Marc the vet

1. I was very disappointed to see the viewpoint in which the Tonight programme was taken – It was sensationalising the scandal that the majority of vets who have a unique position of responsibility are betraying the pet owning public by providing un-necessary treatments. Unfortunately Jonathan Maitland apparently used leading questions on Mr Abraham, and then answers appear edited to prove this point. I think that the programme reflects very badly on the vast majority of veterinary surgeons in the UK (myself included) and I am sure that the fall-out from this over the next few days will be noticed in practices across the country. I think Mr Abraham has shot himself in the foot with this stance (unless he is in a unique position in that his income is not derived from first opinion veterinary practice).

   Posted by L.Barry on: March 16th, 2009 9:42 pm

2. I thought the programme tonight very interesting – in particular the RCVS reinstatement of the vet who had made fraudulent charges and caused harm to animals in his care. Worse than that, I see that the practice bears an RCVS Accredited Practice sign – which *should* imply best standards of care. What a joke !
   Thanks for your honesty – I was also interested to hear your comments about the prescribing by one vet of M*****m and it’s potential side effects.
   Well done you for your honesty !
   Wish I lived in Brighton !
   Sandy Waterton

   Posted by Sandy Waterton on: March 16th, 2009 9:43 pm

3. You did a shocking job of getting this point across, and maybe should have highlighted that you are referring to a minority from the start. You have made things even more difficult for the veterinary profession than they already are in the current economic climate, making people believe that all vets are con artists and not to be trusted. You also had the privilege of seeing the animals on the show without a concurrent history from the owner of clinical signs. The vets in the ‘investigation’ didn’t have this, and as most of us do, took the owners history to be true.

   Posted by Vet on: March 16th, 2009 10:10 pm

4. This programme was disappointing and biased. It didn’t show any context and I don’t think that Marc Abraham has done the profession any favours at all.

   First, despite the above protestations and caveats, his attitude came across as very holier-than-thou and self serving at the expense of the rest of the profession.

   Second, the show did little to show context of any of the cases. Getting a cat that was perceived to be ill seen, examined and reassured for 25 GBP seems like a bargain. Unlike the medical profession where the patients generally have the ability to communicate information to you, the vets in question have to take a full history and work with information received from the owner – some poor vet is thinking here is a seriously worried owner that has something wrong with their animal and they want reassurance – perhaps the vet is right to check in more detail such as keeping the animal overnight. If an triage doctor discharged a small child/baby despite concerns from the parent over their health and then the child fell seriously ill later there would be hell to pay. Sometimes the owner’s concerns need to be investigated further, there is an element of trust involved.

   Third, all three animals were examined by Mr Abraham – who was conspicously quiet on what he would rotuinely charge for these consultations. I also loved the comment on not giving anti-inflammtory medication without first taking X-rays. What about the GA that would be required? Perhaps had Mr Abrahams given some realistic costing it might haven given the programme some credibility.

   Fourth – yes I was really that disappointed with this programme – perhaps it might have been wise to clarify the costs of medical treatment/surgery and professional opinion in this country. People are spoilt by the NHS in this country and have no idea of what any medical procedure really “costs.” The Rottweiler featured in the programme had complicated spinal surgery with all the procedures necessary for that MRI, X-rays etc plus full after care – how much would this have cost at Mr. Abrahams practice?

   The media has a great way of spinning stories – Mr Abrahams should have shown more care and responsibility in his participation.

   Posted by T Archbold on: March 17th, 2009 12:51 am

5. I am writing to express my complete disbelief at the program you aired tonight and how completely flawed the program was. Forgive me if this mail is somewhat incomprehensible but I am so outraged that I have to vent my frustration immediately.

   I have several issues.

   1) If you present normal healthy animals to a vet with vague fabricated symptoms such being off their food, expect a variety of responses. Any good vet will tell you that history is everything. (History being the owners story) Frequently an animal will be presented to me by someone other than its carer and the process of reaching a diagnosis in such cases is 100 fold more difficult. If your researchers presented an animal a vet with any variation in their story or their (fabricated) level of concern than the outcome and suggested level of treatment would vary markedly. Frequently with mild vague symptoms medication is offered on the basis of the symptoms described as a trial to see if it helps. This brings me onto my second point

   2) Marc may have 15 hears experience but that does not make him an expert of any authority in any field. From a clinical perspective some of his opinions were at best dubious and I would certainly be unhappy as a client with the level of treatment he suggested for the conditions discussed.

   How he can in one sentence be deriding vets for over treatment and in another condemning a vet for prescribing metacam without xrays is BEYOND HYPOCRASY.

   Whist the side effect profile of metacam well known amongst vets, it is a useful drug and certainly used by a large proportion of the profession in cases where back pain is a potential contributory factor. Xrays first would be unnecessary in a large number of cases and are often unhelpful anyway.

   Your piece about the rabbit was perfect example. Anorexia in rabbits is recognised as a medical emergency. Usually dental disease and/or gastric stasis. It IS appropriate to keep such an animal in at the clinic, it IS appropriate to give them gastroprotectants, pain relief and motility enhancers and if they do not start eating it IS appropriate to examine their mouth under anaesthetic and even take some xrays of their jaws. It is NOT possible to FULLY examine a rabbit’s mouth when conscious, anyone who thinks they can is kidding themselves and had you consulted anyone with specialist knowledge in this field you would have been made aware of this. If Marc is not aware of these facts he desperately needs to update his knowledge and consider CPD not ITV The most appropriate treatment was the one offering these options. Obviously the outcome and final level of treatment would depend upon the response of the rabbit which as the condition was fabricated in the first place would, I assume, be good!

   3) For any condition there are always a number of potential diagnoses. We operate on the basis of what is safe and most likely rather than absolute fact and we use medications as a trial to see what responses we get in a species which can only communicate in a limited number of ways. For example a cat with vague impedance can have anything from pyrexia, dental disease, heart disease, back pain to gastric lymphoma and a huge variety of others. History would be important in determining which is most likely and whether a change in diet of furthur investigation is appropriate

   When discussing overtreatment (which I accept can happen) it is important to make CLEAR that whilst simple things such as vague abdominal discomfort could be wind and benign they COULD be the onset of a gastric torsion which would quickly proceed towards dead in a few hours. It needs to be CLEAR that a lot of what might appear to be unnecessary does in fact have serious implications in a minority of cases.

   You also failed to consider in a world of litigation what happens when serious problems are overlooked and ultimately who is responsible for that. What some people would consider to be over treatment is a natural response to the real threat of negligence claims and court action.

   The veterinary profession is blighted with a suicide rate among vets that is nearly four times the national average and double that of doctors or dentists, according to new research. Programmes like this do not help the very fine line we tread between negligence and over treatment, business concerns and the wish to treat every animal for the best and the stress and mental health issues associated with all these issues facing our profession. Of all the professions it is the most poorly paid at every level of experience (unless of course you are a TV star) and quite how that is “Easy money” is beyond me.

   If you are presenting arguments like this they need to be based on the opinion of more than one vet who makes his living in the media. Who is set to gain considerably from the attention this brings him and ultimately the revenues associated with that. They need to be presented in a fair and balanced way, with at least some acknowledgement towards the process of veterinary medicine. Don’t fabricate disease and get your vet’s opinion reviewed by those with specialist knowledge in their field.

   Posted by M Holmes on: March 17th, 2009 1:35 am

6. Mr. Jacobs I thought you were excellent on the programme and I really admire you for having the courage to speak out. Almost every time I went to the Vet my cats were given an injection which I am sure they did not need and in his book “Pet Hates: The Shocking Truth about Pets and Vets” a Vet going by the name of Josh Artmeir says that at one practice he worked at he was told to give every animal an injection just to make money. Steroids too are dished out by Vets although he says in the book that steroids shoot the immune system to pieces. My cat had struvite crystals and my Vet kept catheterising him and then operated on him only for him to end up euthanased because the Vet could not get him to pass urine but Elizabeth Hodgkins, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine in writing has since told me my cat is needlessly dead and says that dry food caused his illness and so all the Vet had to do to save my cat was tell me to take him off dry pet food but Vets sell dry pet food and make 20% or so profit from the sale of it and from prescription diets and the Vet made far more money out of catheterising my cat and operating on him than he would have made had he told me that taking my cat off the food the Vet sells was all that I needed to do to save his life. Mrs. Nute in the programme defended the indefensible since that Vet should never have been allowed to graduate in the first place and it shows that Vets are not being taught properly since he should never have tied the bandages too tight on the legs of cats and dogs. The RCVS defends the indefensible and refuse to give comments on the 80 or so veterinary research papers I have which show pet food is causing cancer, kidney failure, diabetes, obesity, struvite crystals, hyperthryoidism, ibd, calcium oxalate stones in the kidneys of cats, dilated cardiomyopathy in cats and dogs which will eventually kill them. Vets should not be allowed to sell pet food. Roger Meacock MRCVS said in a letter in the Veterinary Times dated 21.7.2008 that Vets should have a warning up in their receptions about the illness pet food is causing. Michael Fox MRCVS has written an excellent book on the illness pet food is causing entitled “Not Fit for a Dog – The Truth about Manufactured Pet Food”. I thought the programme was excellent and really admire you Mr. Jacobs for speaking out as you did.

   Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 17th, 2009 7:25 am

7. I run a specialist exotic animal referral service in the south. I believe you have given out misleading and dangerous information to the public domain which may result in the continued suffering and death of rabbits and i am considering reporting this to professional bodies. The issue involves your dental examination of a rabbit. Firstly, 1 days anorexia in a rabbit should always be taken seriously. Rabbits are prone to hepatic lipidosis and gut stasis which if left can be life threatening. Secondly I refer to your “Examination”. Please read The BSAVA Manual of Rabbits, page 25, or failing that , Vittorio Capellos book Rabbit and rodent dentistry, or failing that the BSAVA manual of exotic pets 2nd edition page 80 all of which state that the owner should be made aware that a proper oral examination of a suspected dental case requires deep sedation or anaesthesia and that many lesions are missed without carrying out this dilligent procedure. Are you really saying that you would turn away a client with an anorexic rabbit if you could not find a cause. The difference between this and programs about bad builders is that animals dont make symptoms up and a vet has to believe a “concerned” owner if present a sick animal. Now I agree a better price structure should be established but the vet who offered sedation/anaesthesia in this case was in fact following the correct procedure, you were not. I can show you many photographs of terrible tongue lesions on rabbits referred to me with “normal” looking mouths on a concious exam. I believe by putting clients off a thourgh examination (remember, their animals REALLY will be anorexic and potentially sick) you have brought shame on yourself

   Posted by vet on: March 17th, 2009 10:02 am

8. Even as veterinary students my peers and myself have recognised that ITVs programme last night was extrememly flawed. Time and time again we have been educated as to the importance of taking a history and what a large role this has in determining diagnostics and treatment.

   We are excited that we are about to enter a profession that we have been working towards for many years for the better of patients and their owners and we are deeply saddened that this programme has undoubtedly tarnished the publics perception of our future profession.

   Even in our more limited experience we appreciate that there is rarely only one option for treatment of an animal. We also are well aware that an inappetant rabbit can quickly go downhill so admitting such an animal (based on history from the owner) is perfectly reasonable.

   I also think encouraging people to purchase drugs off the internet without proper guidance is irresponsible.

   With regards to the cost of veterinary treatment, it is of course very variable and often not cheap but if you calculated the cost of a GPs consultation (based on their wage)I’m sure it would amount to far more than a veterinary consultation. In this country we are spoiled because we have an NHS and so have no concept of what healthcare truly costs!

   Posted by Final Year Veterinary Student on: March 17th, 2009 1:09 pm

9. Well I congratulate Mr Abraham for speaking out. The only critiscim I have of this programme is that it did not go NEARLY far enough.Now L Barry, Anonomous Vet and T Archbold you all know there are problems that exist in your “profession” not least the lack of regulation. I believe your college receives around 600 compaints a year. Only a handful ever reach disciplinary. For instance what about the vet who prescribed and gave caustic soda to a pet owner to give to her two dogs following ingestion of too many worming tablets. I am sure you can imagine the agonising suffering of the dog that was given this substance and was euthanised as a consequence to avoid further suffering. Now that vets case never went beyond the “Preliminary Investigation Committee”(PIC) because according to your regulatory body the vet had experienced a steep learning curve!!!! SO DID THE DOG!!!!!No one knows who this vet was. He could be working along side you. Do you honestly think it was correct that he was allowed to continue to practice without any re-education or re-validation of skills? This case is only one of many many serious complaints made to your college that did not go further than PIC.Now that is what I consider is scandelous.Your profession has been aware for long enough of the weaknesses that exist within the disciplinary process.You had a chance to deal with this matter from within the profession-you have failed to do so. The Government has also failed to act on the weaknesses that it acknowledges exist. I would refer you to publications and letters published in your own veterinary journal. Most recently Bob Michell describes the 42year old Veterinary Surgeons Act
   “It is no more the duty of our profession to explain the need for a new VSA(Veterinary Surgeons Act)than it is incumbent on alcoholics to press for reform of the drink-driving law or terrorists to seek reform of the control of explosives….Regulation is a fundementally an ethical issue….It is about protecting the public where the service, which they use, is too complicated for them to soundly judge its effectiveness and safety….I suspect most of the profession, if given a solemn binding assurance that there would be no change in the VSA in the foreseeable future(which without the assurance, is probably the truth), would shout “yippee”. Why pay to be fenced in or inconvenienced?….While our profession heads towards 45years without a new act,the Royal Pharmaceutical Society(RPS)is already considering the implications of a politically imposed reform of its charter less than 5years after the last….. The questions to be put to the Prime Minister (since Defra seem to have neither ears nor brain on this issue) would be: What is the justication for denying to animals, and their owners, regulatory reforms consistent with the principles prevailing in all other healthcare professions?Since this is about principles, the answer is not that vets don’t work for the NHS” I suspect this comment was for the vets who would prefer things to stay as they are> He goes on to say “The need is obvious and inescapable- both in the public interest and for the welfare of animals…..the RCVS is endangered by its lack of legal framework to conform to modern standards of regulation. One critcism of the General Medical Council made by the Shipman Inquiry was of its failure to act as it should because it didn’t believe it had the legal powers”

   I once hoped that the many reputable members of the veterinary profession would deal with the problems that exist within.Perhaps it is now down to the media to put pressure on government and the profession to bring about much needed change. I hope the medias takes up the challenge.
   Incidently I agree on the comments about giving an anti inflammatory as a first line treatment versus the risks associated with GA.However they should be prescribed with caution and full explanation to the owner of side effects. Also if an animal is lame because it has injured itself following over activity perhaps anti inflammatory analgesia should be given with caution. After all is not pain sometimes a way in which the body protects itself from further injury?

   Posted by pamela stannard on: March 17th, 2009 1:28 pm

10. Well done, you clearly have a conscience… However, is there not a risk of compromising an animal’s welfare by presenting it to a vet with made up symptoms? Surely Marc Abraham and ITV should be investigated on this basis. Also, the fact that this programme risks bringing the veterinary profession into disrepute not only risks pet-owners not having their animals seen by a vet in time to prevent worsening symptoms, but could also lead to disciplinary action by the RCVS.

    Posted by James on: March 17th, 2009 2:08 pm

11. Well Done Marc Abraham. The tonight show hilighted how some vets do put the cash registar first before the pet. Yes obviously not all vets but I think there is a majority that do. Refering to an earlier post vets know that “pet food” causes illnesses in our pets but it brings in a high revenue for them. They are also aware that immunity lasts a minimum of 7 years but still instist on vaccinating our pets yearly causing much harm to them when even the American and Australian veterinary bodies have advised 3 yearly vaccinations. If they know that these procedures are not in the best interest of our pets yet still insist on these procedures one can only assume that it is the money they are considering and not the animals welfare so please forgive me if I seem to doubt some vets integreties. Also I have had a vet shout at me because I was not happy to give the offered NSAID me***am to my dog because I am aware of the side effect – he shouted that I was being silly because there are no side effects and if I didnt want his help to get out of his surgery. It was only because I was fully aware of the evidence that I was able to quote something to him that he backed down. I am not anti vet – I have a good relationship with my vet and rely on him but unfortunately not all vets are as honest and do not put the welfare of the animals first. It is about time the general public were made aware that not all vets are putting the needs of the animal before their financial needs.

    Posted by Donna Newman on: March 17th, 2009 3:01 pm

12. I would make a complaint about the advice Marc gave on national television but I believe the RCVS is the more appropriate place to take such a complaint. What a shame Marc himself does not respect the proper professional process.

    Posted by ex-vet on: March 17th, 2009 3:34 pm

13. It’s a shame that the programme couldn’t be for a longer viewing, it never ceases to amaze me how many vets never actually sign their name when things like this are shown, eg, student vet, ex vet or just plain vet..I wonder why that is ?
    However, getting back to the programme I do appreciate that there are just plain BAD vets out there, which sadly make things horrid for the good ones,so please do something about it within your establishment.

