# My dog was given Galastop but just had a litter of puppies



## icancount123 (Nov 20, 2010)

We bred our Husky at the end of August, 3 and a half weeks later we asked the vet about doing a scan, we queried whether we should wait longer as i read it may take up to 4 weeks for a result but we were told we would definitely get a result so we went ahead with the procedure. The results indicated that she was not pregnant again we queried whether there may be a mistake and we were told no. A few days later She started have blood clots so we phoned the practice. In speaking to the receptionist we mentioned the scan and we were asked whether the clots were thin and light or think and dark, we responded thick and dark, we were then advised if the clots continued to bring her in for a visit. She had five visible clots in total however only one after we phoned the practice so we assumed everything was okay as the clots started to stop.

Over the next four to five weeks her characteristics and physic started to change. For the first two weeks she started to wee in the house several times (something she had never done before), over the course of the next few weeks, she started to gain weight and started to exhaust less energy in her walking habits. Over the last two weeks she started to eat everything by herself (we have hand fed her every day due to her reluctance to eat caused by her past history), she also started to eat everything she never normally eats and her teats started to enlarge. We started to get concerned when we noticed that the hair shaved from her underbelly for the scan had not grown back and there was a noticeable loss of hair over the underbelly. We then visited the practice.

We spoke to a vet highlighting the dates of the mating process, the scan, and all of her unusual behaviour. We also mentioned her most recent unusual changes including; her sleeping pattern (whereas she always slept upstairs on the bed she started to sleep downstairs under the sofa), and again in her walking habits, (she started to walk much more slowly and seek food off of other dog owners where possible, again something she does not normally do). I informed the vet that my personal judgement was that she was pregnant as she had a large pouch on her underbelly, the vet done several checks including the use of a stethoscope however we were advised that she was having a phantom pregnancy, and as she had a scan there was no way she was pregnant. The vet also noticed she leaked excessive milk from her teats and provided us with a prescription of Galastop to be taken over the course of the next five days, we followed these instructions administering her treatment.

Six days after administering her treatment we noticed no immediate change instead we noticed that she started to walk slower over smaller distances. That night she started seeking for a whelping area (something we did not know at the time). For over one hour she stood in front of a wardrobe clawing at the door, eventually we allowed her to enter; she remained there throughout the remainder of the night. On the 3rd of November she went for her usual daily walk, on her return she vanished back upstairs into the wardrobe. In returning from work that night, I was shocked when I noticed that shed had given birth to two puppies, she was tired and protective so we allowed her to rest for an hour. Eventually she allowed us to handle the two puppies where we checked their health. In checking the mom, I noticed that there was a third baby stuck in her backside so I phoned the practice.

We advised the vet of the stuck baby (presumed dead due to lack of movement) and also of the treatment that we had administered her the previous five days, we were advised to bring her to the practice immediately. In our arrival the vet done several checks and advising us that she required a caesarean, the puppies were also checked. During the operation we were updated that her womb started to disintegrate, also there were several large sized cysts caused by the Galastop, so we agreed to spade her as we did not want any future harm to be caused. We were also advised that two dead puppies were removed from her, one stuck in her backside and another one clogged behind; fortunately the vets were able to remove a remaining living puppy from her womb.

Once she had partially recovered the vets informed us that she has no milk in her teats and it would be unlikely for any to be produced any over the remaining weeks, we were instructed that we would have to hand feed the puppies for the next eight weeks, we were also given a demonstration through feeding the puppies for the first time.

Due to the experience we decided to put a claim in writing to the vet for the following;

1. The cost of the scan to be refunded, as not only was it too early to determine a result, we were also given the incorrect result.
2. The cost of the final visit prior to Ice's pregnancy, it is now obvious that the vet was incorrect in his evaluation and prescription.
3. The cost of the part payment made for her caesarean and for her to be spaded, this could have been avoided if the above information was correct.
4. The cost of medical treatment required for the puppies over the course of the next eight weeks, including worming, injections, and cost of milk and food. We feel that the prescription provided to Ice has had an affect on the puppies especially considering we lost two during the pregnancy. Also with the mums inability to produce milk as a result of the Galastop supplements must be provided in order to maintain the health of the surviving three puppies.
5. The cost of all future medical treatment given to the mum as a result of; the pregnancy, the caesarean and/or the spading. Again all these costs could have been avoided if we were advised correctly throughout this process.
6. The cost for compensation in the event that any of the surviving puppies die, we would expect £800, the full amount of the sale price.

