Marc the vet

1. Marc, you are still failing to respond to some key issues.
   1. You made inaccurate commented regarding the best way to examine a rabbits mouth
   2. You made inaccurate comments regrading the use of metacam in cats
   3. You failed to highlight that not one of the vets who were subjected to the mystery shopper attempted to ‘over-charge’. If this whole debacle is not, as I suspect just another ego boost for you, then why dont you actually present some concrete evidence to substantiate your claims.

   Posted by Londonvet on: March 19th, 2009 2:25 pm

2. Marc

   The above statement is more a list of your achievements rather than a response.

   As vets we rely on the history the owner gives us to base our treatment plan. We all know that animals not eating can have many potential problems and they all need to be discussed. This is not over treatment or trying to ramp up bills just good practice.

   As no mention was made of the costs of running a practice it was impossible to ascertain from this program if anyone was over charged or not. Also a comparison with the fees of other professional services such as private medics, lawyers and accountants would have provided context.

   It seemed to me the whole program was unbalanced and someone just had a personal axe to grind

   Posted by Wolvo Vet on: March 19th, 2009 5:47 pm

3. Marc, you fail to appreciate 2 things,

   1) Its not what you say that counts it is what is understood. It is your responsibility to make sure you present the argument clearly. Don’t blame editing for mis representing you. You are aware of what you said, you were aware (or should have been) that presenting normal animals with fabricated histories is not an effective way to present this argument and you are responsible for the final content of that program as only you were qualified enough to know the implications of what it carried.
   If you are claiming that ITV mis represented you and your argument then you need to address that on just as public a platform.

   2)No vet in the country would(or should) condone lying to a client about their pet’s condition but the bulk of that program, editing or not inferred that the majority of the profession (everyone other than you in fact)is guilty. I am aware of your disclaimer towards the end but the bulk of the program was about the dog, rabbit and the cat and you should know that telling a worried client that their animal is fine is a very difficult call both practically and legally.

   The subject of overtreatment is very emotive and should not be sensationalised. What one client considers over treatment another will appreciate for being thorough.
   Your actions have destroyed the trust that many clients have in their vets. Already we have had several instances of clients refusing treatment that really is genuinely in their animal’s best interests. That is of course unless in your oh so authoritarian position you feel that taking a swab from a chronic otitis is over the top.

   Maybe I have just become overly synical but I cannot help noting how this issue furthurs you own self interests. I hope it is not intended but it is at the expense of the animals in our care.

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

4. Marc, it is funny to see you checking the rabbit’s teeth, that is the only way you can properly check their teeth? Bravo!!! why don’t you train a bit longer??

   Can you tell me why would you take an x-ray before prescribing Metacam to a cat? maybe to over charge your client? how many pain related problems will you miss in a xray? Are you going to take x-rays of every part of the cat, head, neck, 4 limbs, spine, thorax, abdomen and tail?
   And how many animal or human drugs do you know with no side effects at all? and how many cats do you see with side effects to Metacam? and how many cats do you see that improve after getting metacam? what would you give to a cat that is in pain and might need pain relief for a week or two?

   Can I make you a question? how much were you paid for showing your face in this program?

   You also said that “it is obvious that vets are milking the pet insurances”, what do you mean by “obvious” and “there’s no doubt about it”? do you mean, that you are doing that? how can you say that something is so obvious unless you know it for sure, and you would only know for sure if you were doing so yourself!!!

   You are making definite statements in this program, is that legal?

   Posted by Ana (Vet) on: March 19th, 2009 5:55 pm

5. As someone who comes into daily contact with pet owners, I can certainly concur with many of Mark’s comments regarding over charging in certain practices and the standard of care provided.

   There was an occasion recently, where one of my pet sitters required urgent veterinary treatment for an elderly cat in our care. When she arrived at the practice, the vet on call refused any treatment until they had our assurance that we would pay any monies in our clients absence!

   Needless to say, I was utterly appalled.

   Posted by Nina Cole on: March 19th, 2009 6:36 pm

6. Was the ‘documentary’suggesting that it is unreasonable for vets to charge a consultation fee to examine the animal? Unfortunately not all vets are paid by ITV or from advertising, so thus need to be paid for services rendered.
   It also appeared that most of the vets used in the program gave very minimal treatment for the pets in question despite the client giving them false information about the pets health. WOuldn’t it just be easier if the pets could just speak to vets themselves?

   Posted by confused on: March 19th, 2009 8:10 pm

7. While I did think what you were trying in the program to say was sensible, I do think the show was very poorly put together, massivly bias and extremly badly presented and thus your comments seemed very disjoined and didn’t provide a good enough explanation for the general public to be able to come to a balanced conclusion.

   The testing method of comparing prices in various veterinary surgerys with the dog was fundemently flawed.
   You say this “Myster shopper” method is commonly used in business but fail to realise this is a totally differnt situation. You’re not comparing one absolute price to another (like you would if you were comparing tyre prices for your car) instead this was comparing vets’ opinions on a case which was artificial and fake. Any vet in their right mind would surely respond to a symptom suggested by the owner even if there was no evidence in their examination because it would be incredibly unsound to have not carried out any treatment and then the animal falls seriously ill, and also it is incredibly irresponsible to just ignore what the owner is saying.

   Posted by VS on: March 19th, 2009 8:16 pm

8. 1.Mark didn’t ever defend the vets - the presenter takes a rabbit or a dog into the vet and says he has been inapetant for 24 hrs. As we know one can’t simply say there is nothing wrong with an animal just because one finds a normal clinical exam, especially when the owner insists the pet has eaten nothing . Mark just examines the animals quickly , pats them on the head and says ‘theres absolutely nothing wrong with this fellow’ (having been told of course beforehand that there isn’t) … well if someone brings a rabbit in not eaten for 24 hours, I would disagree that there’s nothing wrong.

   When the presenter says he paid £40 to one vet just to be told to change the dog’s diet, Mark never defends the Vet by saying a full history was taken, a full clinical exam was taken and a professional opinion was given and that’s what you pay your £40 for .

   2. Mark calls himself an ‘expert’ at one point - well an expert in what exactly, over and above what all Vets are trained to do?

   3. He goes on to say that vets are making ‘easy money’ - well I or any of us have never found this profession to be ‘easy money’, ask any vet after he’s done a 14 hour non stop day if it was in any way ‘easy’ - I just think its plain derogatory

   Posted by nicola on: March 19th, 2009 8:38 pm

9. I will start by saying that I did not see the program. I have read the discussions that followed and think I get the general idea.

   I am sure Marc A will be criticised by other vets for his part in this ”expose.” As a pet owner and someone who has been on the receiving end of a vet who used her position and my love for a 14 year old dog to her financial gain, I can say that Marc and the makers of the program HAVE ONLY TOUCHED ON WHAT MANY PET OWNERS HAVE FELT AND DISCUSSED FOR YEARS! Is it justified for a vet to insist that an additional operation be performed on a dying dog, using pressure and guilt to get her point across?

   Congrats for those involved for being UN Politically correct enough to say what we are all thinking.

   Bravo Marc, and THANK YOU ITV for keeping it real!

   Posted by Susan on: March 19th, 2009 11:23 pm

10. The main problem that worried me after viewing this programme was the fact that, on the whole, it represented the veterinary profession in a negative light. It offered no comparison to positive veterinary practice. Nor did it offer any comparison with other private businesses in terms of fees charged. Yes people can now get medications cheaper on the internet but fees charged in practice have to take into account staff wages and a profit! The programme also failed to highlight that medications purchased on the internet still LEGALLY require a prescription which doesn’t recognise that there may be bogus people supplying bogus drugs over the internet which could do more harm than good. The programme SHOULD HAVE MADE CLEAR that clinical assessment by a vet is both LEGAL and VITAL. The blatant disregard for a badly disguised bottle of cat metacam was also potentially damaging to owners who might now be diespensed this medication. It’s terrible when you get presented with a cat that hasn’t urinated for 5 days and is in renal failure due to an owner being unaware of the medical complications of physiological problems. A programme that was so biased it basically said if you’re animal isn’t eating (be it cat, rabbit or dog) then you should watch out what the vet does is a ridiculous waste of time and will possibly cause more problems than it attempted to “research”

    Posted by Avril Jackson on: March 20th, 2009 12:52 am

11. Marc,

    Metacam has one of the most widely recognized safety profiles of any NSAID drug on the veterinary market, and is infinitely better than other NSAID options that were available to us before. Secondly, I think you will struggle to find a drug that does not list vomiting as one of its side effects. What NSAID would you prefer?

    All that the ITV show has done is to make the already sceptical public more distrusting of the profession, and to suck more money away from first opinion practice. Well done.

    Yours Kindly

    Scott McGinlay
    Final Year Veterinary Student
    Glasgow University

    Posted by Scott McGinlay on: March 20th, 2009 4:37 am

12. My concern is that Vets treat illness by dishing out antibiotics and steroids like there is no tomorrow. Why do they never ask the client what the pet is being fed since nutrition is vital for health and simply telling the client to stop feeding pet food and start feeding the animals the raw food that Mother Nature intended them to be fed could quite literally save the life of animals with for example dilated cardiomyopathy which veterinary research shows is being caused by feeding rice to cats and dogs when no cat or dog should be fed rice. The lack of protein in pet food and the huge amount of carbohydrate in it is causing struvite crystals in cats which is a life-threatening illness. Cystitis is caused by feeding dry pet food. Kidney failure is being caused by the acidifiers in the dry pet food and also pets fed dry food are chronically dehydrated which predisposes them to kidney failure. Why are Vets not asking clients what the pet is being fed and telling them to take the pet off pet food which would vastly improve the health of pets and could even save the life of pets. Dr. Elizabeth Hodgkins, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine finds that telling clients to take their cats off all dry pet food gets the cats off insulin. However, most Vets fail to tell clients that it is vital that a cat or dog with diabetes is taken off dry pet food forever despite veterinary research blaming the carbohydrate in dry pet food for causing obesity and diabetes. Vets are failing pets by failing telling clients to feed the pet food the Vet sells. Hills etc. should never have been allowed to have such an influence over Vets.

    Nina Cole, I think you are right that the majority of Vets put money first. I have even seen a veterinary practice that had a note on the consulting room doors which said payment must be made at the time of the visit which made it look as if money comes first. I would like to know why pets are being so over treated with antibiotics and steroids. Clearly these make a lot of money for the Vets.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 20th, 2009 8:35 am

13. Fiona, you have no idea what you’re talking about (although i know the first thing you will produce is your “evidence” for all this ranting) you obviously have a major chip on your shoulder about vets and pet foods. Maybe you should put this energy to good use. Train to become a vet and see what it is like then. Remember all vets are pet owners and see things from your side…what about you?

    as for your mother nature views. what most people with these views seem to conviently forget is that; yes, natures diet has provided for years of evolution. BUT wild animals have a minimal lifespan compared to our domesticated pets, unrelated to predators. Dental disease causes massive suffering for them and most die of illnesses our steroids and antibiotics would cure/ alleviate.

    surely humans have evoled to not wear sunscreen… do you think we should avoid that one too?

    Posted by john smith on: March 20th, 2009 8:58 am

14. ‘note on the consulting room doors which said payment must be made at the time of the visit’ - why exactly should this be so surprising? Do you go shopping and pay for it weeks or months down the line? Do you go down the pub and buy endless drinks to pay for them sometime in the future? Do you see yourself as somebody special who doesnt have to pay like everybody else does?

    Posted by Gladys on: March 20th, 2009 9:32 am

15. I fully appreciate paying at the time of my visit, what I dont appreciate is bringing my dog into an out of hours emergency situation and being made to get out my credit card first before they will even take him off me.

    Or the time a friends neighbours cat speared itself onto a wooden fence - the neighbour was not at home so my friend rushed it straight to the vet (with spike intact) who refused point blank to treat until they had been given an emergency payment so they were not ‘out of pocket’ in case the owner didnt want to cover costs - despite the cat being in absolute agony with a spike through its poor body .Incidentally the lady who accompanied my friend was a vet from another practice and was absolutely horrified by this.

