Why is it like that though? Like what are the economics of performing the procedure that it's possible for it to be free if the owner gives it up? Does someone different ultimately foot the bill?
You get a wide range of clients at a vet clinic, some people are very nice and deal honestly, but there are a ton of people out there, I would say they are "less than savory" characters who recklessly adopt a lot of pets (like 5 dogs, 5 cats, and no money to pay for any bills) and will abuse these policies all day.
Like there is a shelter in the city that will pay for medical bill and take the dog.
I do sort of see the logic. Part of responsible pet ownership is being able to keep your animal alive and healthy, if you don’t have the resources to do that then you maybe aren’t ready to be a pet owner. They make insurance to cover this exact thing, called pet insurance. If you can’t afford to have pet insurance and you can’t afford to pay for the medical bills then you can’t afford to have a pet. There are other people who will provide the care that the animal needs, but at that point they will become the owner.
I understand that this sounds heartless WRT the owner, I didn’t make these rules this is just how it works at my wife’s clinic and that’s the justification I have heard from the shelter and the company that owns the clinic.
It wouldn’t make any sense otherwise. It would be a lose lose for an animal shelter to receive this deeply fragile animal and the vet to do this expensive surgery for free.
Likely the vet simply knew someone with deep enough pockets who loves dogs and was willing to take one for a well above market fee. It doesn't seem unethical to me that person only wants to save dogs they own.
I wish I didn't know such arrangements are happening.
Every single one I know has a small menagerie of broken animals.