    The RCVS only has it’self to blame especially regarding the the vet in Canterbury who made the dog and cat suffer with their leg issue’s, he was only struck off for 14 months, come on people that is an utter disgrace then to be allowed back into his practice …

    I think many pet owners are very disillusioned with the veterinary profession I certainly am, You only have to look at the yahoo groups to see how many disgruntled pet owners there are, lots of vets hand out antibiotics like they are going out of fashion…. or is it “The Just Incase Scenario” How many times have we all heard that one ?
    So the answer is revolk the bad vets licenses completely, they are a danger to our pets as they have a license to maim and kill members of our family, good for Marc at least he had the balls to do it….

    Posted by Linda Bland on: March 17th, 2009 5:02 pm

14. I would like to repeat a point made several times above by myself and others to the “Well done Marc” crowd who appear to be concerned about the general level veterinary treatment provided by the profession. ADVICE PRESENTED BY MARC ON TELEVISION WAS DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS AND LIKELY TO INCREASE THE DEGREE OF SUFFERING IN PET RABBITS IF FOLLOWED IN GENUINELY SICK ANIMALS.
    I would be embarrassed to be associated with advice such as this. How this equates with “Well done” “Petplan vet of the year” or “Paul O’grady’s favorite vet” is un-fathomable.
    It is exactly advice such as this which results in so many of the complaints that you have.
    For those of you concerned about the level of anonymity on this forum I am more than happy to put my name to it.
    Incidentally any vets who are following this and have similar concerns are advised by the RCVS to make official complaints to them.

    Posted by Mark Holmes on: March 17th, 2009 5:48 pm

15. I am completely appalled at the way Marc has portrayed the veterinary profession on last night’s programme. The blog at the top of this page says that you wanted to highlight the fact that it is a minority of unscrupulous vets who are giving the profession a bad name. What you infact did was make it look like all vets are overcharging and carrying out unnecessary procedures at the owners expense.

    Firstly, Marc had the advantage of a true and accurate history when examining the cat, dog and rabbit. These animals had been presented to other vets with completely misleading information.

    I hope that Marc would agree that an accurate clinical history is just as important as the clinical examination, as the animals are unable to communicate their point of view.

    As mentioned in the previous comment, anorexia in rabbits can rapidly lead to deterioration and death. Any rabbit presenting with inappetance should not under any circumstances just be sent away with no effort made to establish the cause. I would also like to point out that a full clinical examination should have included a lot more than just a cursory glance at the teeth.

    Anorexia in a dog is not likely to be so serious, but there is a risk that it can be the first clinical sign of a huge number of conditions, some more serious than others. We do not expect people to deliberately try and mislead us into prescribing unnecessary drugs.

    The cat which was shown was obviously very stressed after being examined for a fifth time. Hissing and scratching are often a sign of pain, and inappetance in a cat can also be due to pain. I disagree completely with Marc’s comment about the nsaid that was prescribed. If pain is suspected, it is perfectly reasonable to give some form of pain relief for a short time and then assess response. He shot imself in the foot completely by saying that x-rays were indicated. This would infact have been a complete waste of the client’s money, as it is highly unlikely that radiographs of the spine would show the cause of non-specific back pain.

    This programme will no doubt have succeeded in contributing to current owner perception that all vets overcharge, earn loads of money and are constantly thinking about profits. It infuriates me that Marc has played a part in portraying this belief as reality, when infact vets work considerably more hours for a lot less money than their counterparts in the medical, dental, teaching and legal professions. In fact, salaries for vets are more in line with NHS nurses than doctors.

    It was only mentioned briefly at the end of the programme that most vets are highly professional and it is only a small minority that do not put the patients needs first.

    The programme also only looked at a very small corner of the South East of England, which is far from being representative of the work that is carried out and the costs involved across the UK. In reality, most vets under-charge if they are faced with a situation where an animal needs treatment and the owner is unable to pay. Vets often have to make the difficult decision as to which diagnostic tools are likely to give the most useful information in order for them to deal with cases in a cost-effective manner. It can be very frustrating to not have the ability to carry out appropriate diagnostics tests due to cost restraints if the animal is not insured and the owners are unable to pay.

    It is very common for vets to write prescriptions for clients so that they can source drugs from elsewhere, and I am sure that I am not alone in having recommended to clients to search the internet for cheaper alternatives. It was not mentioned that the prices vets pay for drugs from their suppliers are often the same as the prices quoted on the internet, making it impossible for us to compete. Most vets put a very reasonable mark up on drugs dispensed, as they are in direct competition with other practices in the vicinity. The general public in the UK often do not realise the cost of drugs, as they are all entitled to free treatment on the NHS and only pay a small prescription fee for any medication, regardless of how much it actually costs. In comparison, pet owners in the USA are far more realistic about what to expect, as they have to pay for their own health care.

    I sincerely hope that in future you will consider very carefully how what you say in front of a TV camera is going to be edited, as the television company’s main interest is in increasing their viewing figures. You claim to be trying to ensure that the British public do not lose faith in their local vet, but by appearing on “Tonight” you are likely to have achieved the exact opposite.

    Posted by Mhairi on: March 17th, 2009 5:53 pm

16. I found last night’s show a biased rhetoric at best, any animal presented to a vet with a history of being ‘off colour’ or ‘off his food’ will be treated based on a trust in the client and their knowledge of their own animal, history is, after all, very important. Presenting an animal for a routine weight check or check up would have been a far fairer social experiment and not biased the outcome from the start.
    Secondly, encouraging internet sales of drugs is irresponsible without there being some supervision and since when was it ill advised to dispense Metacam before X-rays? Surely an unnecessary anaesthetic and the cost of X-rays is a far less responsible use of a client’s money? In addition what anti-inflammatory would Marc rather we dispensed under the laws of the veterinary cascade?
    Thirdly, why discuss a five year future for a dog’s drugs for any other reason than the inflate the amount of money involved? Prescriptions can change over time and using such a long time frame was deliberatly inflammatory.
    Fourth, prices and treatment options can and do vary between practices and no-one would suggest a person couldn’t shop around or look for a vet they trust.
    Fifth, i agree with many of the previous comments regarding the rabbit consultation, a rabbit’s teeth can only be fully assessed under anaesthetic and treating a rabbit that is presented as anorexic is the only responsible course of action.
    In summary I am disappointed in both the show’s and the vet’s obvious bias, I understood reporting to require a fair and just presentation of the facts, it appears vets are not the only people who can fall short.

    Posted by final year student on: March 17th, 2009 6:22 pm

17. I am very disappointed with the damning comments you have made about Marc! If any of you out there have ever taken part in a T.V.,radio or newspaper interview, as I have, you will be aware that stories are highly edited, so cut him some slack.

    When you choose your profession, I have no doubt that is because you cared about animals and not the financial incentive, otherwise you wouldn’t spend so many years training. However, there are unscrupulous people out there, who will take advantage of people’s ignorance of animal conditions and most of all, they just wanted their beloved pet to get well.

    I am lucky my local practice is excellent and my vet doesn’t prescribe antibiotics unless vital, he is an experienced vet in years and the way he approaches my animal couldn’t be more caring.

    I work closely with the local dog warden who has recently seen an increase in unwanted pets, the credit crunch has hit and people can no longer aford their vet bills.

    I work tirelessly to promote responsible dog ownership, this includes worming, flea treatment and innoculations in line with veterinary guidance. I do not promote ‘off the shelf pet shop products’ as I am not convinced they will keep my pet free of toxacariasis. However, this is not cheap and I often cringe at how much my pet costs me, but if I wasn;t prepared for this I would never have had him.

    If you deem yourself to be a vet who cares and explores all options to keep a pet healthy and the bill affordable, why are showing such animosity, what don;t you praise Marc for showing up the minority of unscrupulous individuals and MORE IMPORTANTLY encouraging the public to ask questions, WE are not vets and have to trust your opinions but if there are a range of options surely all these should be explored before giving unnecessary treatment.

    The answer to you all, is to standardise your tarriffs, publish them in your charter and the cost of drugs,which suppliers you choose and why?

    I know a falconer who uses a vet whose charges are much greater than another avian specialist vet,(even though they are 50 miles away) so why is there such a big difference, surely you should all be charging the same?

    To a worried pet owner, you (the vet) are a God, the person who can help to save your animal, which is often a part of the family or an essential companion particularly to the elderly. Keep that in mind, you don;t need to be so protective of your reputation if you are charging and treating proportionally.

    I urge you to get behind Marc and encourage your patients to learn more about their pets health and what they are paying for.

    Posted by Mel Turner on: March 17th, 2009 6:25 pm

18. How sad. It was very disappointing to see Marc abjectly failing in this program to achieve his stated objectives in his website. No balance was achieved in the programme, with only a passing remark at the end to affirm the vast majority of vets who are committed, caring and professional in trying to balance very best care for pets, with the needs and demands of the owner, and provide their staff with adequate working conditions. This imbalance created a tawdy superficial programme that made its points about the minority at the expense of the majority, and will weaken the trust that is needed when vet and owner have to work together for the benefit of the pet they care for.
    Thus the program seemed destructive without offering solutions, and generalising without giving positive balance. I actually support his crusading spirit against the less competent or unprincipled minority, but just wonder whether it was wise to cheapen the entire profession in this way. Did Marc have editorial control over the balance and content? If so, he has acted poorly. If not, maybe he has been naive in believing that the integrity he rightly expects amongst colleagues extends to program makers with an eye to sensationalism at the expense of fact, equating to ratings, equating to…. advertising revenue!

    Posted by john oleshko on: March 17th, 2009 6:42 pm

19. I cannot praise Marc enough for speaking out. The Veterinary Times in an article said that Vets are over-prescribing antibiotics and that pets are being over-wormed. In addition they are being vaccinated annually when there is no need for annual vaccination. In America pets are not vaccinated annually so clearly British Vets tell clients they must vaccinate annually just so they can make money out of it. They warn clients only to feed pet food which is filled with carbohydrate when no cat or dog has any nutritional need for carbohydrate and feeding it something Mother Nature never intended it to be fed is causing serious illness as the veterinary research I have shows. Vets sell pet food to make money. Doctors do not sell sell food and Trading Standards are currently investigating the whole veterinary profession over selling the very food that creates the illness that keeps Vets in business. Vet you may like to look at my letter published in the Veterinary Times dated 21.7.2008 on it being a breach of the new consumer law that Vets are continuing to sell pet food.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 17th, 2009 7:25 pm

20. Well Done Marc for speaking up!! The programme only confirmed what MANY pet owners know anyway-that many-not ALL vets do not put your pet’s health first!!The sad thing in many cases now is that we pet LOVERS do not trust vets-and if we find one we do trust-we spread the word!!It’s easier to do now via internet chat rooms/groups etc.
    Rimadyl is a prime example-it wasn’t the vets that warned us about the dangers but internet groups etc!!
    I took my four year old dog to a vet, as he seemed a bit “off” and I was worried. The vet looked him over and said his glands were enlarged-Now I know the glands can be enlarged for many reasons-I may be a dog lover but I am not a complete mushroom-he looked at the computer screen, remarked about my dog being insured and proceded to tell me that he thought my dog had Leukemia-and he could start him on chemotherapy straight away-the insurance would pay for it-apparently Leukemia is common in dogs of four.This diagnosis was done without even a blood test-and just because his glands were enlarged-talk about SCARE TACTICS-and thats what its all about-the vets know we will pay ANYTHING to help our animals and play on that fact completely!!!
    So yes I agree entirely with Marc and commend him in his courage for speaking up-Oh and by the way my four year is now 9 and a half now……..just as well I had some knowledge and a lot of nerve not to believe that vet!!!!!!!!!
    Kim Jennings.

    Posted by Kim Jennings on: March 17th, 2009 7:48 pm

21. Just accept, many things he said have been sinply wrong, that is a fact. So dont blame ITV for it. It is a shambles for our profession, full stop. I think he owes all sincere practicing vets (I guess about 99.9%) an appology and has to make every effort possible as a “celebrity vet” to get things right again.

    Posted by Clemens Pichler on: March 17th, 2009 8:45 pm

22. Well I must say, Donna you took the words right out of my mouth! And that doesn’t happen very often. lol Mel, I agree 100% as well. I apologize ahead of time if this is a bit rambling. Ironically I was up all night with a sick cat, and yes she went to the vet already… Anyway, lack of sleep may cause me to be a bit less concise than I might want to be but I didn’t want to forget to comment on this.

    I think that perception is key here. While many of you vets who are complaining saw only negative things, we “lay” people took the program as a look into what some veterinary practices can get up to.

    Seriously, it does happen and more so than some of you might like to think. I am an American expat living in Scotland and I have unfortunately seen it on both sides of the pond; albeit not too often and thankfully I educate myself with regard to my pets’ health. I also volunteer and do behaviour work/foster care with cats. I have been around many different animals, literally all my life, but had I not had the knowledge I had there has been more than one occasion where I don’t know what would have happened had I not sought another vet straight away. One example being where I saw a new vet in my new town who tried to charge for unneeded treatment such as long term, high dose steroids in an already immuno suppressed cat. And yes, all history was given, since skipping quarantine in favor of a PETS passport for my cat who came over to the UK with me, records can never be considered redundant to me…

    Though have to tell you all I love my current vet. She and her partner are both fantastic and bought the local practice from a somewhat greedy vet (she had worked for previously)last year. Our family literally danced a jig when we found out because as much as we loved our vets, none were partners nor had any say in what we were charged. The previous owner had bought all but 1 vet practice for all 3 towns in the area and never made any special cases. Though the vets themselves did help of their own accord I must say… There are great vets out there and that is not the issue, it is holding up the practices of the corrupt and inept so that the general public can be aware that it can happen.

    As to addressing these minority of vets who are either incompetent or seek to make a profit over the ultimate wellbeing of the animals they have a duty of care to protect: What do you vets suggest should be done in order to shed light on these dodgy practices? The highlighted incompetent/greedy vet being reinstated as was done with no contingent of accountability in future until someone complains again?!? What does that say about the judgment of the RVCS? Now THERE’S something to get mad about if you want to complain. They govern the standard of care and education you all receive in the first place…

    I found the programme a well done (if a little short, it would have been better done by itv as a short series) and good start to what hopefully will be more media interest in regulating the veterinary industry since not only the RVCS but Defra and other agencies seem to do little to make any real change. I’ll spare you my rant on quarantine policy over the new PETS scheme which is better for both pets and owners pocket books.

    You should all be willing to stick together to rid your practice of people who are anything but competent, ethical veterinary doctors. Before you go blasting Marc about what was or was not said by him, keep in mind that as has been said above, producers and directors edit at will for the best ratings. You don’t know if there was more or less to the story than you saw in Marc’s clinical evaluations and critiques of other diagnoses. Perhaps ask itv or be willing to discuss rather than throw tantrums. I can see both sides of the coin and think there needs to be change. If this brings it about, so be it. It’s too bad if you feel that a few bad apples have ruined you all via this programme, but don’t you think education and evaluation can only help? The British people need to educate themselves on the health and wellbeing of their pets as they should already be doing with themselves.

    To say the programme encourages people to stop going to the vet in fear is the same as insinuating that the public is ignorant enough to stop going to their car mechanic after watching an episode of Rogue Trader.

    Posted by HappiKitty on: March 17th, 2009 9:12 pm

23. Very informative, I appreciate your honesty and wish you were my vet. The vets dont like it and the spokeswaman on tv seemed a real cold fish. I will always get a second opinion now as I could not afford to be overcharged.

    Posted by Lindsay Campbell on: March 17th, 2009 9:49 pm

24. I think the show was very good, great job done. More people need to be aware that the practice of charging unwarranted fees with vets does happen, and there are alternatives with gaining access to medicines, i.e. cheaper drugs avalible online.

    Good vets have nothing to fear. I take all 6 of my dogs to my local vet who is honest and proficient, there were many times he could have charged me more, but he has not wanted to do so.

    It was only a half hour slot, and it was good for the general public to know they can shop around, and they ask for second opinions.Too many dogs are being abandoned due to excessive fees, in some cases this could be resolved by using a different vet, or by acquiring medicine online.

    Marc clearly said that most vets are doing a good job.

    Don’t take the criticism to heart, some people are offended no matter what. And at least this show has done something postive, it’s raised awareness of vet fees and action that can be taken.

    I also think getting personal is silly; Mr Abraham’s manner was friendly and down-to-earth, just the kind of person who SHOULD front such a show.

    I shall continue to advertise my own vet through local word of mouth, and I hope others do too, to ensure good vets are kept with many customers.

    Posted by Gemma Ahearne on: March 17th, 2009 10:41 pm

25. Well done Marc for having the courage to speak out! As ‘mum’ to six rescued dogs I totally rely on my vet to be fair with me and not over charge. I am more than happy with my vet but can see how easily overcharging for unnecessary treatment can happen. Owners like me are devoted to our pets and will do almost anything to ensure they get the best possible care and very often not question the cost. Unscrupulous vets will take advantage of this situation. Good vets won’t have anything to worry about by what Marc said… In fact they should applaud Marc, not criticise him!