    I know vets have to run a business but please dont tell me that behaviour is putting pets before profit…

    Posted by Sarah on: March 20th, 2009 1:17 pm

16. Sarah,

    Pets will always come first for the veterinarian, that is why they chose the field they’re in! There are much easier ways to scam people that don’t take FIVE years to learn!!!

    It would be WRONG of the vet not to stabilize a patient in an emergency situation. However, to continue life saving treatment, they need proof of payment. It costs money to run oxygen, run blood work etc…not to mention delaying the regularly scheduled appointments.

    DONT GET ME WRONG, SAVING A LIFE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING! If the vet goes into surgery and saves the animals life, but the owner won’t pay for the bill because it’s too expensive, what happens then? Is the vet a bad guy for charging money for their services of saving a life? This happens all too often, which is why vets are now forced to see proof of payment.

    If a kind person bring in a stray, but doesn’t have the money to pay for treatment, the vet can’t be expected to foot the bill either, regardless of how much they both want to help the animal out!

    Posted by Clare on: March 20th, 2009 9:14 pm

17. my dearest Fiona MacMillan. Most vets are on a SALARY. This means i dont give a hoot whether you spend two quid or two thousand pounds. these claims you make are contrary to several scientific findings. however, im certain any comments on here will be promptly ignored as they are from vets (who you clearly do not trust).

    secondly marc clearly is unabashed at giving out false information on rabbit medicine and is unwilling to admit this. i would like to see information placed on this website on the REAL approach to the anorexic rabbit, so the general public realise that it is an emergency.

    thirdly there are individual cases recorded on this site (and others) from owners that sound terrible. indeed i agree there are a MINORITY that will carry out misdeeds and profiteering. however a complex case is just that. therefore if a lot of tests are carried out and little is confirmed it is a COMPLEX case. remember there are human medicine cases that take a long time and lots of tests to diagnose.

    to the person who suggested educating oneself on the internet this is foolhardy. there is little to no editing on the internet. i have seen several sites suggesting out of date or even clearly incorrect information. i would suggest if you are concerned about the suggestions of a vet get a second opinion from a TRAINED PROFESSIONAL - not an axe-grinding uneducated pet owner/breeder.

    Sarah. it is a vet’s duty to treat an animal in an emergency regardless of payment etc. the welfare of the patient should be the vet’s primary concern and therefore you can make a legitimate complaint.

    Finally the reason that this issue has ignited such concern in the veterinary profession is that it has damaged the trust between client and vet. i deal with each case for the patient, working long hours for little money (about 12 quid an hour!) and am spending a lot of my money on further education. it is very upsetting to be challenged and accused of profiteering when the welfare of your pets is at my heart.

    Posted by n. baker on: March 21st, 2009 12:18 am

18. I found the whole program sensationalist and biased, and this was reinforced by Mr Abraham’s contributions.

    I have no doubt that both practices and individual vets exist who are happy to perform procedures with a primary aim of creating a large profit followed by secondary concern for the animal. Unfortunately this program failed to demonstrate this, other than the case of the vet who was struck off for malpractice.

    What it did instead was to spend most of it’s time presenting frail evidence that most vets treatment opinions differed from Mr Abraham. The comparison was meaningless, as the vets who examined the animals were unknowingly presented with fabricated histories of illness, whereas Mr Abramhams was effectively told ‘Here’s my healthy pet that isn’t unwell in any way. Does it need any treatment?’

    Furthermore the program implied that Mr Abraham’s choice of treatment was the ‘correct’ way to do things and then did not give the ‘bad’ vets the opportunity to discuss their advice. The latter was a perfect example of how lazy the journalism was in this program. Where were the door-stepping cameras that are expected in programs like this shouting “why did you want to give the rabbit that wasn’t eating some medicine?”

    In the case of the dog vets gave options of observation, diet change and (I can only assume) symptomatic treatment for possible nausea or discomfort. If I went to the doctors feeling a ‘bit iffy’ then being told to take things easy would be expected. Being advised to take some paracetemol or maybe some Rennies for indigestion doesn’t sound like profiteering to me. The program inferred that those vets who gave basic symptomatic treatment were money grabbing.

    In the case of the cat similar treatment options were advised. By the time the cat had been to 5 or 6 vets I wouldn’t be surprised if it had a temperature through stress or reacted to palpation of its back. Giving a pain killer/anti-inflamatory seems reasonable. If you had a temperature or were in pain then taking an Aspirin would seem a sensible thing to do. In an older cat saying that if there is a good response then longer term treatment may be of benefit if required doesn’t seem unreasonable. Mr Abraham declared that no treatment was required, that Metacam would not be his anti-inflamatory of choice and that the cat should be X-rayed before giving it anyway. Metacam is the most commonly used anti-inflamatory used in cats for good reason. It have a good safety profile and is the ONLY NSAID licensed for longer term use in the cat. I would view it as the safest drug in it’s category that can be used legally (ie following the cascade)in cats. Perhaps Mr Abraham would consider steroids a safer alternative anti-inflamatory but I suspect that he’d be quite alone in that view. Perhaps I should spend £100-£200 on X-rays on every cat that I see before giving them medication that costs £10-£15. Perhaps most clients would think I was profiteering if I followed Mr Abraham’s diagnostic route.

    In the case of the rabbit Mr Abraham stated that using an otoscope was the “only” way to examine a rabbit’s mouth. That is incorrect. It is one way of examining a rabbit’s mouth, and a technique that I use regularly. However the view offered by this method of examination is limited and I would never rule out dental disease on the basis of this examination alone. Mr Abrahams did not do this. His choice would have been to send the rabbit away for observation. As has been previously discussed this is in opposition to the body of veterinary opinion as an inappetent rabbit can develop fatal hepatic lipidosis within a few hours of stopping eating. In addition to Mr Abraham’s substandard diagnostic and therapeutic skills the program again inferred than vets who recommended otherwise were profit driven. Indeed the vet who recommended the most expensive treatment was also the one who was advising the ideal course of treatment for an inappetent rabbit. Doubters are invited to read the BSAVA manuals on exotic and rabbit medicine if they wish to confirm this.

    In all these cases the ‘mystery shopper’ investigation was fundamentally flawed as it involved a false history involving vague symptoms. None of the treatments recommended were inappropriate (apart from Mr Abraham’s). There was certainly no vet who advised inappropriate blood samples or MRI, as the Direct Line spokesman implied was commonplace. They showed a range of recommendations much as would be expected if you went to your doctor and lied ‘I feel sick’ then expected him/her to examine you and declare ‘No you aren’t. You’re making it all up’.

    Failure to find something wrong on a clinical examination does not mean that an animal isn’t unwell, just that it can’t seen/felt. Animals (especially rabbits) don’t show symptoms of being unwell until they are severely ill and that’s why faster intervention is often required than would be in a human.

    Unfortunately this program has just undermined people’s faith in the veterinary profession as a whole, meaning that people may be less inclined to take their animals for examination when they appear unwell and less inclined to follow the recommendations given by their vet as they will assume that all the vet is interested in is profit. This may not have been Mr Abraham’s intention, but given his extensive experience with the media he should not have allowed himself to be involved in a program such as this or, as he did, he should have had enough sense not to say such inflammatory, incorrect and dangerous things as he did.

    Posted by ZumerZet Vet on: March 21st, 2009 1:15 am

19. Dear Fiona,

    It is absolutely plain to see from your comments that all of your information is sourced from questionable internet sites, books intened for use by laypersons, or tv shows. Your comment about rice causing dilated cardiomyopathy is categorically untrue. Many commercial ‘complete’ diets contain rice and are perfectly acceptable. Rice fed entirely on its own may lack certain components (L-carnitine is the one you are unwittingly referring to) that lead to an increased risk of cardiomyopathy, but the rice itself does not cause this.

    What you have written suggest you think know about the dietary influence on disease processes in animals, but to any vet, your comments are those of a stereotypical ‘home internet vet’ owner. Please leave vetting to vets, and stop perpetuating this lack of faith in vets that does no favours for the animals under our care whatsoever.

    Yours Sincerely

    Scott McGinlay
    Final Year Veterinary Student
    Glasgow University

    Posted by scott mcginlay on: March 21st, 2009 7:56 am

20. Scott, you are completely wrong in what you say. I have disclosure from Glasgow Veterinary School at which you are a final year veterinary student which shows you are being taught nutrition by Hills Pet Nutrition ie the Hills contract has been disclosed to me and I completely object to Hills being allowed to teach you nutrition since I see it as a complete betrayal of pets and pet owners that any pet food company is being allowed to teach veterinary students. n return for funding Hills are being allowed to teach you nutritioon and so you know very little about nutrition and I find it scandalous that any veterinary school is allowing Hills to teach nutrition to veterinary students. Why are you not speaking out for the animals and demanding that you receive impartial teaching on nutrition because it is completely wrong that Hills are allowed to teach you nutrition and it means that veterinary students graduate not knowing that cats and dogs have no nutritional need for the 30-60% carbohydrate that is in dry pet food.

    My own Vet was a graduate of Glasgow Veterinary School and my cat ended up dead because that Vet had not been taught that struvite crystals are caused by feeding carbohydrate to a cat which as veterinary research shows stimulates struvite crystals. Also the lack of protein in pet food is a huge problem since it contains nothing like the 70% protein Richard Allport MRCVS says a cat needs. In veterinary research a high protein diet has been shown to dissolve struvite and so a cat fed the high protein diet Mother Nature intended it to be fed would not get struvite crystals. Also cats fed dry food are chronically dehydrated. Why did my Glasgow graduate Vet not know any of this and in her ignorance about nutrition told me Hills was the best food to feed my cat when she should have known that Hills is causing serious illness in pets as is all pet food. When I asked her why she was recommending Hills she told me the rep from Hills told her it was the best and she had no reason to doubt him but she should have known that you do not just take the word of a pet food company especially when its food is loaded with carbohydrate when cats do not even have the salivary amylase necessary to digest carbohydrate because no cat is meant to be fed even 1% carbohydrate. Because of her ignorance and the ignorance of all the other Vets at the surgery who knew practically nothing about nutrition my cat ended up euthanased because the Vet failed to tell me that taking my cat off dry food was the way to save his life and instead kept catheterising him and operated on him and gave him steroids, antibiotics and just about everything under the sun except the one thing that would have saved him since his life would have been saved if he had been taken off dry pet food. In writing Dr. Elizabeth Hodgkins DVM who is a friend of mine and is the biggest critic of the pet food industry in America tells me that only cats fed dry food ever get struvite crystals and I have the veterinary research that shows she is correct. You might like to buy her book from Waterstones entitled “Your Cat” in which she warns cat owners never, ever feed dry food to a cat because of the illness it can cause. She used to work for Hills but is now completely against dry food and says raw food is the best thing to feed a cat. She has 30 years of experience of as a Vet and only treats cats so she knows what she is talking about and so you are wrong in saying I am reading dubious websites because I am friends with various Vets who have refused to let pet food companies brainwash them and who are real animal lovers and so they speak out about the illness pet food like Hills is causing.