To this date every vet at the practice admitted that there were several mistakes made on their behalf however we have received communication from the vet highlighting that they have spoken to their legal advisers and they will not be compensating for the cost of caesarean, claim number 3, we have still yet to receive a response on the others. We have also had to continue to pay medical treatment for the puppies and the mom, including costs of check ups.

Today the mum and puppies went for a check up. The puppies started having fits in the practice and had to be taken in over night, we had to pay over £300 as they refused to take them in without payment. Unfortunately the puppies are now 50-50 as they are only 2 weeks old and the vets cannot guarantee the cause of the fits without operating. Thankfully the mum is okay.

I am now clueless to what to do and need advice immediately. I know everyone will say use a different vet but please note financially this is not possible and also every vet seeing our dogs are now senior practitioners. Do i take the legal route? if so who do i use? who do i complain to?

Please help
Dean


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

First of all, where are you, the answers will vary greatly according to what part of the world you're in. I know seeing a 'Senior' vet in the practice may seem like a great thing, but it may be the it's better in this to find a new vet practice that is more up to date in their procedures. I'd also consider contacting the licencing board to invetigate what happened.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I see your cost was in pounds, are you in England?

My take (I am not a lawyer, and not in England. Just a general discussion of your demands):
#1 and #2 seem reasonable. 
#3, I don't know; she may have needed a c-section and spay anyway. It's hard to prove that this was due to malpractice unless birthing difficulties are a known side effect of the medication. Since you say the cysts were caused by the medication, this might be reasonable.
#4, you would have needed to give the pups worming and shots anyway; this is a normal expense when breeding. I would want them to pay for bottle-feeding supplies, and health expenses related to bottle-feeding.
#5, the pregnancy was your responsibility. The c-section and spay, again, hard to say. All expenses related to the medication's side effects should be covered.
#6, hard to say. There's no guarantee that any puppies would survive in any case. And no guarantee that the puppies would have sold, for that price or any price. I don't know if this is a reasonable expectation.

If the vets don't cover what they should, you might choose to go to small-claims court (or British equivalent). But your demands need to be reasonable if you're to win. I don't think expecting them to pay for the puppies' shots would be reasonable (for example), so if that happens you might want to re-think some of your demands.

Breeding dogs is a very expensive and risky undertaking. Some of this could just be chalked up to normal breeding expenses.

You will most likely need to consult with another vet so he/she can say what should have been done in this case. Without that I don't think much will happen. Hopefully the consultation fee won't be too high.

I hope Ice and the puppies do well! Poor things.


----------



## grab (Sep 26, 2009)

You might be able to recover the cost of the scan (I assume an ultrasound? or did you mean an xray? Pups aren't visible on xray early on, so I'd assume it was an ultrasound). Although if you were going to have it done later on I'm not sure that's a recoverable cost. If she was having bleeding, I'd wonder if she already had uterine cysts prior. C-sections are a possibility with any breeding, I don't see why they should cover that. You chose to breed the dog and, thus, took on that risk. Same with spaying.
Risk of death of pups is always a possibility in any litter, so I cannot see why they should cover the amount you'd be charging per pup. There's no guarantee someone would pay that or that all of the pups would have been rehomed. Same with the cost of care for the pups..you'd be vaccinating and worming them anyway. And having to hand raise some is always possibility and something one takes on when breeding their dog. 