    Posted by Sue on: March 17th, 2009 10:46 pm

26. As for buying medication online… I do because it is the same medication my vets supply but at a much smaller cost… With 6 dogs I have to consider buying at the best possible prices! Much as I think my vets’ practice is great, I never can understand why there is such a huge difference in the cost of medication… And whilst I am on the subject of medication… I have two dogs on long term medication and now I have to take them, frail as they are, every three months for a check up before I am allowed more medication… That then involves two consultation fees plus the cost of the medication! Even more costs to add to the hard pressed pet owner. The rescue centres are full to the brim with older pets that need long term care and medication… Maybe the huge costs are, in part, to blame?

    Posted by Sue on: March 17th, 2009 10:55 pm

27. all I can say is that the programme was very one sided – yes, against the veterinary profession. I wonder how much Mark Abraham received as a result of his aim to put the whole veterinary profession into disrepute. Marc Abraham – YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF. All there is left to say is that I hope you own your own practice as I dont feel, in this world, there is anyway you will be employed by a Veterinary Practice ever again – and why should you?

    Posted by paula on: March 17th, 2009 10:56 pm

28. oh, by the way, I dont actually hope you own your own practice and that you are sacked as a result of the problems you have caused within the veterinary profession

    Posted by paula on: March 17th, 2009 10:57 pm

29. What was evident to me watching the prgram is that there 3 guilty parties involved.

    1. Mr Abraham is guilty of being a fool, there is simply no other exlanation for the decisions he has made in collaborating with ITV. He is also clearly guilty of bringing into direpute and this will form the basis of my complaint to the RCVS.

    2. The RCVS have failed in the responsibility to “promote and sustain confidence in the veterinary profession”. The number of instances of seriously lax punishments to dangerous and unprofessional vets, together with a failure to regulate the profession in any meaningful way is very concerning.

    3. ITV are clearly guilty of breaking the broadcasting code (it does not permit the entrapment of individuals or organisations by portraying something as having a fault or in this case illness when it is known that this is not the case). This will no doubt be reported to Offcom and I look forward to seeing the outcome.

    May I also point out to anyone that is not aware, Mr Abraham is in fact not a practicing first opinion vet, he works as an emergency service vet and spends the rest of his time propagating lies (the only way to examine a rabbits mouth is NOT with an otoscope), mistruths (metacam does not require xrays before it is dispensed), and hypocracy (see his comments on the ‘expose’ about pedigree dogs whilst bearing in mind he is the veterinary advisor to the kennel club).

    Mr Abraham, if you are genuine in your desire to promote animal welfare then it must be clear to you that this program an only have succeeded in harming it, as fewer people trust their vet and thus fewer pets receive the care they need. If this is the case I invite you to lead the way in lodging a complaint against ITV for misrepresenting you and breaking the broadcasting code. If not your silence will say everything.

    Posted by Londonvet on: March 17th, 2009 11:27 pm

30. Firstly well done Marc!!!
    You’re a Vet who actually cares about the welfare of our animals & our bank balances!!!
    You definitely have the balls to express your feelings on this subject which I believe if many vets were honest about this topic would also agree.

    You’ve made a valid point regarding veterinary fees in that many (NOT ALL) practices charge for unnecessary fees & treatments – Let’s face facts if you yourself went to the doctors for something minor you wouldn’t be prepared to undergo non essential procedures & remedies so why put our pets through it? Who cannot speak for themselves?

    For T Archbold…. Who wrote ‘People are spoilt by the NHS’ Can I ask what we pay National Insurance for & also private health care schemes? Which brings me onto why do we pay for ‘Pet care’ Insurance??? To be ripped off???

    Pet Insurance merely provides a minimal re-compensation & does not always payout as I have experienced this first hand. Leaving, us pet owners with a hefty bill.

    T Archbold also expressed a view the programme lacked context – have you ever tried fitting the information you wish to inform the public via Television in under half an hour noting there were commercial breaks in between??? I think not. Plus editing would limit the context – I only wish this documentary had been longer!!!

    In my opinion the message was clearly put across – It appears however that people are missing the point. Individuals who choose the veterinary profession do so for the love & welfare of the animals & would not train for several years only for the financial benefits. Surely one does it because it is rewarding & self gratifying? Although this documentary points out that some vets (NOT ALL) will underestimate a pet owner’s intelligence (even a breeder) & act upon one’s ignorance in this field & therefore take advantage of the situation in order to line their own pockets!!

    People obviously have misconstrued what was actually being highlighted here & have turned this into something quite direct & personal towards Marc when he was only trying to guide people & make them more aware of what is actually going on.

    I doubt the situation has been made more difficult for the profession – It has just highlighted issues that ‘MOST’ people already know & it is refreshing that Marc has aired this so honestly & I applaud him for being so frank.

    Lets not be complacent, vets that charge for unnecessary treatments are only in the minority – Marc stated this fact more than once during the programme.

    We British in general cannot even complain about an unsatisfactory meal in a restaurant let alone the cost of our animal’s health care. As vets are fully aware that as pet owners we are prepared to payout on helping to get these wonderful companions in good health at any cost & they will (NOT ALL) use this as an incentive for a cash bonus!!!

    Posted by Rachel Burman on: March 18th, 2009 12:18 am

31. what you fail to realise about medication is the overheads involved in running a practice. An internet pharmacy needs a computer and someone to order/post. It doesnt need trained staff, receptionists, nurses, vets. It doesnt have tens of thousands of equipment to purchase, service and maintain. It doesnt have drugs and consumables to purchase for anaesthetics and operations. Even a small practice can cost 150,000 pounds to run a year and thats just to break even. Drugs prices can be higher as a result. The long term solution? drug prices will come down but that shortfall in revenue will have to be made somewhere and as a result service costs are going to go up. So your consults will be more expensive, your neutering will cost significantly more. Remember the human equivalent of a spay can cost 5000 pounds. Vets do the same op for an average of probably 180. Costs are not huge…its just that the human costs are on NHS

    Posted by john smith on: March 18th, 2009 12:41 am

32. Well I feel that the program wasn’t portrayed that well for vets at all. However, it did try to tackle a clearly problematic industry in terms of vets who monopolise. This whole recent business of my vet now charging me for prescriptions – he tries to insist I go back monthly for a prescription, for which I have to pay for. Blatantly refuses to write a prescription for longer than 1 month. Even once tried to insist a blood test was needed as I wanted to buy online from petmeds.co.uk. It makes me fuming. however, now I am with a companion care branch and when at my other house a medivet and in my case, they are both treating fairly. That’s the problem isn’t it – inconsistent standards.

    My view? Bad program but did highlight some issues. It should have simply spent more time highlighting good vets also – but that’s not marc’s fault I expect. The info above about rabbits, so many views contrary to Marcs than shame on you marc! TV expert – check your facts!

    Posted by Jenny on: March 18th, 2009 12:42 am

33. Sorry – to add….the program was still worth it

    Posted by Jenny on: March 18th, 2009 12:43 am

34. I am very disappointed in the way Mr Abrahams attacked the veterinary profession.

    1) He failed to point out that the only way to check whether a rabbits molars are overgrown is to anaestheise them, sure using an otoscope will allow examination of the front 2 or 3 teeth but even a first year veterinary student knows that assessment under general anaesthesia is the only way to exclude dental disease as a cause of anorexia in the rabbit

    2) As animals can’t tell vets what the problem, we rely heavily on the history given by the owner. If an owner is concerned enough to seek veterinary attention and a clinical examination reveals nothing are we to tell the owner that there is nothing wrong and they should just go away

    3) The cat examined for being ‘off its food’, could Mr Abrahams explain to us how he knew the cat wasn’t in the early stages of acute renal failure? The only signs a cat would show is being off its food, and prompt ttreatment is necessary, if that isn’t given within 24hrs then the animal usually needs to be put to sleep. But obviously Mr Abrahams was told the being off food was a lie and could say with confidence that the cat was ok

    I just thought Mr Abrahams could have done alot more to point out the difficulties we face as a profession relying on an accurate history from an owner and how medical cases are never straight forward. And how does a whole “14 years experience” make Mr Abrahams an expert? I was sat with a European specialist in Internal medicine (a qualification Mr Abrahams could only dream of having) and she thought his part in the pprogramme was disgraceful and suggested Mr Abrahams should return to Vet school before talking such nonsense

    Posted by James on: March 18th, 2009 1:07 am

35. I am a first opinion veterinary surgeon. This evening I examined a 10 year old collie cross presented with excessive drinking, vomitting and was discharging pus from the vagina, all cardinal signs of a pyometra. I suggest an ultrasound scan to diagnose the problem then an operation to save the dogs life. My response was “You’re just trying to make money out of me, I saw that prgramme on the tv last night and Marc the vet said you’re trying to con us.” I tried to argue my point and even told the owner to seek a second opinion elsewhere but he decided to take the dog home as “I’m sure it’ll be right as rain in a few days”

    I hope Mr Abrahams you feel happy with your contribution to the programme and if the dog doesn’t pull through I personally will be laying the blame at your door

    Posted by Vet on: March 18th, 2009 1:20 am

36. Good for you Marc, its about time that it was brought out in the open that many veterinary practices overcharge and perform unnecessary procedures causing distress to our pets, especially when they are insured. Yearly vaccines cause major health problems and are not necessary, likewise worming and flea treatment cause problems to our pets. Pets are put through unnecessary GAs and blood tests etc to make money and its awful that innocent little animals are put through these stressful tests just so the practice owners can make loads of money. I’m not saying that all vets practice in this way, but a majority do especially the larger ones. Clients are made to feel guilty if they refuse the advice from their vet. I know for a fact that vets are told to give injections for whatever the problem so they make money for the owner. Good for you Marc in bringing this to the attention to clients and we need more publcity and more programmes like it, we also need more good caring vets that really care for the welfare of our animals rather than our purses, well done!

    Posted by lorraine J on: March 18th, 2009 1:31 am

37. Points…

    Vaccination schedules are set by the pharmaceutical companies, NOT practising vets. While they may last as long as we vaccinate in NZ or America or Australia, they have not been lisenced for longer than annual revaccinations in the uk. That’s not vets money grabbing at all.

    Vets have proportionately some of the lowest salaries of ALL professional degree holders. I know of vets in the uk earning between 17 and 18,000 pounds as new graduates. Apparently you can earn more driving busses in this country, which doesn’t require a 5 year degree and hefty student loan.

    Having worked 4 years in the uk and in some 30-40 practices I like to think I have seen a reasonable cross section of the country and it’s veterinary practices. I have only come across one clinic (that no longer exists) which I thought to be unnecessarily charging.

    Finally (for now) the vast majority of the population ignore the difficulties and emotional and mental stress on vets every day. Only one person here has identified the suicide rates that shadow our profession above all others. And behind that the vast number of vets leaving the profession creating the shortage that exists today worldwide within the profession. Members of the general public don’t see this side of the coin. Does “Marc the vet” think this programme has done anything to help the vets dealing with depression or questioning staying in the profession any favours by standing up on national television and pointing the finger at a small cross section of practices for being wrong because he would do differently? I doubt it. All this programme has done is paint the majority of the profession in a bad light, I for one am interested to see what fallout this will create.

    Posted by James Laidlaw on: March 18th, 2009 1:53 am

38. I still think the mark up on a bag of food, of around 35% is excessive. I have 6 rescued dogs, on a single income and I have to do the best I can with limited resources… There are far more people worse off than me and it is all too often the case that pets are either pts or taken to rescue centres because of the costs. Personally, I think having to take an elderly pet to a rescue for its last days, because of the medical costs, is dreadful… All too often I hear of diabetic dogs being pts because owners can’t/won’t pay for all the added costs… Insulin, needles etc.. One way pet owners could be helped would be if VAT is removed or partially removed from fees. It would be a significant help to pet owners…

    Posted by Sue on: March 18th, 2009 7:23 am

39. Marc should be voted in as the new President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons since he is putting the animals first. I hope he will put himself up for election to this post although I suppose that after him so bravely speaking out most Vets will not vote for him. Perhaps it is time that pet owners were allowed to decide who the new President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is since the President is supposed to represent pet owners. If anyone reads the book by a Vet entitled “Pet Hates: The Shocking Truth about Pets and Vets” they may come away with the impression that Vets blame pet owners for everything and that Vets take the blame for nothing. When I first read the book I thought it was very funny but on the second reading of it I felt concerned because if the Vet who wrote it is typical of Vets then they have no respect for pet owners and blame pet owners for everything and the book exposes some of the shocking things Vets are doing just for money. The book made me feel that the majority of Vets probably have nothing but contempt for pet owners. Very few Vets would have spoken out the way Marc Jacobs has done but he is a Vet who clearly really does care about animals otherwise he would never have spoken out so bravely and admirably for the nation’s pets and pet owners. He should be made the new President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 18th, 2009 8:20 am

40. I forgot to say that the Vet who wrote the book “Pet Hates: The Shocking Truth about Pets and Vets” did not use his real name and instead used the name “Josh Artmeir” and in an article in The Sunday Times which did an article on his book and published a picture of him he wore sun glasses to hide who he is. I gave Tonight the book and presume they asked him if he would appear on the programme. Marc is not hiding his identity and I admire him immensely for speaking out.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 18th, 2009 8:26 am

41. Well done on a great program. As an owner of 2 dogs, 1 of which is an oap and requires a special diet and constant veterinary attention, I totally agree with the findings of the program. There are some very good vets out there, but over the years I have come across some which have been very questionable with their treatment and costs. The mark up on special dietary food, I feel is extortionate and is forcing pet owners to look elsewhere for cheaper alteratives. Again thankyou for a very informative program and for being courageous enough to be honest.

    Posted by Shelley on: March 18th, 2009 9:33 am

42. I think Marc should be applauded for having the courage to speak out not slated…

    Surely all vets should be behind him in trying to highlight there are unsavoury characters in the industry – and they are the ones that will give you all a bad name not this programme. Decent, honest vets should quite honestly have no reason for concern.

    The RCVS has not instilled any confidence in me by allowing the vet that was struck off to continue working, so I for one am delighted there are people like Marc out there that actually care….

    Posted by Sarah on: March 18th, 2009 10:08 am

43. If you are going to allow comments to be posted here, you should post both sides of the argurment. As with the programme, just allowing the views of a biased representation of pet owners who in the majority of cases are factually incorrect with their views is not fair. Please post my previous submission from last night and allow a thorough discussion to take place.

    Posted by Londonvet on: March 18th, 2009 10:11 am

44. marc abraham has created a huge problem for the MAJORITY of the veterinary profession that does a good job at VERY reasonable prices, whilst failing to highlight he was referring to a tiny minority of bad eggs – something which you have in ANY profession. i was appaled by his appearance in this programme, and his comments regarding NOT giving a cat in pain analgesia simply defy belief. He apparently would rather charge every cat owner much MORE money by xraying EVERY patient prior to making a diagnosis!

    Posted by rob on: March 18th, 2009 10:25 am

45. I just wanted to say I am a bit shocked about some of the reactions to Marc Abraham following the Tonight Programme and get the feeling that perhaps those complaining the loudest are those with the most to lose by this over-treating being highlighted! I do agree to a certain extent that presenting the pets to the vets with false symptoms and then judging them on their diagnosis is flawed since, as has been mentioned in previous comments, the history of the animal is vitally important and the vet must take the (fake) concerns of the owner seriously. However I do think the programme hightlighted three very serious issues:

    1. Vets receiving bonuses for selling more of a product thus providing an incentive to vets to convince pet owners to buy products which are not in fact necessary. Pet owners trust their vets to tell them what they need in the same way car owners trust mechanics!!

    2. The mark-up on the price of medication. Obviously some mark-up is necessary to cover the costs of overheads and delivery etc. but there needs to be more regulation of this.

    3. Reinstating a vet who caused so much suffering to a number of animals. This wasn’t a case of one-off negligence. The man systematically put profit before the welfare of the animals and his incompetence led to increased suffering of a number of pets. To reinstate him after such a short time is ridiculous, the man obviously doesn’t have the correct ethical values to be a vet!

    I’m glad that Marc Abraham had the guts to come out and say what was necessary. Hopefully this will open up meaningful debate and investigation of the issues raised.

    Posted by Roisin O'Hara on: March 18th, 2009 2:25 pm

46. Now seriously people, lets get real about the marking up issue. Before commenting that a 35% mark up on food is extortionate how about you take a look at what mark-ups are charged in other retail sectors, whilst bearing in mind that 35% mark up provides only 26% gross profit margin of which you have to pay tax, overheads, staff costs etc.