    If you look at the website of Dr. Michael Fox MRCVS you will see that feeding rice to cats inteferes with taurine levels and gives them dilated cardiomyopathy. This is the url. http://tedeboy.tripod.com/drmichaelwfox/id88.html I looked out the veterinary research. You will see that there is also a paper on the taurine levels of dogs which shows that either the lamb or the rice was responsible for their depleted taurine levels. Professor Sherry Sanderson has shown that dilated cardiomyopathy can be reversed in dogs by giving them taurine supplements but a far better way to give the cats and dogs taurine would be to give them the raw food Mother Nature intended them to be fed since raw food contains the taurine that is vital to cats. It was pet food companies that let a large number of cats become blind because they did not know that cooking food largely destroys the taurine in it. For pets with dilated cardiomyopathy Vets should be telling clients to stop feeding pet food and to feed raw food because dilated cardiomyopathy can be reversed as shown by Professor Sherry Sanderson. If you look at the “Dog Breakfast” DVD by YAP Films you will see that Professor Marion Smart shows on it just how little pet food companies need to put in pet food in order to comply with AAFCO pet food regulations. In the wild no cat or dog would ever seek out rice to eat and it is completely wrong to feed rice to cats and dogs and if you were not taught by Hills you would know that. My campaign includes getting a stop to pet food companies being allowed to teach nutrition to veterinary students. Do you deny that raw food is what Mother Nature meant cats and dogs to be fed. As Elizabeth Hodgkins DVM says “would you feed grain to an eagle”. No you wouldn’t and so as a Glasgow Veterianry student taught by Hills can you please explain why you are letting cats and dogs be fed grain because feeding them something Mother Nature never intended them to be fed is creating the illness Vets need to stay in business because where would Vets be if the pets were not as chronically ill as they so sadly are. Professor Marion Smart has done research into prescription diets and found they are almost the same as the regular food of the same company and she was concerned that Vets were quoting the pet food company health claims when the pet food companies usually did not have the research to back up their health claims. Not to have the research to back up pet food company health claims is now a breach of the new consumer law. Please see my letter published in the Veterinary Times dated 21.7.2008 next to Roger Meacock’s letter in which he says Vets should have a warning up about the illness pet food is causing. I am shocked at the contents of the Hills contract with Glasgow Veterinary School and if you saw the contract you also might be shocked at the contents of it since it shows a complete betrayal of pets since in return for funding they are allowed to teach you nutrition.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 21st, 2009 8:48 am

21. Scott, I forgot to say that I have a letter from Professor Stuart Read, Dean of Edinburgh Veterinary School in which he says I will no doubt be pleased to learn that he has ordered copies of Michael Fox MRCVS’s excellent book entitled “Not Fit for a Dog - The Truth about Manufactured Pet Food”. Could you please tell me if Glasgow Veterinary School library has also ordered copies of it since it is vital that every veterinary school has this book since you are receiving biased teaching from pet food companies like Hills and Royal Canin ie. the Royal Canin contract which allows them to teach nutrition to veterinary students at Edinburgh Veterinary School has also been dislcosed to me and I have received disclosure from all the other veterinary schools of the funding they are getting from pet food companies. Richard Allport MRCVS says in the foreword to this Michael Fox’s book that if he could he would lock every veterinary student in a room and not let them out until they have read this book on the illness pet food is causing. I would be very grateful if you would please if you really love animals go to Waterstones and order a copy of this book and spread the message it contains to the Association of Veterinary Students so that all veterinary students are made aware that pet food is causing serious and often eventually fatal illness in pets.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 21st, 2009 9:10 am

22. ah fiona. a number of problems with your theory

    1. Mother Nature suggested animals should eat raw feed, but pretty much immediately after kill, thereby preventing “food poisoning” caused by environmental, pathogenic bacteria multiplying in the meat. If you are keeping chickens outside that you slaughter and feed immediately to your pets goon on you, but i think the vast majority of pet owners would avoid this. meat should be cooked before eating by animals or people

    2. I agree a diet based on dried food in cats can lead to cystitis. i think if you discussed the matter with many vets they would suggest an entirely dry diet to all cats is probably not the best, unless it is of a specific variety designed to dilute the urine and alter urine pH.

    3. i agree with scott above, rice is in no way harmful to animals.

    4. it is well documented that the diabetic cat may be non-insulin dependent (though responsive to insulin) and therefore can be diet-controlled. it is also well documented that insulin dependent and non-insulin dependent diabetic cats can “recover” and be weaned off insulin in some cases.

    5. The very high protein levels you suggest feeding to animals may well in itself be detrimental to animals, in particular the elderly feline, which will assist the development of renal failure. remember when a cat eats a mouse it eats the muscle (protein), but also gut content that in itself provides carbs.

    6. while you clearly have too much time on your hands, many british pet owners have not enough. as forming a balanced diet for a pet is complicated and takes a lot of research, the majority of pet owners do not have the time or the money! i have dealt with one too many owner who has been feeding weetabix, bread and sausage rolls!

    7. while you comment on vets using antibiotics and steroids, these can be necessary life-saving drugs. peritonitis cannot be solved by changing the diet. i have several patients with immune mediated diseases that will die if we remove steroids. incidentally prednisolone tablets are approximately 4p daily - i doubt that will make much for any veterinary surgeon.

    8. Finally you may not be aware that veterinary surgeons have a scientific based training. therefore they are taught about nutrition, metabolism and animal requirements well before advancing to clinics. do you really believe we blithely accept everything Hills/Royal Canin suggest with no scientific backing? We question and do research. i wonder if you can find a credible source - ie published and peer reviewed in a credible journal? I would be happy to be contradicted by science, but not theory.

    Posted by r. jones on: March 21st, 2009 10:42 am

23. incidentally i also clicked on your link to the diabetic website. it states clearly on the first page that this vet doesnt have a problem with manufactured foods as she says pouches or canned food are fine! it is also in her protocol pretty standard information about insulin! maybe you should re-read what your heroes are saying…

    Posted by r. jones on: March 21st, 2009 10:52 am

24. Dear oh dear Fiona you really are on the war path arent you!?
    I would like to point out that we hardly ever see many diseased animals in veterinary practice due to lack of nutrients these days. Animals are living much longer than they ever used to, partly due to preventative veterinary care and good nutrition.
    Most pet owners are not prepared to feed a ‘raw’ diet as it is messy/smelly/time consuming. The general public want an clean/easy/quick way to feed their animals a good quality food. Im sure even if they did attempt a ‘raw’ diet they would not be using a full range of ingredients to ensure a balance of vitamins, minerals and nutrients.

    Heid RVN

    Posted by Heid RVN on: March 21st, 2009 12:34 pm

25. Fiona,

    Having read your ranting on this ofrum and others I have come to the conclusion that you must be a stranger to tescos,(many other supermarkets are available) You must live in a cave somewhere, without the use of artifical light eat berries, seeds, insects and foraged sea food. Plus any small mammals you can catch. (Any cats gone missing recently?) You obviously wear a loin cloth, pass wastes in a hole and have concerning amounts of body hair! Am I right? You seem to have a suprising amount of access to the internet for someone who lives such a natural life.

    Posted by Mrs Tweady on: March 21st, 2009 12:50 pm

26. lets stop all this nonsense propagated by the raw meaty bones lobby. There is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence to support the claims that the pet foods recommended by vets (ie complete pet foods) have in any way contributed to renal disease in cats etc. Fiona you are clearly a sandwich short of a picnic, rather than repeatedly remarking how Vet ‘x’ said this and vet ‘y’ said this, why dont you actually post some links to some scientific peer-reviewed papers to substantiate your claims? As proven by this ITS programme, if you pay someone enough money, you will always be able to find a vet willing to make inflammatory comments, but that does not mean they are correct. Vets are scientists, and if someone could show them genuine scientific evidence that commercial pet foods are damaging pets health, of course they would sop supporting them, but no-one is ble to.

    Posted by londonvet on: March 21st, 2009 12:50 pm

27. Marc

    the issue of overcharging and overprescribing is one that may well be challenged. however im sure you will agree that is not what this programme aimed to do. it acted as a dramatic expose that sensationalised a problem in a small section of the veterinary profession.

    i have already had issues with clients. one i had to practically beg to allow me to treat his anorexic rabbit.

    you have been congratulated for having the “guts” to bring this topic up. Please have the “guts” to retract misleading statements on the care of anorexic rabbits. also if you have been mis-quoted or edited incorrectly (as you hint at above), please have the “guts” to go to ITV and ask to have your statements retracted/corrected.

    Also i would think carefully before becoming involved in such a biased, unscientific programme again.

    Posted by scotsvet on: March 21st, 2009 1:15 pm

28. I have to agree with londonvet that there is no evidence to support manufactured pet food causing disease in animals, and as a profession we should practice evidence-based medicine rather than relying on anecdotes and hearsay. What I can say is there are peer reviewed papers that DO support the feeding of certain manufactured pet foods such as renal diets to cats with chronic kidney disease and that these show marked survival benefits! The feeding of raw diets also is entirely inappropriate given that mineral imbalances can cause growth defects in young growing dogs, raw foods can contain salmonella and campylobacter which are not only harmful to animals but are also potentially harmful to people, and raw foods containing bones can lead to pharangeal injuries too. This book may make interesting reading too, but it is just the opinion of one person and so everything it says shouldn’t be taken as gospel, if he can show us some evidence that stands up to proper scientific scrutiny, then vets will listen.

    Posted by Tim MRCVS on: March 21st, 2009 1:24 pm

29. Viewers of Pets under cover may be concerned to know that Ancare is an accredited surgery.It was accredited in November 2006 whilst run by a recently qualified locum who left when Mr Sanyal was reinstated in May 2007.

    The RCVS promises regular inspections of accredited surgeries and “peace of mind” to pet owners but I wonder if this can be the case as the RCVS refused to disclose when it was last inspected,despite the fact that this discredited vet practises on his own with an unqualified nurse.

    Posted by Valerie, Canterbury resident on: March 21st, 2009 7:47 pm

30. The Dean of Edinburgh Vet School is not Professor Stuart Read, your sources here seem somewhat confusing.

    Posted by VS on: March 21st, 2009 9:27 pm

31. i find it so concerning that you seem to be more interested in trying to promote yourself as a tv celeb than doing whats right for the veterinary industry.
    if you can not see that your program as severely damaged the industry then i feel that you not be in a position to represent it.

    As all you have done is given fuel to the fire that people believe that we as an industry cant be trusted and are all money grabbers. And whats more this could not be at a worser time considering the current credit crunch which already makes people extra concerned about spending.

    i really hope that your career is worth it.

    Posted by adam the great on: March 21st, 2009 10:17 pm

32. Fiona,
    having read lots of your posts, both here and the original pets undercover site, I am very interested as to what your ‘occupation’ is?

    Posted by paula on: March 21st, 2009 11:11 pm

33. Paula, I am an honours graduate of Aberdeen University. I only became interested in the pet food matter because on Hills pet food which my Vet told me to feed my cats they got cancer, kidney failure, fatty liver disease, cystitis and struvite crystals and so I began reading papers written by Vets such as Dr. Martin Goldstein and found they were blaming pet food and over-vaccination for the tremendous illness pets are getting.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 22nd, 2009 8:23 am

34. LondonVet, no doubt you are yet another Vet who was taught by Hills. Please give me the reason you are allowing cats which are carnivores to be fed the 30-60% carbohydrate in dry pet food. There is an abundance of proof pet food is causing illness in pets but because Vets need the illness to make money you will not admit it. Please see the website of Dr. Michael Fox MRCVS and look at the secion on “Evidence of Pet Food Harms” and you will see that there is veterinary research which shows pet food is causing cancer, kidney falure, diabetes, heart disease etc. Dr. Katy Sinning DVM in a letter published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association said “Put simply, it is as preposterous to suggest that pets should be fed dry pelleted food as it would be to suggest we humans or any other species should live solely on the same”. LondonVet would you live on only some equivalent of pet food dry food. No, I am certain you would not agree to live on only dry food of a human kind and so why are you letting pets be fed such species inappropriate food. Are you the Vet who in the Veterinary Times criticised me? I remember looking that Vet up on the internet and found that the reason he was criticising me was because he sells 6 different kinds of pet food from his surgery. My campaign aims at getting a stop to all Vets being allowed to sell pet food and Trading Standards who administer the new consumer law are currently dealing with the matter of Vets misleading pet owners to believe that pet food is good for pets instead of warning them of the illness it is causing as Roger Meacock MRCVS in the Veterinary Times letters page on 21.7.2008 said they should be doing. LondonVet could you please tell me how many kinds of pet food do you sell from your surgery in London. I bet it is stacked to the ceiling with Hills and other pet foods because you make at least 20% profit from sale of pet food although Dr. Patthy Khully DVM tells me Vets can make as much as 100% profit from the sale of pet food. Perhaps you would like to read a paper published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association dated 11.12.2001 by Debra Zoran DVM entitled “The Carnivore connection to nutrition in Cats” since you seem to have forgotten or have never been taught that the cat is a carnivore and that Vets like you are doing immense damage to their health by letting them be fed Hills which has far too much carbohydrate in it for a cat. Dr. Zoran points out that the cat produces very little pancreatic amylase and that amylase is vital for digesting carbohydrate and so the cat cannot even properly digest the 3-60% carbohydrate that is in dry pet food.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 22nd, 2009 8:37 am

35. Fiona, your post is exactly what I predicted, just another list of vets that agree with you. This IS NOT scientific evidence. I shall re-state my challenge to you…

    Tell me where I can read a double-blind placeo controlled scientific paper that shows statistically significant results to prove that the pet foods vets recommend are causing these diseases.

