94. The petshop girl was between the devil and the deep blue sea.

"It was silly of her to tell the dog owner that she had micro-chipped the dog," Mark said to me.

"It is good for her to be honest. If she said a vet did it, the owner would sue the vet or ask for clarification and she would be found defective in her character." I said. "I believe there is no legal requirement that vets must do the microchipping."

Now that the owner was vigorously pursuing this matter of the big lump and the dog crying all the time, the pet shop girl had to do something. She consulted a vet, namely me.

"She is between the devil and the deep blue sea," I said to Mark. Meaning that she had to decide to tell a lie or a truth. They were both difficult choices for her.




I had told the pet shop girl that the big round 0.5 mm swelling at a grain of rice was a microchip which had caused reaction after implant into the dog. The owner had complained that the dog was crying all the time after micro chipping as the dog had a big lump under the skin above the shoulder area.

I examined the active dog. There was no fever or pain in the area between the shoulders.

"The microchip scanner did show pick up the digits," the pet shop girl told me. "When I asked the seller about defective chips, he said I ought to scan first before implant."

"Well," I said. "My scanner cannot show the digits. It is most likely a defective chip but was it defective before the implantation or after?"

"Oh, this dog moved quite a bit during implantation" the pet shop girl said.

"It is possible that the microchip was not intact or well manufactured. After implantation, the body tissue fluids leaked inside the wall of the microchip and so the chip was spoilt. The scanner would not be able to scan it."

She had not thought of the "after implantation" possibility although she did mention about the chip breaking up during implantation.

So there were 3 possibilities of defects - before, during and after. It was good to brainstorm.

But now the owner was not happy. What should the vet advise?

"It is best to remove the big lump," I said. "Though the dog appears healthy today, what happens if he dies in the next few weeks. The owner could attribute to the toxic release of the substances inside the defective chip. Soon you would be sued."

The pet shop girl was vacillating, "I have to pay for the surgery. How much is it?"

"$150 is the cheapest I can offer to help you," I said.

"Can you do it now?"

"Better ask the owner first," I said. This is a potential litigation case. Mark volunteered to talk to the owner.

"It is best that the pet shop girl talk to the owner," I assessed the situation correctly. "Otherwise, the owner thinks there is something she is hiding."

The pet shop girl nodded her head. She had an half-an-hour teleconversation with the owner while I cancelled my lunch appointment! All because of a microchip!

The pet shop girl said gravely, "The owner wants you to guarantee that the dog will not die during the anaesthesia and surgery to remove the chip. Otherwise she would sue your pants off. I told her no vet in the world can guarantee that!"

So that was part of the long teleconversation she had with the owner.

I felt sorry for the dog owner, the pet shop girl and the dog.

I would like to help out. Another case of "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"? This seems to be such a case. I should opt out. Where taint my reputation for $150 and a potential litigation.

"Chances are good that this young active dog would not die during anaesthesia," I said. "I will use just gas anaesthesia and no tranquilisers. It is much safer." There was an excellent pet shop girl-veterinarian relationship and I would help if I could.

The pet shop girl was "between the devil and the deep blue sea", I think. It was no longer a matter of her paying for the operation. It was whether the dog would die under anaesthesia or should the dog not be operated and die later and get sued for alleged intoxication from leakage of the microchip.

I was encountering a case of "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread".

"Let the owner think about it," I said. "In any case, the dog had eaten and would not be suitable for the anaesthesia. It is best to starve the dog 12 hours before anaesthesia. I want to maximise my chances of success."

So, the pet shop girl reluctantly went back and would let the owner decide. An hour was spent for this matter! The pet shop girl text-messaged to me that I had not charged her for the consultation. Now, how much should I charge for an hour of worries - of the dog owner, the pet shop girl and the vet? Life is full of problems and is not a matter of dollars and cents sometimes!