Vets say animals won't suffer despite withdrawing cover
(From The Orcadian dated February 15, 2001)

Approaching one of the busiest times of the farming calendar - lambing and calving - it appears some local animals might end up being destroyed because their owners have been refused veterinary cover by local firms, having earned a reputation as persistent non-payers of bills.

Local vet, Mr Neil McHarg told The Orcadian: "I am not aware personally of any farmer who would be in that position at the moment. If someone is a persistent non-payer, we would stop their credit, and eventually advise them by letter that we would no longer be providing veterinary cover, but that would be an unusual step. As a matter of course, we refer outstanding accounts to a debt collection agency and take legal action against bad debtors. In an emergency, we are obliged to put an animal out of its misery on welfare grounds, but we can refuse to start a course of expensive treatment or surgery on the expectation that we are not likely to get paid for that work."

A spokesman for Northvet said: "We have had two applications from local farmers in the past two months to become clients of ours, switching from the other vet practice. We have agreed to take on one, but have refused the other. Each decision was taken jointly by all six partners in the firm.We have told another farmerclient in the past that we could no longer provide vet cover for persistent non-payment of bills, but it is their own choice. If they pay the bill, their vet service can resume. That is not an unreasonable approach."

The Northvet spokesman emphasised that animals would not be left to suffer needlessly.

"If someone phones us up and says that they can't get a vet, for whatever reason, and there is an emergency, we are obliged to give first aid to that animal, which probably means destroying it. If the person doesn't want to put the animal down, again, that is their choice, but we won't enter into transactions which we're not going to get paid for. A farmer has a duty to attend to the welfare of his animals, but I believe he has abandoned that duty,

if he refuses to put an animal out of its misery, in the case of an emergency."

A spokesman for the profession's ruling body, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in London, said: "In the guide to professional conduct, practices can place the matter of non-payment in the hands of a debt collector, or instigate civil proceedings against the person concerned, but it is also acceptable to give notice in writing that the practice will be withdrawing its veterinary cover for failure to settle outstanding bills.

"While the prime concern is for animal welfare, it has to be borne in mind that vets are running a business. So it's a classic conflict, and there's not much we can do. It is a matter between the vets and the individual clients."

A possible last resort for farmers who've been refused veterinary cover could be the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA).

The charity's senior officer, Chief Superintendent Ronald Grant, explained: "We will never see an animal suffer. The regional superintendent covering Orkney is based in Inverness, and he has a veterinary budget which is normally used for the treatment of domestic animals, but in exceptional circumstances, those funds could be used for farm animals. We would obviously check the background to the cases involved, and whether the person was deemed fit to keep animals, but it would be much more preferable to nurse an animal back to health which would allow it to be sold in the mart or for slaughter and provide the farmer with money to pay our costs."

brian.flett@orcadian.co.uk