    Letters published in scientific journals do not constitute scientific evidence. If you can provide the evidence to substantiate your claims I will change what is sold.

    Posted by londonvet on: March 22nd, 2009 12:27 pm

36. London Vet, even the pet food companies do have any double blind placebo controlled scientific papers to prove that pet food is not causing illness. Indeed I have letter from the veterinary schools in which they admit they have no research at all into whether pet food is safe for pets to eat and have no research into whether it is causing illness and they just believe the pet food companies that fund them who tell them pet food is safe to eat. Even the RCVS could not supply me with proof that pet food is safe to eat. In a dog newspaper the RCVS were quoted as saying that there is “an abundance” of research that proves pet food is safe. I wrote to Mr. Hockey and asked him exactly what the “abundance” of research is and he wrote back to me telling me that the Pet Food Manufacturers Association had told the RCVS there is an “abundance” of research but neither the RCVS nor the Pet Food Manufacturers Association could actually give me the research because it simply does not exist. On Michael Fox MRCVS’s website there is an abundance of proof that pet food is causing illnes. Will you please give me details of all the research that proves pet food is not causing illness since I would be very intrested to read it.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 22nd, 2009 6:29 pm

37. Londonvet, you may be interested to know that Martyn Jones MP and Privy Council member of the RCVS in a letter to me tells me he agrees that the research I gave him shows that dry food is causing illness and in the letter he says the pet food companies should be stopped from making the claim that dry food contains adequate nutrition. In a letter to me the previous President of the RCVS said we should have a meeting in the House of Commons to discuss the veterinary research I gave her which shows pet food is causing the illness I said it is causing.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 22nd, 2009 6:32 pm

38. Fiona, I would reccomend you look up some of the work produced by the Waltham research facility. They have done extensive and comprehensive research into making pet foods for major brands as healthy as possible. They produce a journal called “The Veterinary Focus Journal” which contains a lot of their papers, and produce a large amount of peer-reviewed reasearch.
    You letters and correspondance with people amount to no more than gossip. What someone “said” is hardly a solid base from which to instigate changes.

    Posted by VS on: March 22nd, 2009 9:00 pm

39. Whilst Fiona et al continue their debacle on dry foods..
    As a member of jo public, I’d just like to praise Marc and ITV1 for throwing a different light on the subject.
    I have 2 dogs (7&8), 5 cats (9-16), 2 rabbits (aged 4-5), a 14 yr old chin and 9 assorted degus. I take all my information from various sources and apply logic and common sense. I buy non-prescription items online, as yes, they are cheaper. I use two practices, one for the cats and dogs and an Exotic practice. My vets were found through talking to local RSPCA, Cats Protection and Breeders (having made several mistakes with practices). I think that jo public need to understand that they can make the right decisions about their pets, they know their animals better than anyone, they can get a 2nd opinion and they can ask questions… I’ve now found two excellent practices and we appreciate each other’s positions. My animals come 1st and if a vet doesn’t give me the same impression, then I’m not interested in giving them my business… I hope Marcs show gave the public more awareness and the ability to ask themselves if their animals are in the right hands.

    p.s my dogs are on James W (& leftovers) and cats on Royal Canin Light (not recommended by my vet but chosen by myself having had one cat suffer hepatic lipidosis and having got the best results from RC light).

    Posted by Paula Weston on: March 22nd, 2009 10:18 pm

40. Fiona you said: the dry food my Vet told me to feed my cats they got cancer, kidney failure, fatty liver disease, cystitis and struvite crystals and so I began reading papers written by Vets such as Dr. Martin Goldstein and found they were blaming pet food and over-vaccination for the tremendous illness pets are getting.

    These natural food cats must be the longest living cats in the world because if they’re not eating dry food and not getting any of the above they must live forever

    Posted by john smith on: March 22nd, 2009 10:22 pm

41. I admit from the start I missed the first few minutes of the programme Pets Undercover. I feel it is appauling you take these pets on a road trip to different Vet practices for the sake of mystery shopping and television. Do you realise how stressful it is for a pet to visit the vet and undergo an examination, often including having their temperature taken with a rectal thermometer. Would you do this to a child. How many rabbits and cats enjoy been ‘placed’ in and out of a carry cage. Did anyone making the programme ever consider the welfare of the pets. As a Vet I’m disappointed you were a party to this. Vets must always place the welfare of animals first and foremost, I don’t believe you did in the making of this totally biased programme.

    Posted by John Wood on: March 22nd, 2009 11:39 pm

42. Just to clarify, would you take a child to 5 different doctors, not necessarily having the childs temperature taken rectally.

    Posted by John Wood on: March 22nd, 2009 11:43 pm

43. To Fiona,
    I am wondering if your good friend Dr Elizabeth Hodgkins knows that she is being quoted so often and if she agrees with your stance that Marc Abraham is the best vet to have ever lived? Does she also agree with the medical opinions given by him on national television as to the appropriate treatment of inappetant animals?

    Posted by vet on: March 23rd, 2009 1:23 pm

44. Marc

    I refer you to the RCVS guide to professioanl conduct. Read the section public life and interaction with the media.

    Given you made comments about the correct way to examine a rabbits oral cavity, the treatment of the anorexic rabbit and the use of metacam in cats asthough they were established facts and not your own personal belief (”the use of an auroscope is the only way to examine a rabbits mouth”..hhhmmmmm…) you are in direct breach of the RCVS guide to professional conduct.

    Surely the RCVS need to speak to you about this matter, and misleading the public

    Posted by Wolvo Vet on: March 23rd, 2009 2:44 pm

45. Fiona, it is so much fun to read all your nonsense, but it is so much more fun to read all the replies you get about your nonsense.

    I have to say thank you to all the vets writing in this blog, thank you for sharing and thank you for being such a good teaching material to all of us (if you can say that).

    Marc, I do believe in Karma, do you? And I don’t say this for all the damage you’ve done to the profession, but for all the damage you are doing to the pets who are now suffering after you misleading the public.
    I really think that your ego is very dangerous, and the only think that is important to you is to be one of those TV stars that weird people like Fiona adore.

    We are all waiting to see what you do now, and for your own benefit, I hope you find the way to fix this mess you’ve caused.

    Posted by Carmen on: March 23rd, 2009 10:52 pm

46. Im more than a little disappointed that while Marc has decided to “thank” everyone for their comments he hasnt choosen to respond to them - namely the ones that have repeatedly come up:

    1. Why did he claim conscious otoscopic examination was the only way to assess a rabbit mouth, and that the rabbits mouth was “perfectly healthy” when it is well known that a rabbits mouth cannot be fully assessed without exam under GA, xrays etc

    2. Why did he imply that it was acceptable to recommend no treatment for an innappetant rabbit, and suggest that treatment of such a rabbit with appropriate medications or hopsitalisation/dental work was completely innappropriate, when this is clearly an emergency situation which could result in the rapid death of the animal involved if mishandled in this way. I would be suspicious that this is likely due to inexperience in dealing with many rabbits, which was evident from the poor way in which Marc handled/restained the bunny in the programme.

    3. Why did Marc say that metacam was “not his favourite anti-inflammatory” when it is clearly the only licensed long-term anti-inflammatory for cats (other than steroids, which I doubt many vets would would agree should be the drug of choice for a cat with back pain!). Why did he also suggest that this medication should never be dispensed without xrays, which while they may be useful in some cases, are in many cases neither indicated nor neccessary. It should have been made clear that there are many circumstances is not only appropriate but very safe if used correctly, and legally under the cascade it would be the NSAID of choice in cats.

    4. Why did Marc imply that his treatment recommendations were the only correct ones, and that the treatment options offered by the other vets were incorrect, when from what we have been told about the false histories that were given, and the action taken by each vet, it seems that in each case all the treatment offered was perfectly reasonable, correct, and most importantly showed no evidence of overcharging and unneccessary treatment - supposedly the whole point of the program! Why were none of the supposedly “wrong” vets given the chance to explain why they recommended the treatment they did - presumably because that would have conveyed to the audience that actually a perfectly good service was provided which wouldnt have been in fitting with the theme of the programme

    5. Why did Marc imply that any vet recommending further investigations was overcharging and recommending unneccessary procedures, then hypocritically suggest that any cat dispensed metacam should have xrays first, which in many cases of metacam use would be a completely unneccessary procedure!

    6. Why was a completely unethical situation created in which vets were given false histories, and more importantly, 3 animals were transported from one vets to another repeatedly being examined. This is of particular concern in the case of the rabbit, as it is a well known fact that rabbits are extremely susceptible to stress - ironically, something as routine but stressful as a trip to the vets can be enough to trigger gastrointestinal stasis, which would result in the very innappetance that this bunny was taken to several different vets for supposedly having! As someone has previously pointed out, transport in a carrier and examination by 6 different vets could easily have resulted in the back pain the final vet detected in the cat during the programme.

    7. Why was it implied that further investigations were suggested as a way to make money. I, like the vast majority of vets in practice, am not a partner in my practice but purely an employee - I take the same wage home regardless of how much I earn for the practice, and have never been put under ANY pressure by my employers to make more money for the practice - I provide a good service to clients, care about them and their pets, and always recommend what I believe are the best treatments, and discuss all possible options with the owner REGARDLESS of cost. I would be interested to know how many of the “wrong” vets the 3 animals were taken to in this program were partners/on commission and how many were in the same situation as me - I would be suspicious that the majority would be the latter, which would make Marcs point completely invalid.

    8. I dont care about editing - why did Marc not INSIST that the point was made from the beginning that the programme only referred to a very small number of vets. This was slipped in as a brief afterthought at the very end of the programme, when the damage has already been done. Marc has dealt with the media plenty of times before - he knows how they can skew things, how biased they can make things, and he also knew how much damage this programme could potentially do.

    I challenge Marc to actually answer these points which have been raised over and over by dozens of vets - are we all wrong and you are right Marc? Editing is one thing, but editing cannot make you say things you did not - as someone has said previously, seeing as so many pet owners are congratulating you for having the guts to do this programme, then please have the guts to admit your own mistakes, innaccuracies, and lack of adequate basic knowledge on rabbit medicine.

    I think the reason the entire veterinary community is so annoyed about this programme is that it destroys everything we work so hard for on a daily basis - I work in a relatively new branch of a well-established practice and have been building up trust with the clients in our new area for 3 years now - yet one silly, irresponsible, biased and sensationalist programme has done a pretty good job of destroying the trust weve developed with our clients - we have had so many clients come in reluctant to take any medication or consider any work-up for their extremely unwell animals purely on the basis of this programme. After all, if you were Joe Public who would you believe, the man on the television who claims he has nothing to gain, or the people asking you to pay your vet bill? I hope Marc can sleep at night knowing he has destroyed the trust between some clients and their honest, hard-working, caring vets, resulting in unneccessary suffering of their animals.

    The point that has been made by several pet owners on the other page of comments on the Pets Undercover programme was “why does it bother you so much if youre a good vet, it should only worry you if youre a bad vet” - unfortunately it isnt this simple, we dont have good vet or bad vet tattooed on our forehead, and the fact is that as a result of this programme, some owners are going to presume that a vet who suggests a costly procedure or treatment is doing it to make money, when 99.99% of the time it is for no other reason than we believe it is neccessary/the best course of action.