    And with regards to drugs and the internet, here is the reality of the situation. Vet practices are expensive businesses to run, they require skilled employees, expensive equipment etc. Most practices spread the costs of these overheads across all services it provides, including prescription medications. This means that the vast majority of the mark-up on drugs actually goes on paying these costs, ie it is not a profit margin. If vets were forced to reduce the mark-up of their prescription medication this cost would simply need to be met by the other serives and so your vaccination, consultation, blood tests etc would all simply become more expensive (and you cant get those from the internet can you!)

    And if anyone needs any further proof that it is actually the vets that are being ripped off here, how about you take a look at the average GP salary and compare it to the average vets salary.

    Posted by Londonvet on: March 18th, 2009 6:27 pm

47. Vet, I am surprised you say the only symptom a cat would show of acute renal failure is being off its food. Most Vets would say that a sign of renal failure is drinking a lot of water and when my own cat had renal failure weakness in the back legs was what I noticed first. Wnhy did my cat get renal failure? Because Vets are telling clients to feed dry pet food but veterinary research shows that the acidifiers in this are causing renal failure. Even Purina say in a paper written by them that the high incidence of renal failure in cats in the past 10 years is probably due to the acidifers the pet food companies put into the food so why are Vets not warning pet owners that feeding dry pet food can eventually cause renal failure. The reason they say nothing is because they make so much money from the sale of the food. I understand Vets make 20% profit from the sale of pet food though one Vet told me that Vets can make as much as 100% profit from the sale of it. Vets should know that pet food is naturally causing most of the illness that keeps Vets in business. I have the proof of it and so the programme was right to make pet owners very concerned about Vets putting profit before animal health.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 18th, 2009 6:45 pm

48. I can’t see why you should compare yourselves with GPs!! That is nonsense! We all pay our taxes for health care… Shame that so many vets seem upset by what Marc has done… I wonder why they are so rattled by it all… If they are genuine and Marc made it very clear that he was not attacking the ones who are genuine, why are they so upset by the programme? Good vets have nothing to worry about.. I am seeing my vet on Saturday with my two elderly dogs who are booked in for their three monthly check so that they can have more medication! (I object to this.. because it is two consultation fees to say that my dogs can continue their medication and then the cost of the medication)I will see what she has to say…

    Posted by Sue on: March 18th, 2009 6:45 pm

49. Has anyone gone for a private medical consultation? Or seen how much money is spent within the NHS on equivalent services?

    I am a vet, and graduated 3 years. I have friends who are teachers, of the same qualification length, who are earning slightly more than me.

    I am now a farWorking in mixed (farm/small animal) practice often involved 12 hour days, a surgery list of say a bitch spey and a couple of cat castrates and up to 40 consultations per day… Now the average Joe Bloggs expects that I would be earning a fortune, but infact I was earning just £18,000 with use of a beat up practice car and pokey, out dated practice accomodation. Not ideal for paying off a £35,000 student loan.

    What is a reasonable fee for a veterinary consultation? I would suggest a figure close to that of visiting a private doctor, and then but your pharmaceutials and pet foods online.

    As a caring, conscientious vet, who worked as hard as I could in small animal practice for the good welfare of patients, whilst seeking the financial interest of each and every owner, I became disillusioned with the apparent resentment that pet-owners had toward me for requiring payment for my work… I now work happily as a vet exclusivley for livestock, (and friend’s pets) as farmers seem to have genuine appreciation for the hard work and cost-effectiveness of our veterinary services.

    Posted by James on: March 18th, 2009 7:33 pm

50. Marc, I do feel you owe your profession an apology. It is clear from the few posts on this site alone that this programme has damaged the veterinary profession. I do hope you are as saddened and dismayed by the way the programme portrayed vets as I am. The programme was misleading and biased and sadly will likely result in a breakdown in the relationship between some clients and their vets. How can that be good for anyone?

    Posted by Yvonne on: March 18th, 2009 7:44 pm

51. Fiona MacMillan

    I’m sorry to hear your cat had renal failure, its not a nice condition for cats to have. It sounds like your cat had chronic renal failure rather than acute renal failure. The main clinical signs of chronic renal failure being excessibe drinking and urinating, poor appetite, weight loss, V+D, hindlimb and neck weakness secondary to low potassiun levels. Acute renal failure being a seperate condition where the kidneys suddenly shut-down (rather than a gradual deterioration as with CRF). With this the only clinical signs that an owner notices are being off food and/or off colour, but unfortunately if not treated promptly the condition is usually fatal. So suggesting a blood sample for a cat off its food is not an unreasonable suggestion, Marc should have pointed this out on the show.

    Also, on the point of dry food being linked to renal failure. There is no CREDIBLE scientific studies to show a link but I do agree the incidence is on the increase. There is a large amount of research currently being done into this and maybe we will know more in the next few years. Also, bear in mind 30-40yrs ago the average life-span of a domestic cat was 8years, this has increased year on year and now stands at over 15yrs. There most be something we are doing right whether it be pet food, increase awareness of disease, vaccination, increase % of animals being insured allowing referral to specialist centres, etc

    Posted by vet on: March 18th, 2009 7:55 pm

52. Well Marc!

    What a brave, honest & deeply caring person you must be: To readily admit to the nation on T.V, all the discrepancies & malpractices of many, many years by a small minority of your colleagues. Surely you must have realised that you have opened a can of worms? But this Marc is ancient news to us all. Let’s face facts we are all to an extent mercenary.

    Within every profession there is an element of corruption for financial gain, but unfortunately it is usually the old, young, weak & innocent animals that suffer.

    I myself have experienced this very scenario first hand. For over 20years I was a well known Colourpoint Persian cat breeder & as a novice in the early years of my breeding programme was persistently exploited through my beloved felines.

    One particular veterinary surgeon extracted extortionate amounts of money from me PRIOR to surgery which resulted in the great suffering & subsequent fatalities of two of my cats.

    Fortunately I soon gained some wisdom, changed to my present vet, who is progressive, caring, genuine & absolutely trustworthy & I really do not begrudge him a single penny.

    Good vets deserve a generous remuneration for their dedication & hard work. Many work long hours, often during the night & remain compassionate towards sometimes very volatile & awkward pet owners.

    You were so right Marc! To highlight this sad situation in order to protect the reputation of this very complex & marvellous profession. These very few money grabbing phonies should be sought out, reported & eventually ousted whenever & wherever they are discovered for the protection of animal lovers & their pets everywhere.

    So come on everyone concerned! Open your eyes &ears not your wallets! & support a very brave vet Marc Abraham!

    Posted by Ruth Burman on: March 18th, 2009 8:02 pm

53. Marc, you are completely out of order on this one. I thought you were kind of OK, but… I am very very very… extremely disappointed with your work and words in this program. You owe us all an apology!!!

    Fiona, do you fancy Marc by any chance?? President of the RCVS? you must be joking!!!

    Posted by Carmen on: March 18th, 2009 8:34 pm

54. Reading comments on this forum does make me wonder why vets are so annoyed.Given that you are in the profession to champion the lot of animals-surely you agree with Marc!If vets are overcharging and performing unnecessary procedures this is surely wrong.Many babies are alive today because a doctor spoke out at the Bristol Heart Baby Scandal The Royal Infirmary is now a centre of excellence completely turned around.There is a petition on line (Parliament)requesting a Veterinary Ombudsman that I have seen today.Are you aware that Defra already have a petition with 8,000 signatures that was handed over in 2003 on Veterinary Fees also requesting a Veterinary Ombudsman.The President of the RCVS said that professional development is in place.How long ago was the profession required to do this? Can anyone help on the protocol of 24-hour care? Does every practice provide this?

    Posted by Jan on: March 18th, 2009 11:08 pm

55. The VAST majority of vets are giving clients advice based soley on the best interests of the individual animal. The client-vet bond is so heavily dependent on the trust between the two- if a client thinks a vet might be lying to them to make money (or a vet thinks a client might be lying about a history, not something that had entered my head before, but it might now!), it makes it extremely difficult for the animal involved to get the appropriate treatment. In 5 years of practice I have NEVER met a vet (myself included) who has ever done a diagnostic test, or sold medication that is unncessary to that animal, purely to make money. This programme claims to be highlighting the “minority” of vets who do this- but actually the message it gave was that the vet down your street is quite likely to be ripping you off. All this programme has succeeded in doing is further damaging the already fragile bond between the client and the veterinary surgeon, and the only one that loses out here, is your pet.

    Posted by Vet-in-Leeds on: March 18th, 2009 11:45 pm

56. Thnak you Vet for illustrating the difference between chronic & acute renal failure.Owners please take note of this, if you truly care for your pet please give your vet a clear comprehensive history & trust them!

    I am an RVN (Registered Veterinary Nurse) of 12years & am very proud & honoured to carry my qualification. I am also very proud to work with some wonderful vets currently & over the years. Believe me, people who enter the veterinary profession do not do it for the money or the ‘lifestyle’, but for the love of the ability to help preserve & prolong a comfortable healthy life of all of our companion & farm animals.

    I can understand how many people believe that Marc has done a wonderful job by speaking up & how all vets just rip them off, but lets face ITV did a great job in portraying this & convincing people of this. A very biased view of veterinary daily practice! I am so disheartened by the program & am so worried at how many animals will now suffer from the POOR portrayal of veterinary medicine. Already the dog with the PYO as highlighted previously by a professional collegue is now suffering, why because of this program, please let us know how she gets on.

    And for those who say the only people on here moaning about how vets were treated are those with something to loose are very wrong. These are the people who CARE, these are the people trying to make sure that NO animal goes on to suffer from the affect of the show. I know of many vets who work excessivly long hours, often without breaks or lunches for no extra pay, but just the satisfaction that they have done the job they trained to do.

    If I had the choice between being treated by a GP or by a vet, I know who I’d choose!

    I urge all memebers of the public, if you love your pet, get it insured NOW & by being insured, please read the small print & understand the terms of your policy & if you don’t ask your vets, they have NO financial benifit of having your pet insured, other than, like you piece of mind that your animal can receive the care & attention they might need in the future. TRUST your vet, they truly have your pets needs as priority, they can only go what you tell them! Untill our pets learn to talk,they rely on YOU, their owner to do them justice, please don’t let them down. So many diseses & illness’s can be ‘textbook’, but there are so many conditions that without further investigation can lie undetected untill it is too late. Don’t let you pet be that one, just because of an ignorant tv channel. They deserve better.

    I ask ITV, Marc or another tv channel, please give our profession a chance to speak.

    O

    Posted by Nicky on: March 18th, 2009 11:50 pm

57. I
    have a female rabbit that has to have a dental every six months under anaesthetic, my old vet charges around £35 which is an excellent rate but when I moved 8 miles and was looking for a more local vet they wanted around £75 to do exactly the same procedure ?
    Don’t get me wrong we all got to live but double the price, which brings me to, I have never seen a sign that shows a price guide
    at a vets, surely when one needs to purchase something we need to see the price tag, the other thing I would like to say is that many times in the past when having to get a diagnoses for a pet the sheer arogance of some vets is beyond belief, which really does put peoples backs up, I’d like to remind the arogant vets that you actually work for us we pay you for your services, by the same token I know that you guys also get rudeness and likewise arogance…

    Have to say I have used my new vet practice which is considerably more dearer than my old vet practice, but there is a lovely vet there who listens and is very accomodating to how, why and what goes into my dogs …
    The vets on this website are not happy about Marc, not one of you have commented on the idiot who caused the cat and dog suffering by bandaging the legs so tight then had to be amputated….this is one of the many problems that pet owners have got cranky about, the RCVS certainly need to look closer to home and get their house in order.. more pets in welfare even less earnings for the vets …never seen a poor vet yet or a vet out of work …

    Posted by LB on: March 19th, 2009 12:48 am

58. As a fellow veterinary surgeon, I feel the need, like many others on here, to express how appalled I am at the way you have portrayed our profession during this programme. It is as if you slipped in the fact that the issues raised only apply to a minority of vets as an afterthought, when you realised that your previous statements would not go down too well with your fellow professionals. There were various issues I have with the programme – Im sure all have been raised previously, but they are points that cant be stated too often:

    1. We rely on owners to provide us with an accurate history. Frequently this can be unreliable but all too often it is just as important as clinical exam, diagnostic tests and so on. Many animals we see are normal on clinical exam, it doesnt mean there isnt an underlying condition, it just means that we rely more heavily on an owners history to shape our recommendations/treatment/further investigations. If these animals were truly innappetant but normal on clinical exam, do you think the owner would be quite so pleased with “theres nothing wrong with him, go away”?! An owner brings their animal in for no other reason than they are concerned about them – we should at least have the decency to give them the options rather than just do whatever is cheapest in the hope it will work.

    2. There is no “right and wrong” answer in veterinary medicine. Often there is a list of differentials – some are clearly at the top, others clearly very unlikely but inevitably there are grey areas – this is very much influenced by your own personal experience as well as CPD etc. One vets interpretation of a case may inevitably be different to anothers – one may prefer a certain set of tests if they have found them particularly useful in the past, others may have found a different approach more useful. It doesnt mean that either vet is wrong, just that their individual experience is different.

    3. The case of the anorexic rabbit. Yes the rabbit appeared clinically normal on exam. Im sure after 14 years of experience you should know that rabbits are prey species – any rabbit that appears clinically unwell is extremely ill. You should also know that any rabbit “off its food” is most certainly an emergency and should be treated very seriously. In these cases hospitalisation is more than justified, and even if the bunny is sent home due to owner preference I personally always recheck these bunnies the next day. You concluded that the bunny’s mouth looked “very healthy” – I see a lot of bunnies, having a special interest in them I frequently see 2nd opinions from other practices and I can say with certainty that you CANNOT fully assess a rabbit mouth conscious. This needs to be done under sedation/GA, and with the assistance of head xrays to assess the roots fully, and I assure you any exotic specialist would tell you likewise. Ive seen many a bunny with normal mouths on conscious oral exam that have actually had large cuts to the tongue once under GA and I assure you that I am extremely experienced in examining bunnies mouths. An anorexic bunny should never be sent away with no treatment, which is essentially what you implied on the programme.

    4. You missed a vital point in the programme. There is not just one option for every animal you see. Our job as vets is to take a history, examine the animals and formulate differential diagnoses from this. Or job is then to convey this to the owner and give them the options for further investigation, treatment etc. For example in the case of an innappetant dog, several options – do nothing, trial treatment, further investigations with bloods etc, depending on the clinical exam findings, history etc, and in many cases owner preference may all be equally valid – some owners would prefer no further investigations unless absolutely neccessary, while others would go straight for bloods even if theyre likely to be normal, just for their own piece of mind – this is a point you completely missed in the programme. Some owners just want to try treatment – yes there are instances where a minority of vets will give “an injection” just for the sake of it, but frequently trial treatment can be a sensible option provided the treatment is logical and unlikely to cause an harm, and the owner has elected for this option rather than further investgations. Our job is to share our knowledge with the owner in order that they can make an informed decision about what they feel is best for their pet. If you simply say to every concerned owner “I cant find anything wrong with him he doesnt need any treatment” you probably have quite a lot of unhappy clients

    5. Metacam may not be your “favourite” anit-inflammatory, but unless something has changed that I am unaware of, it is the only NSAID licensed for long term use in cats. Keotfen is only licensed for 3 days I think? Unless of course you are suggesting that you prefer using steroid-based anti-inflammatories instead – hardly side effect free are they?! Implying that it is completely innappropriate to use metacam unless xrays have been taken is just downright wrong in my opinion. I have seen several older cat who have classic signs of arthritis on clinical exam – decreased ROM, crepitus, as well as a fitting history, reluctance to jump etc. Yes, we always offer xrays. And yes we always offer kidney/liver monitoring. But often the owners dont want to go for this – and quite frankly when you have a 14yo cat with concurrent probs, who the owners just want to keep comfortable for a little longer before the time comes for PTS, I really dont blame the owners for making this decision – provided they are aware of the potential side effects and have been given the options, why does it matter? And just to point out that it is well known that severity of OA signs on xray and severity of clinical signs do not always correlate. Yes in an ideal world wed always take xrays, but if you want an ideal world youre in the wrong job. (Incidentally it seems a little hypocritical to recommend further investigations with xrays in the case of the innappetant cat, yet you criticised the vets who examined the innappetant rabbit for wanting to invetisgate further!!)

    6. You imply that further investigations are always suggested as a way to make money. I am paid the same wage regardless of how much money I make for my practice. I give owners the options regardless of how cheap or how costly they are becuase it is my responsibility to do this – you may remember we all took an oath. Where I work very few owners are well off, and if there is any way I can figure out a cheaper way to treat an animal without jeopardising its treatment I always will. There may be some vets out there who overcharge, who give unneccessary treatment etc, but these are a tiny majority. The vast majority of vets are extremely hard-working – we do very long hours for poor pay given our high degree of training (and vast amounts of debt from years of student loans!). But then again, you should know all this being such an experienced member of the profession yourself.
    You should know about the alarming high rates of suicide, depression and other mental health problems, drug and alcohol addiction that are affecting the profession. Oh and lets not forget the constant threat of litigation, which the majority of the time, is down the society’s blame culture rather than any mal-practice. Perhaps you should stop to consider that the profession has enough problems without its own members turning on it.

