Mr. Bill Cashman:

I can try to answer this question first. It has been traditional among veterinary practices, and I have been in this business for about 45 years, that we would always help somebody along to pay bill on the drip, so to speak, that is, so much per week or so much upfront. We can help people that way. This has always been the essence and core of veterinary practice because we are supposed to be there to advocate for the animal as much as the owner. Sometimes, perhaps the right thing to do is euthanasia. Perhaps €2,500 or even €20,000 might not be enough to give a dog enough of a quality of life. Sometimes we see things like this. There was an article in the journal of the British Veterinary Association some years ago entitled "Just Because We Can, Should We?". We have had major advances in technology now. We have veterinary specialists who can do all kinds of surgeries on hearts, limbs, hips, backs, etc. Sometimes, you wonder if we are going too far. Perhaps this is a slightly different question.

Where a person cannot afford it but could afford it over time, there has always been a tradition of helping somebody to do that, if at all possible. The next step would be to go to a charity, if the client qualifies under the regulations for charities regarding assistance. The other option, which the Senator is talking about, is to have pet insurance. We have an uptake in this regard of about 30% in Ireland now, which is much lower than in the UK. Such insurance does definitely give us an awful lot more latitude to use the technology we have. Testing and diagnostics, for example, are often the most expensive part of treatment, as well as referral to a specialist vet. This is the same as with humans, where we have consultants who do specialist procedures.

However, there are limits to this insurance option as well, because insurance companies are not there really to help animals. They are gambling that a dog is going to stay healthy. Like our own Laya Healthcare or VHI health insurance, we do not like paying and we hope we never have to use it. Similarly, there are limits with pet insurance too. As animals get older, we find that the coverage reduces and the exclusions increase. There are also limits to allowable annual usage. A vet, for example, might have to get pre-authorisation from an insurance company before being able to refer an animal to a specialist vet. The Senator is correct that there is a place for pet insurance. It is very helpful. It must be recognised as well, however, where we are with the limits on discretionary spending. There are limits to it, unfortunately. We would all love to do everything but there is only so much that can be paid for. The only person who can pay the cost is, indeed, the animal owner.