    Just to clear up a commonly held myth by the pet-owning public, vets are not rich, they do not earn lots of money - we work long hours, earn relatively little, jump out of bed in the middle of the night at the drop of a hat despite having worked a full day and having a full day to come in the morning, have vast amounts of student debt that we will likely never pay off, have relatively little social life or spare time, and are at a much higher risk of suicide and depression/mental illness etc that other professions. As an example I worked New Years Eve and Day not just been but the year before - this was a mon/tues and I also worked a full weekend that sat/sun. I worked a total of 123 hours that week, which worked out at 3.56 pounds an hour - well under the minimum wage, and when you consider that if I were working in a bar Id be getting double or triple time… well you get the idea. I am not in anyway complaining about this - it is something we are quite used to in the veterinary profession. The point is, if we were in this job for the money, wed have made a very poor career choice - there are far far easier way to make much more money! Nor is it because the partners are making all the money - its simply the fact that running a veterinary practice is extremely expensive. We do not appreciate this as well as we should, given that we have the NHS in this country. For example, say your cat comes it for some xrays, how do we come to the charges that we do? We need an xray machine, plus a developer machine. Then we need the xray plates, grids, the xray films, the developer chemicals, the anaesthetics/sedation required for most xrays, an xray viewer, lead coats/thyroid protectors/gloves for the required safety of staff, the cost of regular maintenance/servicing/safety testing of the machine, rent of the building the machine is placed in, electricity costs to run the machine etc, wages of the vet interpreting the xrays and the nurse assisting the vet with the procedure/monitoring the anaesthetic, cost of textbooks/CPD to ensure that xrays are always interpreted to the best of our abilities - the costs of having the ability to perform xrays easily run in to tens of thousands of pounds. This is just one example, but I think it demonstrates that there are massive costs involved in running a veterinary practice - there was an article in a veterinary publication a few years ago that said the average veterinary practice needed to make 17 pounds every consult just to make enough money to keep the building running and cover staff wages - this is assuming that every consult is full every day, and bearing in mind that most practices dont charge for post-op checks, stitches out, and charge minimal amounts for nail clips, anal glands etc. Yes practices put a mark up on drugs - we would not survive if we didnt!

    Sorry if this has been a little bit of a rant, but I feel extremely strongly about this. In this blame culture we now live in, the trust between vets and clients is fragile enough without people like Marc doing their best to destroy it. Im sure there is the odd vet out there overcharging or performing procedures/giving treatments that arent strictly neccessary, but then there are people who are bad at their job or greedy in ALL professions. The fact is the vast majority of vets spend their lives working long hours for little financial reward because they love their job and want to improve the quality of life of their patients, and they couldnt care a less about how much they earn. So for a member of our own profession to attack us for being money-obsessed when he knows it couldnt be further from the truth in the vast vast majority of cases is like a kick in the teeth. I hope you feel very proud of yourself Marc

    Posted by Natalie on: March 23rd, 2009 11:00 pm

47. Sorry, I missed one, perhaps the most important point of all:

    9. Why did Marc suggest that we should not LISTEN to our clients. If an owner comes in with an animal and says it isnt eating I ALWAYS take them seriously - owners know their animals very well and we should never underestimate this as vets. We shouldnt send them away, telling them theyre worrying for nothing and theres nothing wrong with their pet purely because it is normal on clinical exam - we should always discuss the options with them and allow them to make an informed decision as to the best course of action. But then I suppose its far easier to send your patients out the door certain of a clean bill of health when ITV have already told you theres nothing wrong with them - hardly a test of your diagnostic skills!

    Posted by Natalie on: March 23rd, 2009 11:12 pm

48. From a pet owner perspective I thought the programme was pretty informative, for anyone that’s been living under a rock for the last 20 years anyway.

    I find the responses on the internet forums more insightful than the actual programme, the rediculous over-reaction from the veterinary “professionals” is quite scary and even the mild reactions make you wonder what sort of people we put our trust in when our pets are ill.

    The programme itself did nothing to alter my views, the internet fall-out has given me a lot more to ponder.

    Posted by AJ on: March 24th, 2009 12:15 am

49. FIONA,
    You should be a politician, I pose a very simple question and you repeatedly fail to answer it. The question is not whether vets/the pet food industry can prove their food is not causing illness, the challenge is for all the people like yourself making these allegations to prove that it is causing illness. I shall pose my challenge to you once again…

    Please show me where I can read a peer-reviewed double-blind placebo controlled scientific study that proves your allegations.

    We all know why you cant do this, and keep resorting to quotes from a variety of dubious sources, there are no such papers because no-one has been able to prove it. You should at least have the balls to admit you have no evidence and withdraw your slanderous comments.

    Posted by Londonvet on: March 24th, 2009 10:33 am

50. AJ: “ridiculous over-reactions”? What a ridiculous statement! The veterinary profession is reacting in this manner for one reason - we care, about our patients and about our clients. Ultimately it is our patients who will suffer (and in several cases that I know of, already suffering) as a direct result of this irresponsible programme. Perhaps you would prefer your animal to be treated by a vet who couldnt care a less about its welfare?

    Posted by Natalie on: March 24th, 2009 2:43 pm

51. Natalie - I agree with you on every point.

    Posted by Mark on: March 24th, 2009 4:18 pm

52. Natalie, exactly. I think its a testament to our profession that the majority of posts by vets here have been primarily concerned with animal welfare.

    I shudder to think of rabbit owners who might ignore the fact that their pet bunny has not eaten for 2 days because the vet on the TV said it was healthy.

    Please any rabbit owners who may read this, whatever the TV and Marc might say, a rabbit off its food is a serious sign and needs treatment ASAP.

    Posted by Wolvo Vet on: March 24th, 2009 4:31 pm

53. AJ- can I ask you to explain what you mean when you say “The ridiculous over reactions from the veterinary professionals is quite scary” ?? I am interested to know because there have been a few posts on here that seem to share this view. Just to clarify- Marc is a VET, a position that carries considerable responsability and has given out INCORRECT (and, especially in the case of the rabbit downright DANGEROUS)advice regarding animal treatment. Would you not be more concerned if the vets who watched this programme WEREN’T outraged by this?
    This programme has portrayed vets as untrustworthy, unscrupulous individuals who will often put profit before animal welfare. Why do you find it strange that vets might be outraged by these accusations?!
    And when you say “it makes you wonder the kind of people you put your trust in when your pet is ill…”-the vets who have posted on here have all made it clear that animal welfare is their number one priority- so who WOULD you want to put your trust in when your pet is ill??!
    And Marc- the advice you have given out in this programme would be appaling if even to one individual client in your consulting room- the fact that this has been seen by countless rabbit owners across the UK is unacceptable and needs to be addressed. Your “respone” above is insulting and does not address any of the issues made by any of the veterinary sureons throughout these forums-please remedy this.

    Posted by Vet-in-Leeds on: March 24th, 2009 6:21 pm

54. Fiona - honours graduate Aberdeen University, you graduated in what exactly? If it isnt a veterinary qualification maybe you should take the trouble to train - you are obviously very well read . You have your opinions and other people have theirs - that I can respect , however I am curious as to why you feel the need to dominate this and many other pet forums, is it just that you enjoy causing problems or does it give you a sense of importance?

    Posted by Gladys on: March 24th, 2009 9:58 pm

55. “Please any rabbit owners who may read this, whatever the TV and Marc might say, a rabbit off its food is a serious sign and needs treatment ASAP.”

    Seconded. Please please please take this seriously. Rabbits can die of gastric stasis and secondary problems like hepatic lipidosis rapidly. Find a vet you trust, from personal recommendation. Get a second opinion if you want, but please don’t wait before you take them to the vet in the first place.

    Posted by evilherbivore on: March 24th, 2009 10:04 pm

56. At last! A vet who is brave enough to challenge his profession. The RCVS has protected bad vets for too long. Marc DID say that most vets are ok. But the bad ones must be struck off permanently!!! I feel sorry for newly trained vets as they don’t get much chance to work with experienced vets. I think they should do at least 2 years CPD experience with a vet who has been in practise for ten years or more and one that has had no complaints against them and there should be un announced visits to check on the animals welfare especially those in surgery and recovery at the time. Nurses need to be given a voice to so they can whistle blow more easily. Well done Mark. I fully support you.

    Posted by Lorna on: March 24th, 2009 11:52 pm

57. Natalie - I mean the reactions on veterinary forums and to some extent the posts here too.

    Vet-in-Leeds - Some vets are untrustworthy, unscrupulous individuals, by claiming that Marc has given incorrect information on the programme you’re just proving that point.

    Posted by AJ on: March 25th, 2009 4:15 am

58. AJ

    Dont you find it odd that all the vets on here have consistently expressed concern for animal and especially rabbit welfare regarding the incorrect information that Marc gave out on the tonight program?

    Can you please explain how this makes us untrustworthy and unscrupulous? I dont understand your point. How is wanting to do the best for an animal or in this case a whole species untrustworthy or unscrupulous.

    To be honest I find Marcs actions more unscrupulous as he is obviously prepared to sacrifice the oath he swore to uphold animal welfare and do his best for all animals for the merest sniff of being a “celebrity” and a career in the media.

    Of course…..the media never get things wrong or twist things do they???

    Posted by Wolvo Vet on: March 25th, 2009 9:14 am

59. LondonVet, as you well know I do not have the double blind studies you are asking for. The point you are missing is that not one Vet in this country or any other country should be selling pet food unless they have unequivacol proof that pet food is not causing illness. Not one Vet has this proof and so I hope Trading Standards who are looking at this matter will have understood it properly and will ban the lot of you from selling pet food. Please give me proof that a cat needs the 30-60% carbohydrate that is in dry pet food. Debra Zoren DVM wrote a paper published in the JAVMA entitled “The Carnivore connection to nutrition in Cats” but all you Vets seem to have completely forgotten that cats are carnivores. The veterinary schools have already disclosed to me under the foi how much teaching veterinary students get in nutrition and it is very little and is taught by eg. A Vet at Liverpool Veterinary School who is funded by Royal Canin so that is hardly impartial teaching. At Glasgow Vet School Hills teach nutrition to the veterinary students and at Edinburgh a veterinary nurse whose salary is paid by Royal Canin teaches the veterinary students nutrition. James Patrick Crilly, a veterinary student at Cambridge University said in the Veterinary Times last year that the pet food companies have what he rightly called “a dangerous monopoly” at veterinary schools. Almost every week the British Medical Journal do an article on the inordinate influence drug companies have over doctors and their prescribing habits and it is right that this issue of the inordinate influence pet food and drug companies have over Vets is addressed by the RCVS. The British Medical Journals Group has recently taken over the publishing of the Veterinary Record. Would any doctor’s surgery be allowed to sell any kind of food? Of course not, so why are Vets allowed to sell food. You have to be impartial and I hope Trading Standards will put a stop to Vets being allowed to sell any kind of pet food. You clearly do not have any kind of proof that pet food is safe for pets to eat long term. Where are your double blind studies that prove pet food is safe to eat because I would very much like to read them but I know they don’t exist.
    You defend pet food because you make at least 20% profit from the sale of it.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 25th, 2009 10:11 am

60. Londonvet, perhaps you do not know that Royal Canin is being sued by Rochon Genova, lawyers in Toronto at the moment for $50M over the illness and death of pets from eating Royal Canin food. It apparently contained far too much Vitamin D and caused kidney failure. You perhaps do not know that Banfield Veterinary Clinic last year on their website say they estimate that some 39,000 cats and dogs either became ill or died as a direct result of eating pet food made by the major pet food brands such as Hills and Purina. Maltzman Foreman, lawyers in Florida were suing these pet food companies on behalf of pet owners. To ridicule me is to betray all the pets that are eating pet food and eventually getting cancer, kidney failure, diabetes etc. because of it. I don’t mind you ridiculing me in the slightest but if you as Vets won’t stand up for the animals and speak out about pet food then it is a very sad betrayal of animals. Even rabbits, swans and hedgehogs are being fed dry food. As Dr. Kathy Sinning DVM said in the JAVMA it is preposterous animals are being fed dry pet food. In a recent article in the Veterinary Times on obesity Vicki Brown has completely ignored that it is dry pet food that is causing the obesity and diabetes.

    Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: March 25th, 2009 10:19 am

61. Fiona - perhaps you did not know that the legal issue you refer to was settled May 22nd 2008, and perhaps you also dont know that the Banfield website today is reading
    ‘ feed your Pet foods that are made by companies known for ongoing nutritional research’
    Just thought you should know

    Posted by Gladys on: March 25th, 2009 2:32 pm

62. AJ- Are you saying that if someone made a programme about YOUR job/profession- and claimed that a proportion of you were un-professioanl, untrustworthy, money-grabbing indiviudals (With absolutely NO EVIDENCE that this was in fact the case- none of the vets involved in the mystery shopper scenarios were given a chance to explain their actions)- that you would just sit back and take it? To me, it would be much more concerning if you DIDNT care that such allegations were being made. Why does claiming that Marc has given out inaccurate information mean I’m proving the point that vets are unscrupulous and untrustworthy? Marc HAS given out inaccurate information. Wouldn’t I be more unscrupulous if I didn’t care about this? Your argument is completely flawed- what you are suggesting is that if someone makes a claim against you- by disputing the claim you are admitting guilt! As an individual you can chose to believe Marc or you can chose to believe myself and all of the other veterinary surgeons who have posted on here (including several exotics specialists)- thats up to you. Unfortunately-by believing Marc, in the case of the rabbit- this is going to result in needless suffering and possiblly deaths of these animals. You’re entitled to your opinion regarding your experiences of unscrupulous, untrustworthy vets, but please don’t blamd ME and all the other vets on here for trying to defend ourselves against these slanderous accusations.

    Posted by Vet-in-Leeds on: March 25th, 2009 3:04 pm

63. I would like to second those comments stressing the extreme importance of
    a. listening to clients concerns about their animals being ill, not eating etc. This is often all we have to go on, especially in the case of prey species, who’s owners analysis of their behaviour at home is vital
    b. taking it very seriously when rabbits stop eating, and investigating and providing supportive care immediately.

    Thinking that a prey species is OK just because it looks fine in front of you on the consult room table, and not treating it as a matter of urgency will result in suffereing and dead animals.

    Vets on here have made this point over and over again, and I really seriously worry how many rabbits will have their welfare compromised by owners who take the flawed messages of the documentary seriously.

    Posted by hutch on: March 25th, 2009 3:55 pm

64. RE: FIONA MCMILLEN (aka the banned SHEENA from Pets-MRSA)
    This insane lady posts on several pet forums and was actually banned from the now obsolete pets-mrsa forum for posting exactly the sort of rubbish she’s spouting here. She was one of the main reasons that a valuable tool linking veterinary staff and the public was closed down, and I hope she’s proud of herself!! Please just ignore her and maybe she’ll go away….she won’t listen to anything you have to say that isn’t pet food related. Crazy lady.

    Posted by VetNurse on: March 25th, 2009 6:44 pm

65. If we are all sensible here, then the best thing to do is to ignore Fiona. She seems to be spouting absolute rubbish!! Leave her to it and let her rant away for all she is worth. If we choose to ignore her, surely she will get fed up and go on to another forum and argue there.
    For those of you that are adding fuel to the fire by answering her ridiculous comments - you are getting away from the original reason we are posting here????

    Posted by paula on: March 26th, 2009 12:56 am

66. I agree, Fiona in her last post has even admitted that there is no evidence to backup her claims. Going back to the original point, I have now submitted a complaint to ofcom regarding the pets undercover programme and would urge everyone else who cares about animal welfare to do the same. I am also enquiring to the RCVS about making a complaint about Marc for bringing the profession into disrepture and harming animal welfare for his own gain. Again, I would encourage all vets/nurses to do the same. None of our professional bodies are willing to stand up for the profession (they have demonstrated that time and time again) so we need to take action ourselves.

    Posted by Londonvet on: March 26th, 2009 10:53 am

67. I have read your reply to the comments and i am not impressed.You can not get away from the fact that you contributed to a sensationalistic and poorly representative program that at times resembled a witch hunt and which reflects badly on our profession. It makes you look like the good guy which is a joke,how ethical is it to be part of a TV show employing dishonesty. How do you feel having jeopardised your colleagues reputations to enhance your own.Where is your evidence that there is an increase in vets ripping of clients,you have shown no data to support this .There will always be a minority of people in every profession,trade etc that are dishonest and this program instead chose to point the finger well and truly at the veterinary profession as a whole.Most vets are very caring people in a very stressful occupation providing a partial charity service.No other profession discounts on bills on a daily basis for the poor or gives credit to those in need.We are a relatively poorly paid profession with average nurses wages diabolical not to mention the insulting amounts paid to trainee nurses.I have read many business reports advising the profession that we need to start charging accurately for the services we provide and improving the perceived value to clients whilst letting go of the income from drug mark ups.I welcome this but in the long run its owners who will pay more and they should…i believe pet ownership should be encouraged but only if owners have the means to pay for the required health care themselves…we live in a country where people have kids and pets and expect someone else to foot the bill for both,i agree its a shame if kids miss out on the experience of pet ownership but that is not our responsibility.Thankyou so much Marc for fuelling the chronic fire that vets are all rich and a bunch of rip off-artists,we have always been an easy target because the only comparible is the NHS which is free…well how can we compete with that.
    I just wish i could ignore such a ridiculous publicity stunt by yourself but i sincerely hope your involvement in deception does not go unpunished you creep.

    Posted by Craig on: March 26th, 2009 12:59 pm

68. Many years ago, i needed to get one of my dogs hip x-rayed for submission for scoring. I decided that instead of going to my regular surgery i would call around other surgeries in the area to see who gave the best rate. Afterall, this wasn’t emergency health care or on-going treatment. The first thing that i found was that the surgeries i contacted actually didn’t like the idea of me calling around to compare price! Why shouldn’t i, aren’t you providing a service just like every other service i pay for? The majority of surgeries that would give me a quote were priced at around the £50 mark. But then i called a surgery where i got straight through to the vet and not the receptionist, he told me the cost of this x-ray would be £125!!!! When i pointed out that i had been calling around for prices and gave him everyone elses average price, firstly he was outraged that i’d been calling around, and when i asked him how he justified his price, he said that it all depended on the anaesthetics being used. I suggested that for the difference in price he was quoting, all the other vets in the area must be hitting the dogs over the head wth a mallet! He huffed and puffed about being checked up on and then hung up on me!
    So yeah all you disgruntled vets out there…. Sorry chaps, but there are cleary vets out there who are all about the money, so no reason why we the public shouldn’t question that.

    One other example. Again very many years ago one of the vets at the practice i used was president of the BVA at the time. We took on a dog as a rescue, we didn’t have any paperwork for her at the time. We took her along to this vet and we said we had no idea what her vaccination status was, but as she had been imported we new she would have been done at least once, and she was three years old at that point. This vet said “oh that’s ok, i can give her a special three year booster”. Incase you think he was joking, he wasn’t. After that, we stopped giving our dogs booster vaccinations as we realised the whole thing was bullsh*t.

    Having said that, the vet i have been using for the last ten years has been fantastic, if she hadn’t just retired i couldn’t recommend her highly enough. Fantastic person who always clearly cared about the animals first and foremost and always tried to be as reasonable as she could when it came to her fees.

    The bottom line is that there are good vets and bad vets. And there are both out there.

    The Veterinary profession are looking a bit like the Kennel club at this point. A rarified organisation unaccustomed to being questioned or treated to the same kind of trial by television that the rest of the world are sometimes subject to. I don’t know anything about Marc Abraham apart from what i saw on this show. I don’t imagine it is a comfortable feeling being a whistle-blower, but sometimes these things need to be done. Dismissing everything he said as egocentric, incorrect nonsense tends to make you look as if he touched a nerve. While i am sure that is not the case, and you should have the right to defend yourselves, all you appear to be doing is pretending that every vet out there is utterly trustworthy, when clearly that is not the case.

    You may complain about the method used to investigate, but lets face it, would anything happen any other way. No i’m sorry it wouldn’t. Vets are rarely going to break ranks and potentially shoot themselves in their own feet. Regardless of Abrahams motives for what he has done, there are an awful lot of people out here who are glad he did.

    Posted by Tracey on: March 26th, 2009 1:29 pm

69. Londonvet and others. I was very dissapointed in the programme because it did not go far enough. I agree that presenting animals to various vet practices “undercover” was inappropriate and futile and let the programme down. However NONE OF YOU seem to want to comment on the Sanyl issue or the very reveiling interview with Jill Nute. I wonder why?! I think we all know don’t we that the Sanyl story is only the tip of an iceberg. I seriously wonder if his case would have gone further than the Preliminary Investigation Committee were it not for the veterinary nurse who not only witnessed the abuse but was prepared also to speak out. A very brave lady don’t you think? I am sure some of you also remember the Swift case. It took the RSPCA to prosecute this vet.
    I share the opinion that there are many vets out there who are committed to the welfare and care of animals but this is not what it is about. One member of your profession also posted on this forum that there are bad apples in every profession no matter how well regulated they are.This is of course true but the point is IT IS HOW YOU DEAL WITH THEM THAT COUNTS. It is my opinion that repeatedly your regulatory body has failed to deal with many serious complaints made against individual veterinary surgeons and IN DOING SO IT HAS FAILED TO PROTECT ANIMALS FROM HARM FROM WITHIN YOUR PROFESSION. Don’t keep talking to me about animal welfare when you haven’t even got your own house in order.

    It has also been suggested that the programme was biased because it did not present the view of the profession as a whole. I personally would welcome with open arms a further programme represented by both sides. Perhaps a question time type debate with the RCVS Conduct Department forming part of the panel.

    Posted by pamela stannard on: March 26th, 2009 2:18 pm

70. [...] suggest for your beloved pet. 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 3:03 pm

71. Pamela, you are missing the point! The RCVS regulates us and therefore the profession as a whole does not have any power to “keep its house in order”. The RCVS is in my view incompetent and is just as guilty at harming animal welfare as ITV and Marc Abraham. Trying to blame the profession for the failings of its regulatory body is akin to blaming an animal for the failings of a vet that treats it! I have made a complaint to the RCVS about both their failings in the matter and Marc Abraham, and would encourage you to do the same.

    Posted by Londonvet on: March 26th, 2009 3:54 pm

72. How did this show harm animal welfare? The thing that most harms animal welfare is the prohibitive price of veterinary treatment.

    If this had been a sting type expose on builders or mechanics or some other kind of lowly tradesmen you’d be quite happy with it.
    What makes vets so special?

    I don’t believe for one minute that this will harm the veterinary profession in the least. Everyone knows vets are expensive. The public should shop around and compare basic fees, like consultation fees, vax fees, or any other routine treatment. Would vets be happy with that, or will they be as awkward as possible?

    Posted by Tracey on: March 26th, 2009 4:23 pm

73. The difference with sting type programs on builders is that they actually show the bad stuff occurring, name names, and defy the rogue traders to sue.

    This one gave an edited one sided view, no right of reply. I wonder if they would have been so gung ho without the security of knowing that no-one could defend themselves

    And most importantly: it presented pets as having problems!!!!

    If you take a car to a garage, tell them it is doing something so bad that it could, without the correct treatment, fail completely (ie die!) then it would not be unreasonable to expect them to take the time and effort to investigate it, and charge accordingly (eg inappetant rabbit)

    Posted by hutch on: March 26th, 2009 5:55 pm

74. Tracey, if you think the cost of veterinary treatment is prohibitive why not go and compare it with private human medicine…you will be in for a huge shock and see how reasonable vets really are.