    Posted by Natalie on: March 19th, 2009 1:10 am

59. Vet, thank you for your comments. My cat did not seem to be drinking excessively and the first time I realised that something was wrong was when I thought she was not walking properly but at first I thought I was imagining it but very quickly I realised something was wrong with her hind legs. She had had repeated bouts of cystitis treated with antibiotics but I now have veterinary research which blames feeding dry pet food for causing cystitis in cats but when I asked my Vet if dry food was the cause the Vet insisted it was not the cause but was clearly wrong since I am now friends with Elizabeth Hodgkins who is a Vet who only treats cats and her book entitled “Your Cat” is sold by Waterstones and in it she warns cat owners never to feed dry food because it can cause cystitis, diabetes, kidney failure, ibd etc. Perhaps you could explain why Vets are allowing clients to feed cats dry food which has 30-60% carbohydrate in it when cats have no nutritional need for carbohydrate and do not have the salivary amylase necessary to digest it and produce very little pancreatic amylase. Vets are failing pets by allowing them to be fed this food and should warn clients of the needless illness it is causing. I have a campaign aimed at getting Vets prohibited from selling pet food and I am appalled at disclosure from the veterinary schools under the Freedom of Information Act which shows they are letting pet food companies teach nutrition to veterinary students. Michael Fox MRCVS says in his book “Cat Body, Cat Mind” that pet owners would be outraged if they knew what is really in pet food and I think they would be outraged too if they knew that veterinary schools in return for funding are letting pet food companies teach nutrition to veterinary students. Perhaps at a future date the Tonight programme will expose the relationship between Vets and pet food companies and drug companies since I have been shocked at the contracts disclosed to me by the veterinary schools of their contracts with pet food companies. Pet food companies should not be allowed to teach veterinary students anything, least of all nutrition. Why are Vets not speaking out about the ludicrous ingredients of pet food. I think it is Purina who in their latest advert say their cat food contains blackberries but who ever heard of a cat eating blackberries. Some cat foods contains carrots, spinach, apples but these are things no cat was ever meant to eat. The pet food contain nothing like the level of protein or animal fat a cat needs and I would like Vets to speak out and tell clients that pet food is causing serious and even eventually fatal illness like dilated cardiomyopathy since eg. I have veterinary research which shows that the rice in pet food is giving both cats and dogs dilated cardiomyopathy because rice interferes with taurine levels. My cat lived to nothing like the age a cat should live. Elizabeth Hodgkins DVM says that cats are not living to the age that they should live and that it a myth that feeding them pet food is increasing their life span.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 19th, 2009 8:34 am

60. I dont understand why the vets are getting so rattled to be honest. Would it be ok if it was another profession that was being exposed? Is it just your industry that should sweep things under the carpet so as to protect reputations and not give you all a bad name???

    What about rogue traders showing us dodgy builders etc. Do you object as strongly to that programme too or is that different??

    Posted by Sarah on: March 19th, 2009 10:53 am

61. Londonvet is there not a fourth guilty party-The profession as a whole that has failed to deal with the problems that exist within?

    Comment 2 surely confirms the need for some action on behalf of the profession?

    Is it not also in the interests of animal welfare that action is taken to improve the way your Conduct Department deals with complaints? Only in doing so can you ensure that animals, as far as possible, are protected from harm from within the profession. If this is seen to be done then surely public confidence will be restored. I have no complaint about the costs of veterinary care as long as I can be sure the vet providing care is honest, competent and always puts my animals interests first.

    Posted by pamela stannard on: March 19th, 2009 11:24 am

62. As a national animal protection group in the UK we would like to congratulate the brilliant Vet Marc Abraham and his programme ‘Pets Undercover’ for exposing some greedy, unscrupulous vets who rip people off. Most of us who are involved in the animal world already know that this goes on and what we find absolutely disgusting is that some vets due to their greed are actually causing more animal suffering as people are less likely to take their animals to the Vets as some charges are extortionate, therefore leaving the animal to suffer even more, this is contrary to the ethos that all vets supposedly have.
    We have the utmost respect for Marc and hope this programme rattles some cages and those vets who are rip off merchants go out of business!!
    South West Animal Protection

    Posted by South West Animal Protection on: March 19th, 2009 11:42 am

63. I felt Marc didn’t go far enough. What about exposing the truth about yearly vaccinations which have been scientifically proved to do more harm than good.
    There are many articles on this available, showing illness and death because of over-vaccination. The initial vaccination and first yearly booster are essential but the manufacturers even state that these can last for 8 – 10 years so why are vets bringing pets in yearly to carry this out. becasue, quite simply, it’s a very lucratative market.
    Vets in general know that farmers won’t pay any more than absolutely necessary for treatment of their animals so they pile on the expenses for the pet owner playing on their emotions and love of their pets.
    I agree, not all vets are the same, especially the ones who are only employed in the surgeries and are on a salary, it is the surgery owners who are to blame for setting the guidelines.
    well done Marc, it took a lot of guts to stand up in front of your profession and show what is going on behind the scenes.
    The woman from the veterinary council was more than useless. She could agree with the accusations but had no means of defending them either. Why let that vet back into prac tice. if he was struck of he should have remained struck off. When the powers that be at the very top care more about their members than their public and pets, we mere mortals stand no chance.

    Posted by polly on: March 19th, 2009 11:51 am

64. Although some vets consider Pets before profit this is not always the case, especially when they know you have Pet Insurance. To name one high price vet operation is VETS Now that runs the out of hours for a number of vets all across the country. I saw that there emergency costs £130 before 11pm and £160 after 11pm and weekends and bank holidays. They also charge the vets they are standing in for. In another case I required my Greyhound to be referred to a Hydrotherapy centre after he had two spinal operations to overcome an exploded neck spinal disc in 2004 and my then vets charged £55 for this referral My present vets are very good price wise and out of hours service including a home visit service if this is neccessary.
    I must add that there are bad eggs in all proffessions who all they care about is making most profit. The problem with pets and vet charges is it affects a high number of the general public. If vets do charge excessive prices this leads to more animal suffering and animals being dumped at rescues. All vets still insist on the unneccessary annual vaccination of animals as this is a profitable item without much work involved.

    Posted by Ted Wolfenden on: March 19th, 2009 12:27 pm

65. I agree with everything Polly has said above.
    So well done Marc, I really wish you were our vet.The truth hurts…………

    Posted by Jill on: March 19th, 2009 12:39 pm

66. Vets are providing an invaluable service to the public.However I am sure there are some in this profession who are money conscious – as in any other. If you are not satisfied with the service given then it is quie simple – you find another vet. As for diagnosis the vet can be guided (or misguided!)by the information the owner (a layperson) provides which may be faulty, lacking in details etc.Is a medical doctor right every time? and he has the edge on the vet — he can actually communicate with the patient. So, yes, it was right to focus on a few unscrupulous vets but not to condemn the profession en masse.

    Posted by Gwen Ware on: March 19th, 2009 1:27 pm

67. Thank you for bringing this issue to light.I am the very fortunate owner of three greyhounds and one whippet and for me it is crucial to know wich vet to trust. Two of my greyhounds and my whippet have health insurance. I could not insure my last greyhound because he is a five year old and therefore he can´t be insured wich I find unfair. He has reached an age where small health problems can show up.Than godness he is healthy.On behalf of my greys and whippet.Yours sincerly Lisbeth M Larsen. Greyhound Action Denmark. Perhaps this issue should be investigated here as well.

    Posted by Lisbeth Mønsted Larsen on: March 19th, 2009 1:34 pm

68. I have logged m complait with itv the address is tonight@itv.com, and i have got a complaint form from the bcc. I urge ALL vets and vet nurses who are as outraged as i am to do the same, NOW!!!!!

    Posted by sarah j kenny on: March 19th, 2009 1:41 pm

69. Good point Polly on the vaccine issue, whilst in the waiting room at my new vets everyone could hear the receptionist calling clients and telling them that their pets vaccination cover was running out in the next few days and that they needed to get their pets boosters done by the end of the week otherwise their pets would not be covered and they would have to pay for the whole course to be done again at an extra cost, now that is sheer SCAREMONGERING and fraud, the vacinne does not expire to the exact day of the previous year’s booster.

    Why are some vets still going against drug company guide lines and vaccinating sick unhealthy animals, some of which are on immunosuppressants….
    The other thing my new vets does not now do out of hours emergency it has been taken over by vets 24, not being funny but if I needed to call a vet late at night or in the early hours of the morning I would really appreciate a familiar face not a stranger what is all that about…

    Posted by LB on: March 19th, 2009 1:48 pm

70. Hi Marc
    Keep up the good work ,full support of your program and well done for haveing the courage to speak out against the high cost of vet charges it is terrible the prices that some vets charge
    I am sure that if the prices were lowered more animals would be treated .Just because you not wealthy it doesn’t mean you can’t love and look after a animal .well done for pointing out vet cost,about time too something was done about this.

    Posted by maria on: March 19th, 2009 2:23 pm

71. I would like to make a positive point about the care my cat received by Marc Abrahams the vet, a couple of years ago.
    My cat, Alan, was hit by a car which broke his pelvis (plus other horrible complications)and Marc was the emergency vet at a local practise in Brighton where Alan was rushed to. From the start, even in my very distressed state, Marc was genuine and honest in his opinion of Alans options and how (and if) he could be treated. Alan had a lengthy operation where he had a plate and pins inserted but over the next few days he didn’t have any hock reflex or feeling in his tail and so his diagnosis was very, very grim. Finally when it appeared Alan would indeed have to be put down; Marc called me out of hours to advise Alan had gone to the loo unaided for the first time – really thoughtful and encouraging at such a depressing time. The prognosis improved with the feeling returning to Alans legs and tail and although it was long road forward; I sincerely believe he would not be jumping off the shed roof today! had it not been for the dedication and first rate veterinary skills of Marc Abraham. His care is something I will never forget. In subsequent appointments, I often came for check ups during the emergency hours and Marc always insisted on charging me the regular prices – he could have easily charged me the higher rate often charged for the out of hours service. I am amazed his professionalism is being called into question? I believe the programme intended to highlight the minority of practises that Marc has had a working experience, who place profit over animal care and the programmes’ intention, I thought, as a viewer and pet owner, was to simply raise awareness of the issue?

    Posted by Wendy Woo on: March 19th, 2009 2:46 pm

72. When my pet became ill we stated do every test under the sun, money is not a question, our request for her outcome was to have her pain free and the best quality of life possible. When they didn’t know what was wrong and stated they had to put her under we stated do everything x-rays, scans, biopsies, if need even do the teeth if they where a concern as it was a serious risk putting an animal of that age under anaesthetic that if possible we wanted to do this only once due to the risk. We were told it could be costly are we sure, I stated if you like I will pay up front as I understood the worry of none payment due to the economy climate we live in.

    Under anaesthetic fluid was found in the plural area, biopsy taken and send off the vet stated it was definitely cancer, biopsy taken on a lesion in the mouth but not sent away as the vet stated he had found cancer in the plural area. We where given a months supply of medication, If my pet survived the month then return for more medication. If my pet looked in pain I was to return to euphonize. We took the vets word as truth and we all started to prepare ourselves for our pet last days.

    I telephoned the vets 10 days later as I had not received test results and was told she did not have cancer to return to the surgery to have a talk. After telling the vet of for miss diagnosing we then again agreed to more test, in-house heart scan, further blood test (full blood works). Again all results came back clear except heart scan; the vet admitted that the symptoms my pet is shown does not relate to the small amount heart disease found in the scan that the heart was rather good for an animal of its age (19 years old) but gave medication to see if it could help.

    Few weeks later we went for a check-up and we all agreed that the medication did not work as my pet was iller, then we were offered another heart scan, brain scan more blood works and further full body x-rays. We found out that the full body x-ray we requested was not done originally as the vet jumped the gun misdiagnosing cancer and that we would have to be referred to have a “proper” heart scan done with someone more qualified!! I stated if a vet is not qualified to do certain tests then they should always refer to one that can. Then told the vet we had enough and would seek a second opinion.

    Yes people are concerned about high prices and I agree prices vary from vet to vet and something should be done about that but I am more concerned about vets that misdiagnose and those that are not qualified to do the procedures they do. If a vet can not work out what is wrong then consult or refer to another that is more qualified.

    Marc and ITV you did a reasonable job as in all walks of life it is a minority that can spoil it for others.

    For the vets that have posted you should not take offence of shows like this, be proud of your profession and out those that can cause damage. Do the best of your ability to help the animals and if you cant then do not be stubborn there is no shame passing that animal onto someone else that may can help the animal.

    Posted by G on: March 19th, 2009 3:51 pm

73. As a vet I am a 100% behind Marc with his intentions behind appearing in this program and I suspect the vast majority of vets in this country would also agree. I am aware from previous jobs and through the grape vine of some unscrupulous vets who may very well intend to rip off clients and defraud insurance companies. However I think the main complaint from the veterinary community and myself is how much of a complete and utter failure this program was in achieving any of these aims. I am afraid it came across as a shameless piece of self promotion at the expense of honest, hard working vets and nurses and made Marc look like a prize fool, to any person with a little veterinary knowledge.

    This could have been a very interesting topic for a investigative program but instead turned into a publicity stunt for Marc and will only increase mistrust between clients and vets resulting in more animals not being presented for veterinary care. The mystery shopper farce proved nothing apart from the fact vet’s opinions differ and that Jonathan Maitland has no journalistic integrity. Why were not more of these “rouge” vets confronted and named and given the chance to defend their actions. Every profession will have its share of rotten apples no matter how well regulated it is.

    To all the pet owners out there who think that the sun shines out of Marc’s arse , I can assure you there are hundreds and thousands of vets just like him practicing right around the corner.

    Posted by C Willis on: March 19th, 2009 4:41 pm

74. It is about time someone spoke out about the rip-offs perpetrated by some vets.
    I have an epileptic dog. He needs phenobarb., and diazepam rectal tubes.

    I was charged nearly £9-00 for ONE rectal tube (I can buy them on-line for £15-00 for FIVE!) The same with the barbiturates. Vet charges over twice the on-line rate and if they would make the prescription out for PHENOBARBITONE, I could get this from my local pharmacy for £5-00 for 100, instead of nearly 30pence each.

    Nonone expects a business not to make a profit, but this is profiteering!

    Vets are very reluctant to make out prescriptions and now can charge what they like fo them.Until recently, they were free!

    Posted by alison on: March 19th, 2009 4:41 pm

75. I have also registered my complaint with ofcom who were very helpful!! As for the comment above from LB would you still like to see tht familiar face if it had been working all day and was now very tired and in need of sleep? dare i suggest his/her concentation level may not be as goodas that of a vet that only works nights and not days? you need to be realistic about your expectations. We need time off just like everyone else

    Posted by sarah j kenny on: March 19th, 2009 5:23 pm

76. to LB, – not being funny, but also vets need some sleep if you dont mind and just be glad someone is happy to see you then and there, unlike with the nhs where you can just leave a message and if you are lucky, you get a call back by the nurse!
    now to some thing more important:
    where are you Mr M.A.? I think its time for you to speak up, come out of your hole, you had enough time to reflect. WE WANT YOUR APOLOGY, NOW and in the open.

    Posted by JP on: March 19th, 2009 5:42 pm

77. Thank you Marc for speaking up on the Tonight proramme and on the pet owners behalf. You only spoke the truth and the fact is the truth hurts, that is why you are getting all these horrible comments.I think you will find eventually good comments will out number the bad, once this link is passed around by e-mail.
    What horrified me was the fact that so called vet was able to set up practice again after 18 months being struck off, it should have been for life. The one good thing that did come out of it on the programme was he was named and shamed with a photo too……..
    That is what I like about Johnathan Maitland he doesn’t let anyone get away with it.
    Very good programme, you got such a lot in a short space of time.Well done Marc, how I wish you were our vet!!!!!

    Posted by Chris on: March 19th, 2009 5:51 pm

78. Thank you Marc for speaking up on the Tonight programme and on the pet owners behalf. You only spoke the truth and the fact is the truth hurts, that is why you are getting all these horrible comments.I think you will find eventually good comments will out number the bad, once this link is passed around by e-mail.
    What horrified me was the fact that so called vet was able to set up practice again after 18 months being struck off, it should have been for life. The one good thing that did come out of it on the programme was he was named and shamed with a photo too……..
    That is what I like about Johnathan Maitland he doesn’t let anyone get away with it.
    Very good programme, you got such a lot in a short space of time.Well done Marc, how I wish you were our vet!!!!!

    Posted by Chris on: March 19th, 2009 5:53 pm

79. Vets believe that the treatment they encourage people to pay for is really good and worthwhile. That’s their BELIEF – they really do think they are doing a good job, and helping animals. What is unknown is how much good really IS done, and how much is unnecessary for the animal’s health and wellbeing.

