st Jan 2015 8:25pm
http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/01/constipated-goldfishs-bowels-evacuated-in-300-op-5005963/

A devoted pet owner splashed out £300 – to save the life of his constipated goldfish.

The man took the 3-inch tiddler to vets to ease its discomfort after noticing it was struggling to deficate.

He hoped after a simple procedure the fish would be back happily swimming in his office tank.

But the company boss was in for a shock when staff at the Toll Barn Veterinary Centre told him the delicate surgery would cost £300.

He turned down the treatment and left his fish to its fate – but had a change of mind ten minutes later and went back to give the go-ahead.

Vet Faye Bethell, 29, was then tasked with carefully administering anaesthetic before using tiny instruments to remove a lump close to the fish’s anus.

A second lump was removed from his dorsal fin before the pet was returned to water and handed back to his grateful owner.

Faye said the three inch fish made a full recovery after the 50-minute operation and it would have died if it was left untreated.

(more info on link)
Posted By: fish5133 Re: Would YOU have paid?? - 1st Jan 2015 9:58pm
£300 for an hours work----worse than solicitors
Posted By: granny Re: Would YOU have paid?? - 2nd Jan 2015 12:24am
He obviously thought it was worth it, and had the cash to match.
Vets charge crazy prices now and one wonders how they can arrive at such a ludicrous figure for 50 mins work.
It would seem they would have been happy if the chap had left it to die. Which to my mind, defeats their purpose of being a vet, however small an animal.
I doubt I would have paid, probably given it a dose of salts and let nature take it's course.
Posted By: Salmon Re: Would YOU have paid?? - 2nd Jan 2015 7:36am
I think Granny has hit the nail on the head when she says he had the cash to match and thought it was worth it. People seem to lose their senses when it comes to paying vet bills but it is their money so who can say how they should spend it? Most people would not have that much available.I would not have paid it even if I had the cash.
Posted By: Chopper1979 Re: Would YOU have paid?? - 2nd Jan 2015 9:19am
Jesus Christ have i just even bothered reading this and commenting.
Posted By: Salmon Re: Would YOU have paid?? - 2nd Jan 2015 9:30am
Originally Posted by Chopper1979
Jesus Christ have i just even bothered reading this and commenting.


I take that as a no then. grin
Posted By: eggandchips Re: Would YOU have paid?? - 2nd Jan 2015 12:57pm
id have bought a kitten for £20 fed it the fish and still have £280 in my pocket


( i only like dogs )
and yes i have spent more than that at the vets for my dogs
Posted By: eggandchips Re: Would YOU have paid?? - 2nd Jan 2015 1:02pm
when my kids were small, they had a pet goldfich, one of them bought an ornament for the bowl, but the ornament turned the water and poisoned the fish, it went sort of black looking.
i changed the water and put a drop of brandy into the bowl and 5min later is was leaping around like a bloody dolphin
Posted By: venice Re: Would YOU have paid?? - 2nd Jan 2015 1:51pm
You pay to save things you love by in large . If I loved a fish as much as my dog, Id pay in a heartbeat . --But I havent yet found a fish who will wag its tail at me regardless of my mood, snuggle me if Im upset, look at me adoringly with big soft brown eyes and offer undying loyalty ---So No. Not very nice attitude really I know, but we humans are inherently selfish.
© Wirral-Wikiwirral