Veterinarian convinced cat owner to spend £7,000 because their cat was hot and panted at the clinic!

NEWS AND OPINION: For me, this veterinarian story smacks of a greedy vet. Abigail Laker, a music student from Salford, UK, had not long ago moved out of her parents' home. She was used to living with dogs and she knew that dogs panted on occasions.

She adopted a cat and named her Moose. She took Moose to her veterinarian for spaying. At the clinic, Moose, on my assessment of the story, became agitated as cats do and was panting and breathing quickly.

Moose. Image: Abigail via Caters News Agency.

Reading between the lines of the story on the Daily Mail website, I visualise a young female cat who had become anxious visiting a strange place with strange smells and noises and got hot and agitated.

She started to pant to lose some body heat just as a dog would under similar circumstances. That would seem normal to me but Abigail's veterinarian said that Moose might be suffering from a serious health condition and further investigations were required.

And then over the next weeks or days, they managed to winkle out of Abigail £7,000 in assessments and diagnoses. They came up with the conclusion that Moose was entirely normal.

From my perspective, that's a waste of £7,000 and I think Abigail should ask for her money back except for the cost of spaying.

Abigail is satisfied that at least she doesn't have to worry about her kitten suffering from a potential serious underlying health problem. That is nice of her but she became anxious because of the misdiagnosis or con however you look at it.

I would have taken it entirely differently as mentioned. This appears to be a con. If it was not a con by the veterinarian it was a lousy diagnosis and careless. I favour the former analysis.

If by some chance Abigail reads this post I would ask to go back to her veterinarian and at least ask for a massive discount such as half price. In other words, request a £3,500 reimbursement under breach of contract for providing a poor service that was much poorer than should be provided by a reasonably competent veterinarian.