    Use your own judgement (and pocketbook) when going to the vet, you have the resources on the internet to gain knowledge of these things for yourselves. Learn to know what’s needed, and what isn’t. Don’t blame the vets though, they need the income and are doing their best to help animals (even though their best sometimes doesn’t seem ‘good enough’).

    Posted by Jo Lyons on: March 19th, 2009 6:51 pm

80. Carmen,

    Marc would be a million times better than any of the previous Presidents of the RCVS. What have any of the previous Presidents done for animals? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see and if you make a complaint of any kind they just fobb you off. I have given the President of the RCVS the veterinary research which proves pet food is causing cancer, kidney failure, heart disease, diabetes etc. but they refuse to give any comments on it because it is the RCVS who allow the pet food companies to fund the veterinary schools and teach nutrition to the veterinary students. Organic Life magazine in January 2007 rightly said that Vets are part of a pet food conspiracy by giving pet owners to believe only pet food must be fed so that Vets can make as much money out of it as possible. I admire Marc for speaking out for the animals. Richard Allport too is terrific because he is not afraid to speak out in his monthly articles in Cat World magazine and in Dogs Today magazine. I think he and Marc are the best Vets in Britain without a doubt.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 19th, 2009 7:15 pm

81. LB, you are so right. Even when my cat was thought to have cancer my Vet was insisting he must be vaccinated and even said he would not look at him under anaesthetic unless he was vaccinated but I told him Richard Allport MRCVS in a letter published in the Veterinary Times said there is no need for annual vaccination. My Vet seems to take immense exception to my refusing to have my cat vaccinated. My cat was sadly euthanased 2 weeks later because after looking at him under anaeshetic the Vet said he had cancer. However, Elizabeth Hodgkins with whom I am now friends tells me my Vet could not possibly have been certain my cat had cancer unless she did a biopsy. Far too many pets are being put to sleep by Vets who tell the client the pet has cancer but according to Elizabeth Hodgkins, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine no Vet can be certain a pet has cancer unless a biopsy is done. I once took in a stray cat and the Vet said it should be put to sleep saying it had cancer but that time I had the presence of mind to ask for a biopsy and the biopsy showed the cat did not have cancer at all. I am horrified to think that my own cat was put to sleep without the Vet even suggesting a biopsy and that I was so distressed when she said my cat should not be brought out of the anaesthetic that I stupidly forgot to ask how she could be certain without a biopsy. I will never forgive myself that I let her put my cat to sleep without doing a biopsy since like the other Vet she may have been totally wrong and my cat may not have had cancer at all. I have lost faith in the majority of Vets.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 19th, 2009 7:22 pm

82. Congratulations Marc on having the bottle to speak out about this avaricious profession. Okay, I know you are a member of the profession yourself but you are one of the good guys, there are few like you. The fees charged for their services demonstrate a level of greed unequalled in any other service and it’s time something was done about it.

    John Ratcliffe.
    Manchester.

    Posted by John Ratcliffe on: March 19th, 2009 7:27 pm

83. Well done Marc, you have my 100% support. I have guessed for some time that vets do unecessary treatments and they cost the earth. My vet charges £27.50 for a microchip that cost a few pounds, another vet a few miles away charges £16.50 and the RSPCA charges £15. What a variation! the difference between the 2 vets for neutering my greyhound is £42. Some vets are just getting greedy. I always buy meds online now and flea and worm products too.

    I wished Marc was my vet. He doesn’t deserve al these negative from other vets, he is doing a fantastic job!

    My daughter did a week work experience in our local vets and what an eye opener she said that was! The practice partners were out to make as much money as possible.

    I agree that not all vets are bad, but this situation does need to be exposed. It is because of vets greed that insurance companies are hiking up their premiums.

    Posted by Brenda Greaves on: March 19th, 2009 8:00 pm

84. Firstly Marc the Vet doesn’t practice as a Vet anymore, not even ER work – he’s given up being a Vet to persue fame and fortune in the celebrity world. What does this tell you? that he’s turned his back on the profession so, maybe, he does have a axe to grind eh? Look at what he does…….Patron of the KC – so he was dead against the Pedigree dogs programme – that’s how much he cares about dogs. Marc, KC is full of lying, greedy basterds that don’t give a damn about dogs!! You are a contradiction. It’s all about you you you. You wouldn’t have done this program if you were still a practicing vet, thats for sure. Do you need to get back at previous employers???
    YOUVE MADE YOURSELF LOOK GOOD AT EVERYONE ELSES EXPENSE….You’ll be a household name just like those hunger fame people who pollute this country

    Posted by Alison Marriet on: March 19th, 2009 8:51 pm

85. Reply to Alison,

    Just to clarify something, I suspect the phenobarbitone that you could get from the pharmacy would be a human formulation and the 30p a tablet from your vet will be a veterinary licensed product. Even though the active ingredient is the same, veterinary surgeons are legally obliged to prescribe a licensed veterinary medication where one exists for a particular condition. Veterinary licensed medicine will generally always be more expensive , this is not your vet “profiteering”. If your vet wrote a prescription for human phenobarbitone they would be breaking the law and risking prosecution and RVCS disciplinary hearing.

    I have taken this directly from NOAH website
    “Use and prescription by vets of human generic medicines where a suitable veterinary product is available is a criminal offence and contrary to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct.
    Source: http://www.noahcompendium.co.uk/Compendium/Overview/-45043.html

    Posted by C Willis on: March 19th, 2009 9:02 pm

86. re:
    “no Vet can be certain a pet has cancer unless a biopsy is done”
    Fiona, go back to your little world and stop posting such absolute bollocks on this forum. I’ve read every single one of your posts and they are the ramblings of a senile old loony. Your quoting of equally loony people who at some point before losing their marbles obtained a veterinary degree is boring and your comments about dry cat food ridiculous.
    And whan I see a cat that is stick thin, gasping for breath and with every one of its lymph nodes the size of a golf ball, I am pretty sure I can diagnose cancer. I’m also sure it didn’t get like that in the two days the owner insists it has been off it’s food. See, lying clients are their pet’s worst enemy.

    Posted by salome2001 on: March 19th, 2009 9:25 pm

87. I am deeply concerned having watched Pets Undercover. Marc has a) given misleading indormation, b) sensationalised the situation of “rogue vets”, c) created mistrust between clients and their vets to detrimental effect and d)brought the veterinary profession, of which most of us are rightly deeply proud of, into disrepute. CONGRATULATIONS!
    So Marc you would happily send home a rabbit whose owner is reporting inappetance/anorexia? Hmmm, this is highly questionable and certainly not “in the best interest of the pet”. How dare you criticise the one vet who wanted to hospitalise the rabbit for treatment and investigation, the one vet who demonstrated a far sounder knowledge of this species than you, knowing that anorexic rabbits are urgent cases that require work-up and investigation. What gives you the authority to stand there are ridicule the vet who carried out the initial examination, when you know the he/she was lied to regarding its history then you have the nerve to complain that the suggested treatment was in turn a lie. The vet in question probably what your programme knowing that your handling and examination of that rabbit was laughable not that they are going to get the opportunity to say so national television! You know that getting a good reliable history from the owner is often as crucial as performing a thorough clinical examination. You owe this vet you saw fit to slate an apology, and I might suggest some decent rabbit CPD courses!
    I’m not even going to comment on the cat “requiring xrays before giving non-steriodal treatments” other than to wonder just how much income your practice generates by xraying every possibly painful cat that walks through its doors.
    I would agree wholeheartedly that vets should be discussing with clients the treatments they are prescribing for their pets and also to be alert as to potential side effects of treatments. However I must point out to the general that EVERY drug has a potential side effect, a perfect example of this is that medications to aid sleep (herbal or otherwise) have the potential side effect of making users drowsy. I ask you are vets to stop prescribing treatment entirely due to potential side effects, or are vets to continue to be the professionals that they are and discuss best treatment options in all cases?
    It hasnt gone unnoticed that whilst being highly critical of vets making money you failed to disclose the fees and mark-up that you charge your clients. If this profession is as corrupt as it was portrayed to be in the Tonight programme then surely you should be ashamed of yourself for not being transparent and open in what you would have charged or what you thought would have been reasonable charges, and moreover for failing to give any constructive advice on how to avoid bad veterinary practice.
    Many of us are rightly very proud of the fact that we work extremely hard in the best interest of clients pets and provide a very high standard of care. There are no doubt some money orentated vets out there but they are in the MINORITY, there are no doubt some less highly skilled vets out there but they again are thankfully in the MINORITY. It would have been far fairer to spend your time and energy in calling for standardisation and transparency in practice reather than tarring us all with the same brush, and also educating clients as to how they can get good value and service for money. I am happy to say that having worked in both the practices in our town, I can assure the owners that their pets are in very caring hands.
    I’m afraid your “performance” on Pets Undercover can only be viewed as an exercise of self-promotion and quite honestly a huge let down to your profession and the public who should have expected more. I sincerely hope that people do not heed your advice re rabbits – God knows they suffer enough already!

    Disappointed!

    PS One last point, a way to perhaps eliminate the minority of rogue vets out there might be for the RCVS to provide a better platform for nurses who have the misfortune to have worked for them to report malpractice. I for one would not tolerate any vets in my practice being dishonest re billing or any other matter regarding pets health, neither would any of my other nurses.

    Posted by S Scott RVN on: March 19th, 2009 9:53 pm

88. To Pamela Stannard, for her quote:

    “Also if an animal is lame because it has injured itself following over activity perhaps anti inflammatory analgesia should be given with caution. After all is not pain sometimes a way in which the body protects itself from further injury?”

    Maybe if you have a headache, or you twist an ankle and is extremely painful, or if you break a finger, or whatever, maybe we should not give you any pain relief, because, won’t you that way, will learn that you should be more careful next time and this will help you to protect yourself in the future!?

    Welfare is VERY important in this country, and for our animals’ welfare, we should care about them not being in pain, how can you make such an irresponsible commment? Our job is to take care of them, and free of pain and anything that affects their welfare. Try to harm yourself and then deal with the pain, and then, if you liked the experience, repeat it again. You can decide to suffer if you want to, animals can’t. If you allow your animal to suffer, you should be reported to the RSPCA!!!

    Posted by Ana on: March 19th, 2009 10:26 pm

89. I cannot believe why some pet owners do not seem to understand why this program is upsetting the veterinary profession. It seems those people have no idea how hard most vets work under a lot of pressure and how much they care about their patients. It is not an easy job (and definately not as glamourous as some other vet programs make out)! For a journalist to go out and with a ‘patient’ with some vague fake symptom to check how much a consult costs?? The simpler way in my opionion is to phone a practice, they will always tell you how much it will cost (the price for a consult is for advice and a physical exam. If you bring in a healthy animal that’s up to you). I find it very disappointing to see so many pet owner reactions on this site talking about the majority of vets overcharging and then wondering why vets are upset about it. All good vets who put a lot of work and an amazing amount of time in their profession (and are definately not getting rich by it) are being repaid by a lack of trust by the clients who so much love this program. It’s just a shame and I’m sure there are vets out there wondering if it’s all still worth it. And a 12% raise in vet fees in five years? That is less than inflation (that’s just over 2% a year).

    Posted by Inge on: March 19th, 2009 10:29 pm

90. Well done for a gutsy and honest programme. It’s good to see such a difficult issue tackled with integrity.

    Posted by Cris Iles on: March 19th, 2009 10:42 pm

91. Fiona, the vet said “acute renal failure”… drinking more and urinating more and symptoms of “CRONIC renal failure”, do you know the difference between “acute” and “cronic”. Are you a doctor or a vet, or a nurse or.. anything similar? Please, stop being the typical “I know it all”!!!! Try to listen to us, we are not here to milk your pockets, we are here to work for you and your animals. If we wanted to work less and make more money, we could have studied to become a GP or a dentist… Do you know how much your GP makes? does he even give you a full physical exam when you go for a consult? does he even palpapates your abdomen in search of any pain? please… please people, can you try to open your eyes and see???

    Posted by Carmen on: March 19th, 2009 11:01 pm

92. LB darling, do we really need to make a comment on that horrible vet who only wanted to get money without caring about the animals? Do you think we are happy with what he did? I guess that all the vets here would agree that he should not be back in the profession, vets like him, make vets like the rest of us, suffer the consequences.
    I will tell you how much I work:
    9 till 7 every single day. That is the official time, I get to work at 8:30am and I leave work at 8pm the earliest, sometimes I don’t leave work until 11pm, and why? because even though we offer emergency service in a clinic nearby, I like to take care of my clients’ animals myself, why? because they are also my pets, because they trust me and mainly, because I LOVE my job! (AND I DON’T GET PAID FOR EXTRA HOURS)I also work every other saturday 9 till 7. I have 1 week day off every 2 weeks, but sometimes I don’t because, I am needed at work. I work 2 bank holidays a year, and one of those is either Christmas day or Boxing day or NYE or NYD. Do you think we work all these hours for money? I work hard for my patients and my clients, I am fair to them and I am happy to say that I sleep well at night… what worries me now is how many animals are going to suffer because of this program.
    Marc, I really hope the RCVS does something about it, you have just put the welfare and health of many animals in danger. The dental check of the rabbit is the saddest thing I’ve ever seen in my life, and your comment about the xrays before giving metacam to a cat… laughable!!! I think you just dig your own grave, or maybe I hope so. This is not because I am annoyed at you, I say this because you are dangerous, you are dangerous to the animals and to the pet owners and to the profession. How much did you get paid for being in the program? For how much money are you selling your soul? Do you really care about the animals, or just about being famous?

    Please, all the vets who are concern about this matter, let’s all write our complaints to the RCVS so they take legal action.

    One more thing, many vets (including myself) signed the petition to stop tail docking around 3 years ago. I just want to remark this because we actually lost a lot of money by signing that petition, not only because we won’t be cutting the tails of little dogs anymore, but also, we won’t treat any dogs with possible post docking problems like infections,pain, etc. We DO CARE about your animals, we DO CARE!!! Please, if your dog, cat, rabbit, bird, snake, gerbil, rat, hamster etc are showing signs of illness, take them to the vet!!!

    Posted by Carmen on: March 19th, 2009 11:38 pm

93. Fiona,

    it is lovely to see how you decide who are the best vets in Britain at the moment, maybe instead of Britain we should say…. let me see… “The best in the world”? how does that sound? huh?

    Look, if you want to cook for your lovely pets every day, I think it will be more than great!!! but please, do some research on their needs, or you might cause important problems!!! If you think it is so easy, why don’t you open your own company of pet food?
    or maybe just share with us what would be best for our pets.

    Animals do live a lot longer than they used to. Cats up to 23 years old, even 26 years old (I think the oldest in the UK was 27!!), dogs, the oldest I’ve seen was 18 years old, so please, do you really think that we work to kill your animals? We give a level of care to your pets that most of you could only dream of, and we do safe many of them, and when we lose them, it breaks our hearts.
    But it is a waste of time to try to make you understand, when you just don’t want to see further than your own noses. Ignorance is the worse thing that can happen to people, so if you want to believe that Marc is the best vet in Britain, I invite you to take your animals to him, and I wish you good luck if you have a rabbit!!!

    Posted by Carmen on: March 19th, 2009 11:55 pm

94. JP & Carman darling
    Of course you guys need sleep, I know you guys work long hours,that’s not disputed, the point I was making was that my old vet practice has quite a few associates which work on a rota which if your at the vets regular you build up a fairly good relationship and at least a couple of those vets are familar with your pet and the health history, now if for arguement sake I had to have one of my dogs put to sleep in the middle of the night I would rather it be a vet I was familar with rather than a stranger walking in my house euthanizing my pet dog … then walking away ….
    My new vet practice does have more than one vet.
    By the way Dr’s and Nurses work a rota …

    Posted by LB on: March 20th, 2009 12:28 am

95. Carman
    I am glad that you have made your feeling’s felt about the Canterbury vet, I’m sure that other pet owners will feel the same, Most pet owners know that there are darn good vets out there, as always the minority spoil it for the majority.
    Just wish the RCVS would take a harder line where dicipline is needed…
    The programme/Marc certainly wouldn’t put my pets at risk at all, at the end of the day people need to do their research as to which practice suits them and ask questions don’t be fobbed of at the end of the day vets need to appease our worries and get results,I have no problem about paying a fee but it’s the fleecing that worries me and others…

    Posted by LB on: March 20th, 2009 12:45 am

96. In response to LB: Drs and nurses now work a rota strictly controlled by EU working time directives i.e must leave within 15 minute of end of shift or face potential disciplinary action. Were this to be fully enforced in veterinary practice it would involve a significant increase in staffing numbers both for vets and nurses. This obviously will lead to a significant increase in practice salary overheads for which the only option will be to increase our fees, whether by direct service fees or indirectly through product markup.
    For the person who commented we should not compare ourselves to GP’s: vet students, medics and dentist share many preclinical lectures in the first two years of college. Our knowledge of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pharmacology, pathology etc etc is required to be as extensive and thorough as any of our colleagues practising in human medicine. Are we being so unreasonable in asking for a similar level of professional respect for what we do?
    It would be rare indeed for someone to enter the veterinary profession because they believe it to be some kind of get-rich-quick-scheme. We are here because of a deep interest in the science, a love of animals and a desire to use our knowledge and skills for the benefit of our patients. The reality of that is it does come at a price, otherwise we cannot continue to be here and provide your pets with those services. In the majority of instances, what we are charging for consults/surgery/diagnostic tests etc is not unreasonable. The biggest issue I have with this programme is that it failed to show a breakdown of actual costs for an average practice to provide this range of services. Perhaps if this had been demonstrated the outcry over our supposedly over-inflated pricing would be lessened as the general public would have a more balanced view on what is involved in providing them with the services and facilities they expect us to offer. I also take issue with the assertion that vets commonly run unnecessary tests because an animal is insured. The inference was that we merrily order up whatever we feel inclined to on the day because we know the bill will be paid. I can only speak for myself but any test I request is because I have discussed the available options with my client and have their permission to request it. I am sure this is the case with the vast majority of my colleagues.
    I don’t think any of us are denying there is the occasional bad apple in the bunch, but this is true of any profession or trade. But if the public opinion on this site is a true representation of the general feeling owners have toward their vet is it any wonder that we are being defensive? Because it would seem that even those of us (i.e the vast majority) that are trying our best for your pets on a daily basis are still held in very little regard by you.

