I a huge believer in non-invasive testing.

Little Emma Jean had a myriad of problems, some of which were diagnosed and some were a mystery to the end. She had a full blood panel one Saturday and a recheck the next Saturday. I suggested another blood panel and the vet was hesitant since things appeared to be going well. However, Emma Jean was about 1% "off", but I couldn't put my finger on it. Thankfully we did the blood panel, found that she had the beginnings of a liver problem and were able to address it before it became a big problem.

Several kitties have been anemic and PCV (or HCT as it's shown on the results now) can go badly very quickly.

If the cat is already at the vet and blood is being taken anyway, I always as for a full panel. The only difference might be doing in-house results vs. sending it out to a lab if we need the results immediately.

Sounds like this guy was just being irrational. It's a fast, inexpensive test and it shouldn't be that hard to understand that looking for a change in values is important.

Wondering though, why it was game over if the dog were bleeding internally? Cost to re-open? Age or condition of the animal?

Maybe the guy was refusing the test because if it showed internal bleeding, he couldn't do anything about it anyway. He might have been hoping for something else, another answer, a better potential outcome.

Our brains don't always let us see the forest through the trees in times like that.

To me sounds like loves his dog....How much has he spent already ? Surgery, Cemotherapy....all of this, like most us, this has to be a lot of money. His beloved Pet, is still not well. His has put his Pet-Kid, thur pain of surgery....Cemotherapy...He must feel bad...I would, did I love my Pet-Kid so much, I could not let go, no matter how much pain, it cause him...the blood work here...is not the question...how far shall, we go.

In this case, it doesn't sound like a money issue to me, either. The owner had already invested a LOT of money in caring for this pet. Other tests and labs. Multiple office visits. Surgery. Chemo. End-of-life consult. And the test is even "inexpensive". Perhaps he was reluctant to put the pet through another unpleasant blood draw? Or maybe, in this stressful situation, he was simply not thinking clearly.

Certainly, financial concerns can be a valid reason to question additional testing, and sadly, some vets do "pad the bill" unnecessarily. But I have to think that most people, once they were educated on the "why's", would understand the importance of a repeat test.

This is a very helpful post. Thank you

Okay, so I don't really see the point of doing another blood test either. If the internal bleeding can't be treated, why would he need to know? Pain can be treated, so why not treat for pain immediately, shouldn't that be a priority? What harm would be done with treating for pain?

The purpose would be to assure the owner, and help avoid any guilt he may have possibly had later, that he had, indeed, done everything possible for his dog. At that point, I know that for me, $100 or so spent, in light of what had already been done, would be a necessary expense to make that one lasting, and final decision to end a life so important to me.
It's one decision you don't want to have to justify...especially to yourself. Of course, everyone is different, and has the right to base their decisions on what they believe.

actually treating this cat for pain would provide all the info that is needed to make an informed decision and to avoid any guilt later. If the pain medication does not help, there is internal bleeding. No need to put the animal through another blood draw. If it was my pet and my vet, I know my vet would agree to try the pain med instead of checking for blood loss.

If you trust your vet enough to provide care in the first place, then one shouldn't question their motives when any form of treatment is recommended.
Yes, be informed, discuss, prioritize based your individual ability to pay for the most needed services, by all means. But if you actually believe your vet does not have your pet's best interests at the top of the list, find another vet. I must act as a partner with my vet at all times, to fine tune those services needed with my rescued, and my owned cats. An owner knows them better than anyone, but if we do not convey, in a reasonable (and condensed) method, the symptoms and behaviors in a way that helps our vets pinpoint the problem more effectively, then it is likely that the use of tests will be even more important in correctly diagnosing the problem.
Sometimes, tests are merely to confirm what they already know, but what is a few hundred dollars in comparison to the emotional (and lifetime financial) investment you are protecting?! Keep a journal, especially when your pet is 5 yrs or over, or if any medical condition has been present, and keep notes on things out of the ordinary, weight, changes in eating or activity, it may become an invaluable tool in helping you and your vet sort out a more serious condition before any lasting effects have come to pass.
Above all, remember what you pay to see your own doctor, usually for a tap on the knee, and a prescription (upwards of $150 for 10 minutes) and the cost of a vets visit ( $50? and usually for much longer visit), on top of that, try getting your doctor down to his office at 2am for an emergency.
Now take time to note that both doctors go to school the same amount of time ( sometimes longer for vets) and incur the same debt. Doesn't seem at all fair to me, but I'm thankful they are in it for the animals, and not for the money in my opinion.

I agree that one should trust their vet that the pet comes first and not financial motives. However I also believe that the veterinarian has to trust the pet owner and that they also tend to have the pet's best interest in mind. But also a veterinarian has to carefully explore a client's understanding of a subject or motives for their actions. It's important not to raise false hope or to imply that testing will be any more than confirming a disease that cannot be treated or even if it can be treated, would treatment be an option for the client, for example if a pet presents with symptoms of arthritis or hip dysplasia, do we really need to do x-rays or just give pain meds to treat the obvious discomfort? Some clients may want to know, others don't. sometimes it's a financial decision, but it should never be the veterinarians desire to have a definite diagnosis and to imply that a client isn't doing what's best for their pet if they decline the x-rays.

I think part of what I said was misunderstood. Of course treat with pain meds, that wasn't the issue or direction of my comment. Also, that if they did not test, it doesn't make them less as a caring pet owner necessarily. What I was pointing out, was that if someone felt that their vets motives were not in their pets best interests, that if they feel that way, they should be seeking another opinion, if they feel there's still a chance anything can be done.
I would still believe that a vet would want to confirm a diagnosis before the final step is taken, and if another test will do that, then it's up to the vet to explain how it benefits their client, of course if it isn't their regular vet, then the relationship wouldn't have the footing needed in a difficult situation such as this.

I laugh every time someone in the comments quotes costs, because they are ALWAYS extremely lower than what I pay in New Jersey!

Also, if you have a 2:00 AM emergency here, your vet isn't coming into the office. You and your pet are traveling to one of the few 24-hour animal hospitals, and trust me, you are paying WAY OVER $50 an hour.

I'm lucky... I choose to live poor with my pets, than wealthy with them.

*typo ....than wealthy without them.