On The Issue Of extended Boarding And hospitalisation
AnimalCare 
Nov 29, 2013 
AnimalCare, NGOs 
0 comments
| Tweet |  |
We have spoken on this many times but there is a need to highlight it again because we get new applicants all the time.
This is what we publish under our policies:
Why we advise against (extended) boarding
AnimalCare does not subsidise boarding for neutering unless complications arise. For medical cases, we do not subsidise boarding if the animal’s injury or illness does not warrant hospitalisation.
The cost of hospitalisation for surgery cases is subsidised on a case-by-case basis and ONLY forthe duration as per required.Extra boarding is not encouraged.
REASON 1:So that your animal will not be exposed to diseases, if any, in the clinic environment.
REASON 2:Your animal, once declared fit to be discharged, is better off being fostered by you at home. Many clinics do not have 24 hours monitoring.
REASON 3:The boarding space at the clinic is meant for sick animals. We should be considerate and not deprive a sick animal of the needed hospitalisation.
If you are not able to foster the animal yourself, please make the necessary arrangements with a fosterer.
The above were and still are our reasons for not subsidising what we term as “extended boarding”.
We only subsidise “hospitalisation”, ie. when the animal requires certain procedures that only a vet or a clinic can provide.
However, recently there was a question posed to us on what constitutes “hospitalisation”. One of our applicants says that according to his vet, as long as the animal is boarded for treatment, that constitutes “hospitalisation” and on the bill, it will be itemised as “hospitalisation” and charged as such. But the question begs: Can the treatment be done by the rescuer himself/herself or does it require a vet’s expertise to do it?
Our definition of “hospitalisation” as far as our subsidy is concerned, is when the animal is boarded because he/she requires treatment that only a vet or the clinic can provide and the rescuer cannot provide by himself. For example, when the animal requires the IV-drip or specialised procedures that only a vet is qualified to perform.
We do appreciate the fact that many rescuers have no other option but to board the animal for reasons such as (a) having no space at home to foster, (b) being unable to find a fosterer, (c) being unable to do certain procedures on their own, etc. But for such cases, we regret that we are unable to subsidise the boarding because we have to adhere strictly to our policies as accountability to our donors.
Most of our applicants understand our policies and if they have to resort to boarding, they use their own funds.
We also appreciate the efforts made by many rescuers who discharge the animals as soon as possible so as to not incur extra charges on boarding/hospitalisation and by doing so, they do not deprive the space at the clinic for other animals who need the hospitalisation more urgently. There are also rescuers who, in not wanting to board the animal, learn how to nurse the sick animal themselves. We truly appreciate such efforts.
Hence, our policies (as above).
On another note, there is also the danger of the recovered animal contracting an infectious disease from the clinic. Personally, my vet had always advised that the clinic is the last place you’d want to send any animal as the chances of contracting diseases are high, no matter how hygienic the clinic is. Sick animals come in and out of a clinic, every day.
To each his/her own, as always and this is not a matter of who is right or wrong or even who is doing better. However, when it comes to our subsidy provisions, we have constraints and limitations so we hope all applicants understand that we are bound by our policies to ensure that our funds are used (stretched!) to the optimum to help as many animals and their caregivers as we can.
Thank you.
Source: http://myanimalcare.org/2013/11/29/on-the-issue-of-extended-boarding-and-hospitalisation/
| Tweet |
|
Facebook Comments