    Posted by L. Barrett on: March 20th, 2009 3:04 am

97. I would like to defend the business of being a vet. I own a practice in the south of England and we make a point of charging a reasonable fee for good quality. As far as I am concerned cheap does not equate to good value.
    I employ vets on a bonus system because I want to reward them for their efforts but I would be appalled if they were doing unnecessary work as a consequence. However it does mean that they realise that the business has to be profitable. Not because we’re are all over paid. A solicitor in my position (employing 40 or so staff)would have an income several fold greater than mine.

    A healthy profit margin means we can reinvest in the practice. We have just spend £30000 to build an extension to house rabbits. Rabbits are prey animals and in a lot of practices they are kenneled with the dogs and cats. (preditors) How much is that worth? Are we ripping you off to pay for that? We continually reinvest significant sums in staff training, how much is that worth. We employ sufficient staff to operate properly. Are you aware how often one nurse is reponsible for 2-3 anaesthitics (at once) in this country just so a practice can afford to be cheap???
    We use the lastest technology, drugs and materials to keep infection rates as low as possible. How much is that worth?
    So what would you prefer, cheap fees, poorly trained staff, poor facilities, risks being taken with your animals but a nice smile. Or paying perhaps 40% more and having all the benefits of that at you disposal. A business cannot be both! It just doesn’t work if you are to survive.
    And horror of horrors we are very firm on being paid for the work we do. Even so presently we have £25000 in outstanding (bad)debt. This debt needs to be paid for and ultimately makes things more costly for our other clients.
    Animals are an emotive subject but as a business we need to survive if we are able to help any animals or clients in the future.
    Services,drugs and product sales are a all an important part of that. We are not the devil we are just trying to do a good job.

    Posted by Vet on: March 20th, 2009 8:36 am

98. Consultation on a Sunday 8am – 6pm £44.44
    Consultation 6pm – 10pm £86.52
    Consultation 10 – 8am £98.08
    Consultation on Bank Holidays 8am – 6pm £70.78

    heres some prices for you to mull over. Is it fair to charge 100 just to see an animal at night? you’ll have to ask the all knowing anti overcharging one as this is what his practice charges. well marc any comment?

    no wonder you wouldn’t anaesthatise the rabbit because it costs 57 pounds at your practice!

    Posted by john smith on: March 20th, 2009 8:40 am

99. Carmen,

    The last thing we should be doing is cooking for our pets since cats raw food is what Mother Nature intended both cats and dogs to be fed. If you cook for a pet you totally destroy the vital enzymes in the food and Dr. Edward Howell, Microbiologist, says that it is a lack of enzymes that is giving pets the same degenerative illnesses that humans have. Dr. Francis Pottenger did a research project with cats in which he fed half of the cats raw food only for 10 years and the other half of he cats were fed cooked food only for 10 years. The cats fed raw food developed not even one single ilness in the 10 years whereas the cats fed only cooked for the 10 years had developed all kinds of illness and their immune systems were found to be immensely weak. Dr. David MacDonald of Oxford University produced research in 2006 in which he showed he had proved that cats have been domesticated for at least 138,000 years and in most of those the cat would have eaten raw food. In ancient Egypt the cats protected the grain from mice but now the poor cats are being fed the grain because Vets are failing to speak out and say that cats have no nutritional need for carbohydrate and that feeding it to them is likely to eventually give them diabetes, ibd, cystitis, dilated cardiomyopathy, struvite crystals, calcium oxalate stones and kidney failure. See the excellent website of Dr. Lisa Pierson DVM at http://www.catinfo.org where she shows that the last thing on earth a cat should be fed is dry pet food. Dogs too have no nutritional need for the carbohydrate in dry pet food. If you cook food it denatures the protein in it, destroys all the enzymes vital to health in it and the vitamins and minerals are mostly greatly depleted. Pet food companies adding back in synthetic vitamins and minerals is a poor substitute for feeding pets the raw food Mother Nature intended them to be fed. My campaign is aimed at getting a stop to Vets being allowed to sell pet food because in so doing they are telling clients to feed the very food that creates the illness Vets need.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 20th, 2009 8:45 am

100. Carmen, YAP Films in Leeds produced an excellent DVD of a documentary shown in Canada not long ago called “A Dog’s Breakfast” in which Profesor Marion Smart who is a veterinary surgeon showed that all the pet food companies needed to do in order to comply with nutritional guidelines laid down by the AAFCO for pet food companies was boil up some leather, add in some wood shavings and synthetic vitamins and minerals. She had this mixture tested at a laboratory and it met nutritional guidelines for pet food so why are Vets allowing pets to be fed food so lacking in the nutrients they need and why are they letting them be fed things they would never eat. I see a major pet food company have put blackcurrants and soya in their cat food and if I remember correctly the same pet food companies has carrots, apples and spinach in their cat food but no cat would eat these things in the wild and Vets should be speaking out and stopping the pet food companies getting away with putting such species inappropriate ingredients into pet food.

     Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 20th, 2009 8:52 am

101. Well done to Marc, fantastic job of awakening folks to the lottery of greedy vets in this country!

     No vet can say that was a biased program the good guys got mentioned whilst showing the bad – more than can be said for Pedigree dogs exposed and our show dogs!

     RCVS are an absolute joke its all about PR with those guys and as for young vets learning well, sorry when did they stop teaching you guys to look for the mundane more normal diagnosis – where did commonsense go in training? A vet charged £2k for ‘investigations’ heart scans, x-ray’s GA to drain a dogs lungs for LUNGWORM! Thankfully my puppy buyers went thru the courts not the RCVS, said vet treated for lungworms as part of the treatment just didn’t mention it to the owners whilst scaring them half to death and robbing them blind! A vet charging £500 for an overnight stay, 1 IV, 1 pain med and 1 wks antibiotic for a wasp sting, telling the owners a single swollen lymphnode was cancer and needed a biopsy for a 10 yr old dog, oh and we’ll remove 8 of his teeth whilst he’s under for an extra £400! I removed tartar from that dogs teeth mthly and they were very firm in his mouth totally unnecessary extractions.

     I could go on and on but hey as a pedigree show breeder with a farming background, 25 yrs in aviculture and herpitology what would be the point I know nothing along with a hell of a lot of other breeders!

     Again well done Marc about time.

     Posted by Mandie on: March 20th, 2009 10:24 am

102. I am amazed you are all having a go at Marc-no I am worried I really thought all you good vets would come out and agree with him.Especially his comment’s the majority of vets practise excellent veterinary medicine -give good value-and do put the animal first.Non of you have quoted this!Nobody as quoted Direct Line Insurance As for re-instating the vet(after 14 months) who bandaged limbs so tight amputation was required What do you think of that? In 2003 the Competition Commission looked at vet fees I would suggest you read their report.

     Posted by Jan on: March 20th, 2009 10:57 am

103. I’ve have been vocal about marc’s program on this forum but I have to support him on the charging front. Try calling out a plumber at a moments notice during the night for £100. £57 for a rabbit anaesthetic subtract VAT and see whats left. John if you are upset by these charges you really really have no idea.
     OOh fees, a practice has to abide by EU working time directives so to cover OOh a practice often has to employ additional staff. Hence the ooh commitment can cost a practice £50000 pa. (£25-£30K additional vet +/- nurse and overheads etc) Unless the practice is seeing on average 1.4 clients between 10pm and 8am every night including christmas then £100 per visit does not cover those costs. SIMPLE

     I have lots of critisism about Marc but if this is what he charges then he is very reasonable.

     Posted by Mark Holmes on: March 20th, 2009 11:19 am

104. Well done Marc on exposing these so called vets. Its nice to see you have the animals welfare in mind.

     Posted by angela on: March 20th, 2009 11:36 am

105. Lodge a complaint Sarah J Kenny now why would you want to do that?

     Posted by Jan on: March 20th, 2009 12:25 pm

106. tojan cant tell if you are being sarcastic or not?

     Posted by sarah j kenny on: March 20th, 2009 2:03 pm

107. I have read a few of these comments.There are two or three things we can do when we need a vet. talk to other dog or cat owners and ask them what and who they recomend. If you have a vet that you don´t trust then choose another. There are a lot of hones and hardworking vets who are fair when it comes to prices for this or that treatment. Please remember that vets are human and yes mistakes are sometimes made.If one follows these steps I think it is safe to say that we want the very best for our fourlegged family members. Sometimes it is very costly indeed. Sometimes it is better to think about the costs before getting a fourlegged family member. There are options for those who are not well off. The Blue Cross and the RSPCA help people who don´t have a lot of money. Even in Denmark where people usually have money there are charities who will help. Yours sincerly Lisbeth Mønsted Larsen greyhound Action Denmark.P.s. None of us buys an armchair without having tried it out first.

     Posted by Lisbeth Mønsted Larsen on: March 20th, 2009 6:15 pm

108. The general public have been talking about overcharging and some bad vets for years, it’s nothing new and the public are well aware of it, so Marc was speaking out for all of us. Anyone with pets soon finds out aout the massive bills we receive for our animals, hence more people taking out insurance policies. I have often wondered how they can justify the high cost of treatments and medicines. When my dog had a back problem I had to pay consultation costs of around £25 on all three visits when I should have been told on the first visit one that all she needed was rest! I know that now. It was inevitable that someone would speak out one day, it has been going on for years and it is time it stopped.

     Posted by Lindy on: March 20th, 2009 8:07 pm

109. a sensible comment at last Lisbeth

     pet owners. it is a vets responsibility to offer all treatments possible. it is your right to decline options just as it is others people’s right to accept them. some clients WANT to be offered blood tests for their lethargic pet as it sets their mind at ease and can diagnose illness early.

     if your vet is a good one they will offer you a number of options and explain the merits of each, giving an estimate for each. you are more than within your rights to ask for a second opinion. you can discuss whether each option is affordable and why it is necessary. if the vet cannot justify it then dont go for it!

     those who claim that fees are expensive you are not taking into account the overheads in running a business like a veterinary practice. if you do the figures you will realise that they are not raking it in in the majority of cases. internet companies can charge less as they bulk buy and have fewer staff to employ

     it does not help to become sidetracked by individual circumstances and cases or by one lady’s ranting about diets. there will undoubtedly be cases that are not handled well, differences in opinion and there will undoubtedly be bad vets. this does not mean all vets are bad.

     also i think you will find all vets watching the programme condemned the gentlemen exposed at the end and many, myself included regret his reinstatement. im sure this expose will mean his practice will receive a lot less business in the next few weeks.

     however the overall feeling of the programme was ALL vets are overcharging and eyeing up each animal they see as a profit, with a tiny disclaimer at the end after this “evidence” had been built up. as mentioned in a previous comment many vets are on a salary and it doesnt make a difference how much they make on each consultation. another comment was how the eyes of vets light up if an animal is insured. this may be because they can proceed with useful tests and work things up properly. when working to a budget with limited resources you are trying to solve a complicated puzzle with half the clues.

     unfortunately as veterinary medicine advances and more advanced techniques are available it WILL become more expensive to have the best treatment.

     if you have had a bad experience then vote with your feet and change vets, but beware a cheaper vets may have less resources and offer a lower standard of care.

     i would also point out we did not see the “mystery” consultations and therefore when the vet was taking a history we have no idea what false information they were given. they may have been given information leading them to believe treatment or further work up was necessary. for example this lady may have claimed the animal had been drinking more, not knowing this can be sign of serious illness.

     vets are necessary, the majority are trying really hard every day to give an excellent standard of care and making things affordable. please dont judge everyone by the few bad examples (or the lady ranting about pet food – this debate is about vets and finances – you are obscuring the debate with your one-woman-crusade)

     Posted by scotsvet on: March 21st, 2009 3:35 pm

110. To the pedigree show breeder who says “what do i know- I only have 25 years breeding experience, farming background,etc etc”- the answer is- you don’t know THE FIRST THING about diagnosing complex medical conditions in dogs and cats! Why on earth would or should you? That’s why we go to veterinary school for five years- so that WE can be the ones to diagnosie and manage these conditions. This doesn’t mean we don’t discuss all options with you and explain the reasoning behind our treatment plan or diagnostic test. It doesn’t mean you can’t ask questions, and query what we are doing. And you ALWAYS have the option of getting a second opinon if you want one. But to try and make out that YOU somehow could manage these cases more effectively than these vets-is just embarassing. Even the terminology you use- which to a lay person may appear perfectly fine, stands out a mile to any vet, that you have very limited knowledge in this field! How many cardiorespiratory cases have you diagnosed and effectively managed in dogs, to be able to so blithely say that that vet’s investigations of heart scans, chest drainage etc- were inappropriate? Its very easy once a diagnosis has been made to think that certain steps on the way were unnecessary. What criteria are you using to assess whether a tooth needs extracting? Just how wobbly it is? I assure you NO vet is going to go to the trouble of extracting a healthy tooth from a dog (apart from being unethical, extracting teeth is no easy task!). And the problem is- if a client come into my consulting room and thinks “I don’t really believe this vet- I think they’re saying they’ll do these tests to get money out of me”- then what happens then? In a VERY VERY VERY small number of cases perhaps they’ll be right (I stress i have NEVER met one of these vets!)- but in the vast majority of cases-it just means that the animal involved doesn’t receive the appropriate care needed to treat his/her conditon- and suffers as a result. Sorry to all you people that think theres some big conspiracy theory going on- but just to be clear- VETS ARE TRYING TO HELP YOUR ANIMALS! Theres no other reason we do this job! (it certainly isn’t for the money). And to people who continue to perpetuate the myth that vets are doing unnecessary tests for money- ALL you are doing is increasing the distrust the general public have of vets-and in turn this makes the job of TREATING THE PET, the one thing we actually all agree on is the important thing- a frankly impossible task.

     Posted by Vet-in-Leeds on: March 21st, 2009 8:24 pm

111. Hi Everyone

     Hope you all vote for Donal. Perhaps we can persuade him to go undercover at the RCVS Conduct Department. Now that would be a programme worth watching. Please vote for him.

     Posted by pamela stannard on: March 22nd, 2009 8:25 pm

112. I really hope you own your practice, as no one will ever employ you as a veterinary assistant. Maybe ITV pays really well. Misinformed, biased, back stabbing nonsense. You showed no balance, common sense or loyalty towards your profession, a profession which in general is hard working, conscientious and has the best interests of owners and pets in mind. I know I do, and money plays no part. None. Just made yourself look like a bit of an idiot mate.

     Posted by joanne mclelland on: March 22nd, 2009 8:50 pm

113. I have moved a fair few times and prices with vets do vary quite a lot I have loads of animals but will only go to a vet in an extreme emergency or for neutering or speying. I had a very bad experience with a vet some years back he was responsible for the death of one of my dogs and boy did I have a fight with the vet college in London when I reported him the lies he told were unbelievable but I did have back up from another vet. The vet in question left England soon after this and I believe he is now practicing in Australia poor Australia. Had he been a Dr he would have been struck off.