    The trouble is in the uk because of our (excellent) NHS we have no value on the costs of medicine and treatment. Well I can assure you all things realted to medicine are very expensive.

    These days pet owners expect (and are right to do so)well equipped practices with ultrasound, endscopy, nurses on the premises to care for their pets 24 hrs a day, fully equipped labs etc.

    Do you think the companies that make and sell all this equipment and drugs give us discounts just because stuff is to be used on animals and not people…of course they dont.

    Sadly there is no NHS for pets (how easy would our job be then)so all costs are passed onto the owners…they have to be.

    Also I would like to point out in many large towns there are now cut price clinics offering basic treatments at low costs so you do have a choice.

    Pet ownership is not a right but a privilage, and the costs of veterinary fees must be factored into the equation when you think of having a pet.

    I challenge you to call your local private hospital and compare fees to your local vets. Then maybe you will get some idea of how expensive medicine is

    Posted by Wolvo Vet on: March 26th, 2009 6:29 pm

75. But Hutch, no one was named and shamed so no one really needed a direct right of reply.

    Wolvo vet, i realise that you are a highly trained professional body and as such you should be well rewarded for your skills. I’d expect you to make a decent living. However, the public perception of a trip to the vets is one of a sharp intake of breath and a severe lightening of the wallet! I’m well aware that pet ownership is not a right and yes veterinary care is an important part of responsible pet ownership. Of course veterinary care should be factored in. But let’s be honest here, if you can get 5 surgeries asking £50 for a treatment and then you get a surgery asking £125 for the same thing, something is wrong.

    How that is dealt with, i do not know. But, there are people within your profession who let you all down by being greedy. Pretending it doesn’t go on won’t stop it.

    As i said earlier, i had the greatest regard for my now retired vet. I trusted her judgement, complete faith in her integrity. I knew she appreciated how much my animals meant to me. In return i always recommended her services to anyone that would listen. Paid my bills on time. Always bought flowers, wine, chocolates for her and the staff at christmas to try and show my appreciation. Seriously, i miss her so much i should be in counselling!!!

    I’m confident that i will find another vet that will be equally as caring and have the same level of integrity. Infact i think i’ve found one. The very first time i took my dogs to her practice, there was no treatment involved so she didn’t even charge for the consultation! I think this could be the start of something beautiful! ;o)

    Posted by Tracey on: March 26th, 2009 7:32 pm

76. Londonvet I would like to point out that the Bristol Childrens Inquiry pointed out that EACH member of a profession is responsible for the ethical tenor of the rest of the group.If enough members of your profession are concerned about the way your regulatory body functions you CAN and SHOULD do something about it.You have no other choice if you want to continue to be respected as a profession. Since July 2003 I have accumalated four lever arch files of correspondence between myself and your regulatory body but still not much has changed. I believe they did change the wording on the complaints form which used to read “what sex is IT” “what age is IT” etc. I pointed out to them that my dear dog was no IT! I believe the form has now been changed but that is about all I have ever achieved. Change has to come from within the profession.

    Posted by pamela stannard on: March 26th, 2009 7:46 pm

77. wolvo vet I agree owning a pet is a privilege. If you cannot afford the costs of veterinary care you should not have a pet.I would also point out however that when an owner presents their pet YOU are in a privileged position of trust.

    Posted by pamela stannard on: March 26th, 2009 7:56 pm

78. I agree Pamela and I take that trust very seriously to do right by peoples pets, whilst factoring in each individuals financial needs also.

    Tracey, if we address the issue of the surgery charging £50 and another charging £125 for essentially the same treatment let us consider the following.

    The 50 pound surgery knocks your dog out, xrays it and lets it wake up. End of.

    The £125 surgery uses the newest safest anaesthetics, when your dog is asleep a qualified nurse (veterinary nursing is now graduate career) monitors and records its heart rate, respiration rate and blood pressure, it is attached to monitors with early warning systems when things go wrong. He has a drip to support his liver and kidneys whilst asleep(something mandatory in human medicine) When the pet is recovering from anaesthesia the nurse stays with him to ensure he does vomit as it recovers, if the dog urinates in recovery the nurse moves him to a dry bed. He is on a heated pad to maintain body temperature post anaesthetic. As this 2nd practice has used the newest safest anaesthetics so the dog has a smooth recovery and by the time you collect him you cant even tell he has had ananesthetic.

    Now £50 is cheaper but surely you can see there is a place for both type of practice to exist. Now would you find the actions of the £125 practice unneccessary in this case or is it just good medicine?

    Posted by Wolvo Vet on: March 26th, 2009 8:34 pm

79. “But Hutch, no one was named and shamed so no one really needed a direct right of reply.”

    No. The clinical decisions made by vets presented with a false situation is picked apart by those who know the truth (ie that the animals are well). And the veterinary profession is criticised en masse on the basis of false premises and 2nd hand commentary.

    Posted by hutch on: March 26th, 2009 8:50 pm

80. Wolvo Vet - You seem to be reading what you want to read rather than what I’ve actually said, I am not saying you (or anyone on here) are untrustworthy or unscrupulous, I don’t know you. What I am saying is that SOME vets are untrustworthy and unscrupulous, as in any profession there are good and bad. By pointing out that Marc gave false information on the programme you are proving that point, so we actually seem to agree.

    Vet-in-Leeds - If someone claimed there were problems in my profession then I would accept it for what it was, anyone that claims ALL vets are good and trustworthy must be very niave. There are good and bad, to varying degrees, in all professions, the veterinary profession is no different.

    Some of you seem intent on taking the programme and peoples comments personally when in fact they are not aimed at any one person. You may all be perfect vets but that doesn’t make all vets good.

    Posted by AJ on: March 26th, 2009 9:00 pm

81. my concern here is that the end result of this programme will be that owners do not take vital pointers to their animals health seriously, and that they distrust the best practice advice they are given by their vets, to the point that treatment is uneccessarily delayed and animals suffer and potentially die.

    Posted by hutch on: March 26th, 2009 9:10 pm

82. AJ, you agree Mark gave out false information on the program then. How does my pointing it out make me unscrupulous?…I don’t understand.

    However, if pointing out Marks errors ensures one rabbit gets prompt treatment when he/she is off his/her food then I wear the unscrupulous tag with pride

    Posted by Wolvo Vet on: March 26th, 2009 9:11 pm

83. Wolvo Vet - What is the point in me responding when you don’t even read what I post?

    Posted by AJ on: March 26th, 2009 9:17 pm

84. AJ, I have read what you’ve posted and you have not responded to any of my points at all.

    Can I ask, do you even care about animal welfare or do you just have an axe to grind against the veterinary profession?

    Posted by Wolvo Vet on: March 26th, 2009 9:20 pm

85. AJ, start at the top of this forum and analyse the postings. Many people in veterinary practice have posted. The vast majority of postings were not concerned with charging fees and money. They have all been about animal welfare, especially with Marks advice re rabbits not eating.

    That is hardly the actions of a money obsessed unscrupulous profession is it? I agree that bad vets should be weeded out of the profession.

    I would have never reinstated the guy in kent who bandaged those dogs limbs and lied about the pelvic fracture.

    What the tonight program did though was equate bad vets to being expensive vets and they are two very different things indeed. People could be left with the impression that the cheapest vet is the best.

    As a profeesion we need to improve and self regulate and take advantage of all the new medical technologies that are becoming available to us. Its our place to offer all the appropriate available treatments and its up to you to take us up on them or not

    Posted by Wolvo Vet on: March 26th, 2009 9:27 pm

86. I also think if Marc had any professional integrity he would post a retraction about his advice re rabbits on here. It really is that important

    Posted by Wolvo Vet on: March 26th, 2009 9:30 pm

87. Absolutely.

    I assume Marc reads this.

    Can we therefore have a retraction please?

    Posted by hutch on: March 26th, 2009 9:45 pm

88. Forget about conspiracies, un/reasonable charges and who’s more concerned with animal welfare, us or them, and consider this:
    As things stand in this country a vet needs to register with the RCVS in order to be able to practice veterinary medicine. When doing so we agree to abide by the Code of Practice that is set up by the RCVS. A professional, ethical vet must abide by this code in order to call themselves a vet (i.e. stay registered). Part of this is not bringing the profession into disrepute.
    If a vet has a problem with a specific colleague or the way the RCVS is being run then they should take that complaint to the RCVS and trust their fellow professionals to deal with it, go through the appeals etc if necessary.
    If you don’t like it then set up your own alternate world ‘profession’… can I suggest National Pet Service Physicians? Or is that not cute and pithy enough? Maybe Doggie Doctors?

    Posted by ex-vet on: March 26th, 2009 9:58 pm

89. AJ- I DO take the programme “personally” because it has made claims against my profession-which does directly affect me on a day to day basis. And I know you say that you would “accept these for what they are and accept some people do act in this way”- this would be FINE if the programme had actually successfully demonstrated this- but it didnt’!

    But first off- I DON’t have a problem with ITV’s portrayl of the vet who was struck off. He WAS one of the rogue vets, one of the untrustworthy unscrupulous ones, the profession would be better off without him. Most vets I expect would be as uncomfortable as the general public about his re-instatement. Most vets aren’t like him. I think the general public know that, and I certainly don’t take the comments about HIM personally.

    However- the majority of this programme was about the four vets who were presented with the pretend-ill animals. THESE four vets are being used in this programme to represent the profession as a whole (this has to be ITV’s premise, otherwise the programme would be meaningless). And the conclusion from the experiment was that MOST of them overcharged, and some of them did un-necessary tests. If this was TRUE, if they HAD in fact overcharged and carried out unnecessary tests- then perhaps a fair (albeit small sample sized) point would have been made. But actually there was no evidence whatsoever that any of the services offered were “over” priced, and in fact, as has been pointed out endlessly- the vet that offered the option of anaesthetising the rabbit was the one probably offering the best medical care for that animal.

    I’m not naive enough to think that NO vet out there overcharges- were any of them amongst the four on the programme-who knows? ITV didn’t analyse the information in any meaningful way to give us an answer to that, the summary we got from each makes me suspect not. A programme that GENUINELY looked at the differing pricing structures within the profession, and actually discussed the reasons why prices can vary so much (and as Wolvo vet has pointed out above-there IS a wide range of differntly priced standards of care out there- all of which have their place)- would be welcomed by the profession. Might not be such sensational viewing though- so I doubt ITV will be airing that one any time soon.

    Posted by Vet-in-Leeds on: March 27th, 2009 10:55 pm

90. I think the majority of the above discussion is very healthy for both animal owners and vets alike. The veterinary profession has gone through some massive changes over the last 20+ years with major advances in the medicines and surgical procedures that are now available to animals, especially in the small animal sector.

    Large animal practices have become members of the farm business team and at times seem to be no more than drug sales men and women. Pet insurance has changed the small animal practices completely in both positive and negative ways and I think in terms of the charging issue, in many respects, it has had a negative effect as any insurance tends to equate to “a licence to print money” and vets, like accident damaged car repairers, have taken full advantage of the situation. We must always remember the recent Monopolies Commission review of vet’s charging for Prescription Only medicines for veterinary use(POM-Vs) which lead to animal owners being given more choice of where to buy their POM-Vs. Some veterinary practices charge their true professional hourly rate for consultations etc and give a reasonable retail price for their medicines whereas others charge less for their professional fees and have substantial mark ups on their medicines.

    Personally speaking and from experience I prefer the former type of vetinary practice because when you pay the higher professional fee you tend to find that you get the professional service that you paying for ie good staff attract good salaries and they treat their customers honestly and fairly. The latter type attract customers in initially with their lower fees and then ‘milk’ the clients with unjustified repeat consultations and huge marks ups on the medicines which only results in one thing if the client is on the ball ie they talk with their feet and move to a different practice.

    From an animal owners point of view - with the advent of the internet with some absolutely fantastic veterinary websites giving help and advice (especially the American and Australian ones) I find it relatively easy to research animal diseases and disorders which helps give me an indication of what my vet “should” be doing when I consult him or her.