As a note, it is spay/spaying/spayed..unless she was being whopped at with a garden tool


----------



## icancount123 (Nov 20, 2010)

Thank you everyone for your responses, i am located in England, Southend-on-Sea, Essex. And yes the procedure taken was an ultrasound. In reading the response from the vets they have agreed with some of your comments and have highlighted that there is "no proof that galastop was the cause of the cysts", they have only agreed to cover the 1st two claims and cost of milk. 

I have however read up on galastop "Cabergoline has the capacity to cause abortion in bitches in the later stages of pregnancy, and under no circumstances should Galastop be used in pregnant bitches..........Experimental data have shown that cabergoline has the capacity to cause abortion in bitches in the later stages of pregnancy: this effect was seen in all bitches tested. Therefore a contra-indication against use of Galastop in pregnancy is essential...............Galastop is indicated for the suppression of lactation in bitches: inhibition of prolactin secretion by cabergoline results in a rapid cessation of lactation and a reduction in the size of the mammary glands. Galastop should not be used in lactating bitches unless suppression of lactation is required."

During the cesarean the vet highlighted that the cysts and disintegration of the womb was something they had not seen before so surely with the above information provided by galastop it is evident that it was the prescription that caused the cysts and disintegration, with these effect my pregnant dog would have required a cesarean and spading or am i mistaken? 

Willowy and Grab regarding claim 5 you highlighted the pregnancy was our responsibility. I agree however we failed to act responsible as a result of all the information provided to us by the practice. In being informed she was not pregnant at no stage did we change feeding/walking habits, we always walk her twice a day for two hours and we continued this up until the day of birth, if we knew she was pregnant we would have followed all guidelines regarding pregnant dogs including reducing the walking times and distances amongst other things. We would have also been prepared; with the whelping area, with the birth essentials, with the puppy care and as a household with finances and time. 

The vets have also responded indicating that at no time did we mention the exact date of mating to any of the practitioners and that this has caused a misunderstanding, one comment regarding the house visit is as follows; "The vet and nurse who attended the house visit have explained there was an element of confusion regarding the dates of the possible meeting and it was explained that the mating had not been witnessed". This is 100% crap the stag was provided by another breeder so we had to be a witness to the mating process, also on all three occasions we provided the vets with the exact date of mating 30/09/2010, we mated her on the very night i returned from my vacation. In addition the very first comment i made to the vet on the visit that resulted in the prescription of galastop was "my personal opinion is that i think Ice is pregnant", they have responded "again there has been an element of misunderstanding, the vet does not recall this comment,.......the vet was on the understanding that ice was not pregnant and felt you were of the same opinion". With every dog walker and person i have met prior to taking ice into practice i highlighted that i believed she was pregnant, why would i take her into practice highlighting her side effects if i did not thing she was?

We thankfully got the puppies back today and are seeking a new veterinary practice as the 'Your Vets' practice obviously have shown extreme negligence at several stages and failed to admit their mistakes and have instead highlighted there was misunderstandings on our behalf.

Can anybody advise what claims are reasonable and/or expected to resolve this matter? Also we have already endured a loss of household earnings over the last two weeks. Living in a household of two with both individuals working day shifts we have now had to restructure all events to ensure the puppies are hand fed every few hours twenty-four hours a day over the next six-to-eight weeks. I have already had to take unpaid time off work and over the next several weeks we are both reducing our working hours to ensure puppies are cared for throughout the day and night. We already feel exhausted in a short space of time and this is sure to continue, is it reasonable to claim for loss of income as a result of Ice not having milk?

Thank you


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

icancount123 said:


> During the cesarean the vet highlighted that the cysts and disintegration of the womb was something they had not seen before so surely with the above information provided by galastop it is evident that it was the prescription that caused the cysts and disintegration, with these effect my pregnant dog would have required a cesarean and spading or am i mistaken?


It's possible, but not evident. Just because there is correlation, doesn't mean there's causation.