     Posted by Sonja Talboys on: March 23rd, 2009 2:44 pm

114. A question

     Not sure if it’s ok to ask a question here, but here goes, yesterday I took my female rabbit to have her teeth filed we do this regular every five months.
     When I got her nearly four years ago she was already around two years old I didn’t realise at the time she had a problem with teeth but soon it became apparent, any how when she had her first dental, the vet at the time said that this will have to be done every five to six months under anaesthetic because the alignment of her teeth on one side were pretty bad….
     What I’m anxious about is that yesterday she took a very long time to recover after the anaesthetic, she was done around 11:45am and when I put her and her husbun to bed last night around 12:30 she was still not right although I had been keeping a check on her through out the day I put her out in the garden in the warren with her husbun at about 3:30pm as they really don’t like to be seperated for too long, the vet yesterday said when she done her teeth the time before she come out of the anaesthetic quicker and she did seem concerned that she was taking longer this time, have to say I was quite anxious also, the vet said that maybe she could come back sooner then the teeth could be rasped rather than the anaesthetic, either way the she is going to be stressed can any of you guys suggest what might be better as I understand it her teeth at the back on the bad side should be done under anaesthetic, just to give you her size and weight she weighs 6lb 6oz ish.
     Just to add… what I do when she comes home is get some Rabbit Excell I soak it mash it then add some critical care and gently syringe and see if she is ready for some food she seems quite happy for me to do this as I worry about her going into GI stasis …
     Any input would really be appreciated
     LB

     Posted by LB on: March 25th, 2009 10:22 am

115. [...] on the issue of what vets charge and the service they offer. You can see some of the comments on Marc’s blog and his response to [...]

     Posted by ITV vet documentary causes controversy « ThePet.net Blog on: March 26th, 2009 9:59 am

116. LB

     without seeing your rabbit, looking at xrays etc, its really really difficult to know whats going on, but it sounds as if your vet is keeping on top of the teeth problems well, and every 5-6 months apart is pretty good going for what sounds like a serious problem.

     So many reasons why her recovery may have been slower this time. She is 5-6 months older, she may have been a little undernourished or dehydrated on the day, or she may be developing other problems, for which you may want to discuss doing some blood tests etc.

     sorry i cant suggest anything specific, it would be worth taliing it all through in detail with your vet

     Posted by hutch on: March 26th, 2009 6:27 pm

117. i thought the program was good as i i lost my westie 3 weeks ago because a vet had her sadated most of the day wfor a mouth infection said needed 2 teeth out then took 4 teeth out then cleaned and descaled teeth then cudnt reemember witch teeth she removed then5 hours later let me pick her up let holly run out to us holly then got little excited took a fit and died i am so angry 155 poundbill and a £450 pound dog she was my 50th birthday presant and i think they just did wat they want foe the money shud they not have treated the infection first i am hurt and very angry she was a verry intelegent and clever little dog and only 7 years old and fit i need answers i miss her every day . this program should make every one get a second opinion befor we put our pets in danger thank you e s colledge

     Posted by e colledge on: March 26th, 2009 6:37 pm

118. I did not see the program, but wanted to add my voice and experiences to this debate. My dog, a golden retriever, went swimming in a muddy river one day while on a walk. A few days later his ear became inflamed and his skin started to come up in a rash. My wife and I took him to the vet immediately, and, despite us explaining the circumstances, the vet decided that, because my dog had a history of skin conditions, these symptoms were caused by a food allergy. Assuming that the vet knew best, we started trying him out on different foods, but none made a difference. Several more visits to the vet followed, costing hundreds of pounds in consultation and medication charges. The last straw came when the vet prescribed steroids, and, immediately on taking them, my dog started weeing the entire contents of his bladder all over my living room. He would then go and drink his bowl dry and immediately wee it all out again. We looked up the steroid that the vet had prescribed on a veterinary website, only to find that it was a steroid that was normally given to senior dogs and was widely know to cause incontinence. Infuriated, I returned the pills to the vet and asked him why he would prescribe this drug. I was told that I could find anything on the internet if I looked hard enough and that what the website had said wasn’t true. I demanded a refund of the money I had been charged. I received a refund of approx £1.50, and was told that was all I was getting as they were “just cheap pills”. I immediately changed vet, and the new vet took a swab from my dog’s ear, sent it off to a lab, and, within short order, diagnosed an inner ear infection that was treated with a tailored ear spray. After months of suffering, my dog was cured within a week. The veterinary profession needs to take a long hard look at itself, because this sort of nonsense is simply not acceptable, to pets or their owners.

     Posted by Steve on: March 27th, 2009 1:33 pm

119. Firstly, I would like to say that M Holmes, T Archbold and Carmen have between them said most of what I would like to say on the subject. I am deeply saddened that the general public believe such rubbish and are questioning the vets. To those people I ask, do you have any idea how difficult it is to train to become a vet, and the reality of what the job entails on a day to day basis. I would love you to shadow a vet, and see them on-call, doing night duty and see behind the scenes, and maybe after that you can justify a comment.

     I am a veterinary nurse with a degree in Animal Behaviour and currently studying for a Masters. Working in a veterinary practice is not an easy job. I work with a lovely vet and between us, we do the very best we can for the animal and the client. For all of those you don’t understand why vets and veterinary staff are so outraged by this programme, imagine putting your heart and soul into a job with years of training, long, hard working hours only to then have a programme like this aired and clients suggesting that the vet is ‘just out to gain money’. That’s what hurts. Please open your eyes and take on board what the vets on this discussion board are saying, they are telling the truth!!

     To Fiona MacMillan, you still haven’t stated what your background is. I’d also like you to fully name the dry food you have such a problem with. LB, I’d also be interested to know what your background is. Sorry to hear that your rabbit is having teeth problems. I have rabbits and it is even more nerve-wracking monitoring the anaesthetic for your own animals! Trust your vet. Do not trust Marc, who when presented with an anorexic rabbit, would not investigate further and try to treat. See comments from the Exotics Specialist posted on 17th March, which sums the dangers nicely.

     Marc Abraham, shame on you for getting mixed up with the television world. How did you expect them to edit it? It is the rest of us that have to pick up the pieces after your stint of self-promotion. How could you do this to your own profession?

     To the general public, please understand that this programme has not actually proved anything, and it is completely flawed. I’m sure I speak for everyone that works in practice when I say, we honestly do the best for you and your pet.

     Posted by Nicky Trevorrow BSc RVN on: March 28th, 2009 3:21 pm

120. The programme was fascinating but went no where near far enough it showed what many people have known for years, and the comments from the vets on this page have proven the findings beyond any doubt.
     If vets genuinely believed they worked for the animals they treat why do so many defend the so called few vets who obviously rip off customer surely they would all applaud Marc for exposing the “few” that give the profession a bad name but instead they defend vets ripping off customers who can probably ill afford the extortionate prices they charge.
     How many surgeries ask are you insured before your pet gets treated?
     Why do they need this information if the first priority is the welfare of the animal and according to the RCVS charter a vet has to treat a sick animal and worry about fees later but not one in my area will.
     I personally have only ever had one vet who I did not feel was out to extract as much of my cash as possible and it was a great loss to my local area when he retired, his surgery was taken over by a veterinary group and overnight fees quadrupled my old vet earned a very good living so what was the need to increase costs so severely without any improvements?
     No wonder CBI have rated veterinary surgeries as the most profitable and least likely to fail small business.

     Posted by Carol on: March 29th, 2009 4:37 pm

121. Hi Hutch
     Thanks for your comments, I don’t think she is under nourished or dehydrated she has an area with her husbun 15ft x 20ft that is grassed they have dandelion leaves, growing basil, pieces of carrots they have the occasional walnut, rabbit excell, with lots of hay and oxbow a water bottle on the night pen and a big bowl of water in their love shack 4ft x 4ft….they also have access to the main garden when I shut the dogs away for obvious reasons …. she is a nice size rabbit she is much bigger than my three other rabbits…
     I did ring the vets and spoke to a receptionist/accounts who is always very helpful she said she would pass on the message and leave a note on Mabels file …

     Yes, I will definately speak about the blood tests, what tests should I be asking for?

     I honestly don’t think people realise how much care and attention rabbits really need I believe that rabbits should not be kept in hutches, However, if they have to be a massive one should be a priority..
     Thanks again…
     LB

     Posted by LB on: March 29th, 2009 10:47 pm

122. Hi Nikki
     Thanks for your comments…
     LB

     Posted by LB on: March 29th, 2009 10:59 pm

123. Marc,
     You’ve been in the world of television long enough to understand how views can be distorted with clever (or unfortunate) editing.

     Whoops……

     Posted by Emily on: March 29th, 2009 11:42 pm

124. Hi LB

     please dont think that my suggestions of malnutrition or dehydration are a criticism of the way you keep your rabbits. As long as the amount of pelletted food is not excessive, its a great set up.
     However, rabbits with dental disease can select certain foods, or eat less generally, and may become malnourished in the midst of plenty. Likewise they can struggle to drink.

     As for the bloods, I would discuss this with your vet, but a general haematology and biochemistry profile may be a useful thing to do.

     I totally agree: rabbits need exercise, hay and/or grass, companionship etc.

     Posted by Hutch on: March 30th, 2009 7:07 pm

125. Carol,

     I don’t think any vet on here is defending any vet accused of ripping owners off. What we have all done, I think, is explain why this is not actually the case, and urged people to take signs of illness seriously, and take ill animals to the vet as early as possible.

     Asking how people intend to settle their bill is not an unreasonable request, and is something generally done by reception staff before you see the vet. This is a practical thing, rather than prioritising money over care. In an emergency, its obviously still important that vets give owners clear ideas as to costs (we would certainly be accused of bad practice otherwise), but I dont know any vet who would not put treatment above payment if presented with an urgent case

     Posted by hutch on: March 30th, 2009 7:35 pm

126. Hi Hutch
     I didn’t think it was criticism at all, what I do as the grass grows more when the warmer weather comes…
     I decrease the pellets not that I give a great deal, so that there is very few, as you know grass growth almost comes to stand still in the winter months, I always worry about keeping their boilers stoked during the winter months … Yes I understand that rabbits do select feed, forgot to say I belong to a rabbit group on the net which is american and very informative, which reminds me that late last summer I discovered that buns can have rose petals, grapevine leaves oh and they just love lemon balm leaves but again they are only here in the summer/autumn months so looking forward to picking them this year…
     Ya got me thinking about this malnourishment thing though…although the water bowls are continuously filled (inside love shacks)I never actually see who is drinking from them, unless I see them drinking from the bottles on the night pens, have to say mine prefer bowls to the water bottles I can only hope that that they are all getting plenty of fluids
     Thanks again for your comments always willing to learn more to make life better for the bunnies…
     LB

     Posted by LB on: March 30th, 2009 11:28 pm

127. As vet who take my job extremely seriously I have been motivated to post such a long message as I am deeply concern about the level of mistrust that the public who have posted messages on this site have within the veterinary profession.
     Yes, good vets have nothing to fear from accusations of high pricing or greed made in the tonight programme. However, the programme while addressing many concerns the general public has not truly provided ITV viewers with a realistic idea of the profession.
     One post recommends the use of the internet to double check vets advice. Few vets see the general public as naive or stupid. However, the publishers of these sites are not required ethically or legally to have undergone any veterinary training and often be highly misleading. I have been distressed at the actions come clients have taken as a result of misdiagnosis based on very misleading websites. This doesn’t mean that if you are unhappy with your vets’ advice you should NEVER blindly accept it. No one reputable vet has any desire to defend those who undermine the trust the public puts into our profession .PLEASE PLEASE SEEK the advice or another or other fully qualified veterinary surgeons who have the skills and to benefit of a full clinical examination to diagnosis your pet. I sincerely believe that many of the cases where owners are not happy with the outcome or pricing of treatment it is neither due to veterinary incompetence or motivated by greed but due to a failure of communication by one or both parties. As a profession it is our responsibility and privilege to advise you of all the available treatment and diagnostic options that are truly appropriate for your animal. We should fully explain the reasons behind our recommendations and the potential risks/outcomes associated with them. If we fail to do this please, please ask for calcification. It is not in either parties’ interests for our clients to be unsure of why a procedure is deemed necessary. No decent vet will resent your questions and concerns or think you are stupid. I personally actively encourage this as a good working relationship between vets and clients is the best interests of your pets. If you are not satisfied request a second opinion.
     No case in veterinary medicine is black and white. There are always differences in opinions between vets of equal ability. Many of us will work together on complicated cases, not due to lack of ability but in order to determine the very best possible outcome for you and your pet. There are inevitably cases where treatment doesn’t go as planned. All animals are individuals and diseases do not always follow text book cases. Your vet should explain why this happened to you but is not always the result of incompetence. I personally have be devastated when cases I have put 100% effort, time, care into do not go as planned despite and offering competent and compassionate care. In regards to fees then medicines and overheads in practice are high and sadly we will always charge more than online pharmacies. It is the equivalent of a local shop competing with the buying power of major retailers. It is an unfortunate but necessary part of our job to charge for our services. Animals are often much loved pets but and we all understand that you want to provide the best treatment for them. Unfortunately as private business the veterinary profession is not able to subsidise the cost of treatment. The decision to have a pet should be made with this is mind. It is often a heart breaking part of our jobs not be able to perform some procedures where cost is an issue. No vets will however refuse treatment to minimise suffering of any animal.
     One of the greatest concern amongst clients in the need for prescription check/blood tests for repeat prescriptions of long term medication. These are not undertaken as a way of maximising fees. Under the laws which allow us as vets to prescribe medication we are REQUIRED LEGALLY to state the animal is under are care to investigate side effects of treatment. If we did not undertake these checks you pet could come to harm. If we didn’t complete this routine health checks and your pets did suffer as a result of prescriptions we prescribed then we would be negligent in providing and adequate standard of care. We do have to charge of the time this takes, but please do compare this to the time charged by other professions and trades. It is actually excellent value of money.
     Veterinary Medicine is a demanding, challenging profession which is rapidly updating and adapting to latest scientific developments. Vets in general practice are required to be the equivalent of human GPs, ancient and emergency service, dentists, radiologists, pathologists, surgeons, internal medics, neurologists, dermatologists, anaesthetists and advice of public health/hygiene for a variety of species. Our level and breadth of knowledge is far reaching. We have to provide this service to several clients on a daily basis. As a young vet I have to work a minimum of 11 hours a day, and not paid over time and rarely have a lunch break. I have frequent on call duties and have on occasions gone to work the following day with no sleep at all. I do this for £20,000 a year with debts of nearing £40,000 from university. Our profession often consumes our personal lives and is the profession suffers from high suicide and depression rates. Indeed it is impossible to go home and not think about our patients. Like the majority of vets I am in the profession to provide the best standards of animal care I can. Greed is not a factor in our work- where you have concerns please discuss them with us. I truly believe that the fair and honest communication between us and public will resolve much of the tension aired on this forum.

     Posted by Faye on: March 31st, 2009 11:37 pm

128. Hi Faye
     I liked your post, thankyou ..
     LB

     Posted by LB on: April 2nd, 2009 12:43 am

129. Faye I agree with LB.Please understand the immense feelings of hurt, anger, fraustration and injustice felt by MANY who have gone through the complaints procedure with your regulatory body. Don’t blame ITV or Marc Abraham. Blame Belgravia House.If your regulatory body refuses to act when it should and repeatedly hides behind its “limited powers” and Defra and Government acknowledge the weaknesses and do nothing then who else can we turn to but the media. Incidently I was very dissapointed in the programme too. It did not go far enough.

     Posted by pamela stannard on: April 8th, 2009 9:37 pm

130. So Nicky T asks another contributor to this discussion:
     ” …like you to fully name the dry food you have such a problem with.” and “I’d also be interested to know what your background is.”

     Well, I don’t know what your background is, Sir, but one would have to be a doorknob if they were to debate the fact that a cat is a strict carnivore.

     Or perhaps you have some secret proof which cites otherwise? Do we need to re-write every encyclopedia ever written, with reference to the species?

     Will SOMEBODY please disclose why the profession is legally allowed to “prescribe” cheap-filler-grain-laden, over-processed junk cereal to an obligate carnivore?

     And people really wonder why trust is at issue here?

     Posted by Meg on: May 26th, 2009 6:10 am

131. Didnt see the prog but assume it was sensationalist and incompetent, like most TV. But I believe most of what is said here . I ll be blunt. To me, Vets are crooks if they work in company multi practise and not to be trusted in any way.

     Posted by rodi on: September 2nd, 2009 8:22 pm

132. Hi Marc – not sure how best to get in touch, but I saw you not long ago in Teddington and you cleaned my ginger cat’s ears out – Newman is my cat’s name. I recently adopted him from Battersea, so you were the first vet I had taken him to. The other week, he got a tummy bug and I went back to the vet’s. I just wondered if you can give me a guide as to what I should be paying for consultation’s at the vet’s in London as I think the vet’s consultation fees were high even before the diagnosis and treatment, but I just don’t know? I’ve tried googling it, but it hasn’t shed any clear light on it. I’m going to ring around a few vets tomorrow, but I do like the surgery as its near to where I live.

     Hope you’re well
     Julie

     Posted by Julie Thurlwell on: October 7th, 2010 11:24 pm

133. ps – if you have any recommendations on the cat food you think is best I’d be even more grateful as Newman might have an allergy to Hill’s…? or am I being cheeky to ask your advice…?! sorry!

     Posted by Julie Thurlwell on: October 7th, 2010 11:27 pm

Add a Comment

Marc the Vet's Canine Care iPhone App

Packed with features to help safeguard your four legged family friends.