Pets
I Was Quoted £450 to Put a Small Pet to Sleep. It Made Me Question Britain's Vet Industry
— 5 mins read
Six groups now own 60 per cent of Britain's vet practices and prices have risen at twice the rate of inflation. Who is that bill really for?
To most people, a hen is livestock. To me, she was family. She was one of the oldest birds in my flock, and I had owned her for the majority of my adult life. She weighed less than a kilogram, but she was a much-loved pet, with her own personality, routines and place in my life.
Last weekend, she became ill and, despite my efforts to help her recover, she continued to deteriorate. By Tuesday evening, she appeared to be in severe respiratory distress. My usual, family-run vet was closed, so I called another practice, and I was told it would cost £450 to put her to sleep. For a bird weighing less than a kilogram, I was stunned, and wasn’t even given an explanation for why the cost was so high.
What happened next made me even more uncomfortable. When I challenged the charge, the tone of the conversation seemed to change. I was left with the impression that there might be some flexibility in what I had been quoted, and that perhaps something could be done to make the cost more manageable. That shift unsettled me; if £450 was genuinely the necessary cost, then why did the possibility of flexibility suddenly emerge when I challenged it?
If £450 was genuinely the necessary cost, then why did the possibility of flexibility suddenly emerge when I challenged it?
I did not take her to the vet. Instead, I spent that evening sitting on the floor with her, trying to work out what I could possibly do. At one point, the thought crossed my mind of why some bird keepers ultimately take matters into their own hands when they cannot access or afford veterinary care. I knew I could never do that myself, but for the first time I understood how a desperate owner could find themselves contemplating it. It was a distressing situation to face, and one that should never be allowed to arise simply because basic veterinary care has become financially inaccessible.
Desperate for advice, I shared what had happened in a national pet care group. I expected a handful of sympathetic responses. Instead, I received hundreds of responses, including from people who said they had never encountered anything close to that price for euthanasia of a pet bird. Several practising vets said they would never consider charging such a sum. Others shared the substantially lower prices they had paid at their own out-of-hours practices. One person told me that even having a large Labrador put to sleep out of hours had cost less. But why?
The Issue Runs Deeper
In March 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority concluded its investigation into the UK's veterinary services market and found significant problems across the sector, including a 63 per cent rise in average veterinary prices between 2016 and 2023, compared with 32 per cent general inflation.
The market has also undergone a dramatic transformation, which provides crucial context. More than 60 per cent of veterinary practices are now owned in whole or in part by six large veterinary groups, compared with around 10 per cent in 2013. The CMA found that, between January 2023 and July 2024, average prices at five of those large groups were 18.3 per cent higher than at independent practices for consultations, treatments and medicines. When prices rise this sharply and ownership becomes increasingly concentrated, it is fair to ask: who is benefiting? Is one of life's most upsetting moments year funding a millionaire’s annual dividends?
When prices rise this sharply and ownership becomes increasingly concentrated, it is fair to ask: who is benefiting?
Emergency veterinary care can be expensive when an animal needs urgent treatment or surgery, but euthanasia is different. When an animal is beyond saving, ending its suffering should be treated as an act of compassion, not an opportunity for profit. Charging hundreds of pounds for that basic act of mercy raises serious questions about whether commercial interests are being allowed to come before animal welfare.
Price transparency is particularly important in an emergency. The CMA found that many pet owners are still left in the dark about costs and introduced reforms intended to make pricing and ownership information much clearer. The measures include standardised price information and greater transparency about which businesses own veterinary practices. The CMA's reforms are now being implemented, with a statutory deadline of 23 September 2026 for the substantive remedies.
That matters because an owner sitting beside a critically ill animal does not have the luxury of comparing prices, researching competitors or waiting until the following morning. They may have minutes to decide whether they can afford treatment, whether they should proceed with an operation, or whether they should allow their animal to die. They are placing an enormous amount of trust in the professional standing in front of them.
That is why I believe euthanasia deserves particular scrutiny. When an animal is beyond saving and continuing to live means continuing to suffer, euthanasia is not a luxury service. It is an act of mercy. Access to that basic end-of-life care should be available to every animal, regardless of whether its owner happens to have hundreds of pounds available at exactly the moment of crisis. Animal euthanasia should never be a profit engine.
The CMA has identified serious problems with rising prices, consolidation and transparency, and it has now imposed reforms intended to address them. Sadly, those reforms will come too late for many owners and their animals.