----------



## grab (Sep 26, 2009)

Even if a med were to cause abortion of the puppies, the literature quoted above says nothing about cysts or disintegration of the uterus. If it were to cause such disintegration, I would imagine it would cause the same symptoms even if used in a nonpregnant female. As this is not a mentioned complication, I would presume the issue was not caused by the med. One cannot prove it either way. In addition, your female could have required spa_ying_ either way, particularly if she had cysts. 
The fact that she had unusual bleeding clots in the first place would lead me to believe that she already had some sort of an abnormality going on, prior to the med being given.

I cannot see why you'd be entitled to loss of wages..having to raise some or all of the pups in a litter is always a possibility. One cannot predict whether there will be any issue that leads to a mother not being able to nurse her litter..mastitis, illness, milk not coming in...this is a risk one takes when breeding their female.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Grab



> Galastop is indicated for the suppression of lactation in bitches: inhibition of prolactin secretion by cabergoline results in a rapid cessation of lactation and a reduction in the size of the mammary glands. Galastop should not be used in lactating bitches unless suppression of lactation is required."


Yes, the med is used to STOP lactation, so it would effect the bitches ability to feed her pups.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

What an unfortunate mess.
While I cannot expound on the legal stuff I can only say one thing:



> We bred our Husky at the end of August, 3 and a half weeks later we asked the vet about doing a scan, we queried whether we should wait longer as i read it may take up to 4 weeks for a result but we were told we would definitely get a result so we went ahead with the procedure.


If the initial ultrasound was possibly given too early to establish a pregnancy was occuring...why would the galastop be given without a SECOND ultrasound at the time of the second visit to ensure it was safe? Assuming a phantom pregnancy without confirmation other than a stethoscope exam seems rather presumptive.

Just my opinion.


----------



## grab (Sep 26, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> Grab
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the med is used to STOP lactation, so it would effect the bitches ability to feed her pups.


 I understand that, but legally, one would have to prove (I would think..although I'm not a lawyer) that if she had not had the medication she would have been able to nurse the puppies anyway. She already had some complications during pregnancy (clotting, bleeding, etc), so someone could argue that she had a health issue. 


As it is, it does sound like the vet is reimbursing for the formula. 

Someone asking for reimbursment for vaccines, worming and other care of the puppies seems like a stretch to me.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

Just wanted to ad, you do not have to feed the pups every two hours for the next 6 - 8 weeks. Once their eyes open at around two weeks, you can start feeding them from a dish and leave food with them once they are on dry food at about five weeks. Whether they are nursing or not, they should be started on mushy food as soon as they will lap it up from a dish, gradually making it a little dryer until they are completely on dry food which along with water always supplied, they will do fine.


----------



## EscVelocity (Mar 31, 2011)

grab said:


> I understand that, but legally, one would have to prove (I would think..although I'm not a lawyer) that if she had not had the medication she would have been able to nurse the puppies anyway. She already had some complications during pregnancy (clotting, bleeding, etc), so someone could argue that she had a health issue.
> 
> 
> As it is, it does sound like the vet is reimbursing for the formula.
> ...


The burden of proof in civil matters is a lot less than the burden of proof required for criminal case. This applies to U.S and UK courts. In Criminal cases it is "beyond a reasonable doubt", while in Civil cases it is based "on the balance of probabilities".


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

This thread is six months old (or more) locking it down so it can sink to the bottom...

again!


----------



## Verip (Oct 20, 2011)

Hey, I know your post was like a year ago but wondered if you got anywhere with Your Vets. I live near Southend-on-Sea and when I started reading your post I thought I bet it was "Your Vets"!!! And then you say you are from Southend-on-Sea and it was Your Vets! 
They are the worst practice ever! I am taking my dog somewhere else. For many reasons. I had bad experience myself and apart from that I know someone who worked there and when she started telling me what was actually happening there I was shocked! Honestly, if you love your pet take it somewhere else. They have been sued by so many people that is just ridiculous! 

STAY AWAY FROM YOUR VETS! SAVE YOUR PET!


----------



## Patt (Feb 12, 2008)

Interesting... We have a vet in town the clients have been trying to shut down for years. They are still open injuring & killing pets. Good luck!


----------