    I feel that it is indeed an extremely sad reflection on the profession that I feel compelled to do this but unfortunately it is a fact of life. To be honest I do exactly the same thing with regards to my GP’s treatment of me and when both my mother and father were on her death beds in hospital I did exactly the same thing with the Consultants, doctors and nurses that were treating them because they were MY parents and I wanted to be sure that they were getting the best care and treatment that the NHS could offer. I pay privately for my dogs’ treatment, so I keep the same watchful eye over the vets that treat my dogs because my dogs mean a lot to me and again I want to make sure that they get the best treatment that I can afford as they aren’t insured.

    I would qualify the last point by stating that I take more of a clinical attitude to the medical care of my dogs than I would for a relative and would have no hesitation in requesting euthanasia for a dog if I felt it was in the animals best interest.

    That’s just my opinion and I know that there are many pet owners out there who view their animals as equals and therefore will disagree with me but that is their perogative!

    I didn’t see the programme and I don’t know Marc from Adam (ie the son of god not the Adam that posted a comment) but thought I would throw in my money’s worth !

    Posted by Ian on: March 28th, 2009 6:39 pm

91. Ian

    I like your textbook reply-but certainly don’t agree with you.The veterinary profession has gone through massive changes in the past 20 years.My opinion I think not….
    How many practices have qualified veterinary nurses?
    Is the Practice Standard Scheme still voluntary?
    How long as professional development being a compulsory requirement.
    Ian…..what is your opinion on the Veterinary Surgeons Act of 1966.?

    Posted by Jan on: March 28th, 2009 7:58 pm

92. Hi Jan,

    I’m not a vet but I have relatives and friends who are vets and I tend to see things from both sides. I run a government service which under Government Accounting and Cabinet Office rules must aim to only recover it’s costs ie not make a profit or under-recover (make a loss), so I understand how difficult it is for veterinary partners to set charges and run a business to pay staff, buy equipment, stay competitive in an increasingly competitive world and maintain cashflow. It should never happen to a vet really but it does…..life’s a bitch!

    I’ve watched the Vets TV video clip with the lawyer talking about litigation and the enquiries he gets about working time directives, rest breaks, binding out agreements, managing client’s expectations, what inexperienced vets should do when they are told to perform a procedure that they don’t have the experience to do (difficult with less than a years service) and I’ve even read Josh Artmiers antedote to James Herriot.

    But most of all my comments came from experiences of being a dog owner back in the mid seventies to late eighties then having a ten year break before getting another dog in 2000. In the mid seventies the old vet ran a mixed practice with open surgery at specific times and took appointments at his house surgery. From my experience he worked his fees out on the back of a fag packet and you kept a little red book with your dogs medical records in it ie the shortest description possible. If he didn’t cure the ailment he didn’t charge because he was embarrassed to!

    At that time I had a dog with what we now know to be Atopy but the old vet hadn’t a clue what was wrong and he prescribed Alugan washes for what he was convinced was Demodex mites even though he couldn’t find any in skin scrapings. He was then joined in partnership with a new graduate who referred us to the Vet school’s dermatology department and they prescribed glucorticoidsteriods (not much change there then!) The old vet went ballistic at the thought of this being a long term treatment because of the known side effects and withdrew the treatment.

    Twenty five years plus on we now have Atotopica, phytopica, Malaseb, Allermyl, hypoallergenic this and hypoallergenic that and whilst Norvatis and others still haven’t cracked Atopy they are working damned hard at it and mainly all because pet insurance is now common place and even available from the supermarket (quite a change there then!). There are many other better examples I’m sure but you must get my drift. That’s what I meant by changes really - not so much the primary legislation. On that subject you do have a very valid point but I think that one is more for Defra and the RCVS and its members and not a layman like myself.

    Farm vets don’t do all the mucky hard graft that they used to as the stockmen do it. I’m amazed at how many small animal practice vets still express anal glands when it could be done by the owner or the nurse (if you train them and pay them properly - contraversial subject I know but true).

    In the USA and Australia dog owners can buy vaccines over the counter and administer them themselves. In the UK the Veterinary Surgeon’s Act 1966 prevents me from entering a body cavity of an animal unless trained or supervised by a vet. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s legislation prevents me from importing veterinary medicines from the USA and Australia etc where I could buy medicines for a fraction of the price that I can here even with the hefty shipping costs added on I could still be quids in. But would I be getting the same tried and tested product the VMD warns ? Well as some products were invented in Australia I would certainly hope so !

    I could go on and on for hours, days, weeks months, years and decades but thee and me ranting and raving on an internet forum aint gonna solve this - it must come from within the profession and society as a whole. Veterinary Surgeons are only human after all and they reflect the rest of the population ie they come from all walks of life and there are good uns, bad uns, tall ones, short ones, honest ones, dishonest ones - a bit like lawyers…lol.

    Kindest Regards

    Ian

    Posted by Ian on: March 28th, 2009 10:26 pm

93. I am also still waiting for a reply from Marc to explain his comments on the Tonight programme.
    As an active promoter of National Rabbit Week, it is a shame that his knowledge does not appear more sound.
    After working in the profession for many years, I am resigned to the fact that the public will always view our vocation as nothing more than a money spinning exercise whereas those of us who work in the clinical field know that we always put our client’s pets first. It would be fair to say that our personal wellbeing, on so many levels, comes a poor second best.
    What never ceases to amaze me and depress me in equal measures is that the general public can be so taken by the art of veterinary science - as practiced by Marc so ably with so very little substance.

    Posted by Karen on: March 29th, 2009 12:28 am

94. Oh……and one further point which should really come from the RCVS rather than me but may I remind all of the vets that wrote to Marc above of the RCVS’s Guide to Professional Conduct Part 1 ‘Responsibilities of a veterinary Surgeon’ subpara

    1F. Your responsibilities to your professional colleagues
    (Overtly poor relationships between veterinary surgeons undermine public confidence in the whole profession.)

    2. Veterinary surgeons must not:

    a. speak or write disparagingly about another veterinary surgeon

    Perhaps some professional discipline might be the order of the day here boys and girls as you have all done nothing but undermine public confidence in the whole profession!

    Best Wishes

    Ian (nowt but a simple dog owner)

    Posted by Ian on: March 29th, 2009 12:28 am

95. Ian I do like your responses as previously stated but here we go again.
    What do inexperienced vets do- when they are told to perform a procedure that they don’t have the experience to do? Who would ask them to perform the procedure? Would the owner be aware-would you get a discount due to lack of experience.How common is this?
    Ian what is your opinion of the RCVS you seem to be into discipline!.Why do people want Marc to respond on this forum.Respond with what!

    Posted by Jan on: March 30th, 2009 3:56 pm

96. Ian,

    I can see your point, but I believe that it is reasonable to ask Marc to clarify and expand on some of the statements he made, and change others, perhaps due to insuficient time allocated on the program. I would hope that that would include the suggestions he made about appropriate treatment in rabbits. This, I feel, sends pretty much the exact opposite message to the one that most vets involved in treating rabbits would see as ideal.

    Jan,

    I hope that answers your question.

    Posted by Hutch on: March 30th, 2009 7:03 pm

97. Ian

    “Overtly poor relationships between veterinary surgeons undermine public confidence in the whole profession” - I do understand what you are trying to say here, but the only person who has demonstrated a poor relationship with his fellow colleagues is Marc, by taking it upon himself to criticise the entire profession. You will notice that the vast majority of the vets on here are all saying exactly the same thing - the main thing most of us are upset by is the harm this programme is going to do (and is already doing) to our patients. For example, the innappetant bunny case, or the cat given metacam. No-one is trying is defend the very very small minority of vets who do overcharge, give unneccessary treatment or are simply bad at their job (such as the case included of the vet who was struck off - I dont think one person on here would defend him in the slightest). What we are trying to do is defend the vast majority of hard-working, honest and caring vets, whos perfectly reasonable advice and treatments were criticised on National Television by a vet whose knowledge seems to be lacking in several areas. This forum is a demonstration of a profession sticking together because we all have one thing in common we care about the welfare of our patients, we dont want to see an innappetant bunny die because its owner thought treatment wasnt neccessary, or a cat in pain because its owner didnt think it should have Metacam. This programme was extremely disheartening to vets all over the country, but reading some of the posts of here actually makes me quite proud to think that Im in a profession of people who actually care enough to make their voices heard, to stick up for one another, and most importantly to try and limit the potential damage this programme could cause to our patients. If it is “unprofessional” to care, then hey, Id be proud to be called that! Would you rather see a vet who cared about their patients, or who cared about their own “professional image” too much to go out of their way and beyond the call of duty for their patients?
    Seeing as you seem to have been reading up on the RCVS, you may be aware that we take an oath at graduation, promising to alleviate animals suffering and protect their welfare - if one rabbit owner sees this forum, and decides to believe the hundreds of vets on here stating that an innappetant bunny is ALWAYS an emergency, then quite frankly, the effort will have been worthwhile.
    I think that Marc needs to make a statement admitting that there were potentially dangerous inaccuracies in the programme, particularly regarding anorexic bunnies/dental disease in bunnies, and the use/licensing of metacam in cats - the damage is already done but he would at least be able to limit it - however I have expressed my concerns in writing to ITV, Ofcom, and RCVS, as I have a sneaking suspicion that Marc will choose to ignore the matter now. I would encourage all vets on here who feel strongly about this programme to do likewise.
    As for what the general public will see, they will see what they want to see - we have many lovely clients who trust us and know from experience that we always have their pets best interest at heart but there will always be a proportion who dont think like this. Everyone loves a good conspiracy, the truth is that some of the general public would rather believe media hype and a celebrity face than just accept the less exciting truth - that veterinary bills are expensive because overheads are expensive, and that the vast majority of the veterinary professsion do an excellent job.

    Posted by Natalie on: March 30th, 2009 8:25 pm

98. Dear Jan,

    I’m glad that you liked my responses. The comment made by the lawyer on Vets TV about an inexperienced vet (quickly referred as a “newly qualified” vet instead) being asked to perform a procedure that they didn’t have much experience of did puzzle me a bit as well but I suspect it must happen and the lawyer has received, I would imagine, genuine enquiries about the situation. If he hadn’t had enquiries, presumably he wouldn’t have mentioned it on the Vets TV video clip or it would have been edited out. It did occur to me that a veterinary partner could use such an approach to constructively dismiss a young vet with less and a year’s service and in many respects I feel that this is inferred but that’s just my opinion. Why don’t you watch the 12 minute clip yourself and tell me what you think the lawyer is trying say about newly qualified/inexperienced vets with less than a years service in terms of not following the bosses orders and the vulnerability that that would cause in having their contract abruptly terminated? I don’t know who paid for the video clip’s production but if it was you and your colleagues via membership fees and you don’t agree with the content, then, if I was you, I’d asked for it to be removed.

    You asked me for my opinion on the RCVS. Having had very little to do with the organisation my comments would be limited to their involvement in the implementation of the new legislation concerning tail docking and as my views oppose theirs - I’d have a tendency to be biased against them, so perhaps it would not be appropraite to comment on this particular forum.

    With regards to Marc’s inaccurate comments on the programme - wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for a representative of the RCVS to have posted one comment on this forum on behalf of all of its members to say that it felt that the comments were incorrect because of X, Y ,Z.

    As you can see from some of the comments above in relation to the individual comments from vets - there is a view from members of the public that Marc is only being attacked and forced into making an apology etc because of his exposure of the overcharging issue. This in my opinion is overtly poor relationships between veterinary surgeons undermining public confidence in the whole profession.

    Marc clearly states that he made it quite clear in his interview that the “majority of vets are giving excellent service and value for money and it’s the minority who are tarring the rest of the profession with the same brush and causing loss in owner-confidence”.

    Regards

    Ian

    Posted by Ian on: March 31st, 2009 12:00 am

99. Ian,

    I do not feel that this is the case. The vets on here are unanimously making the point of good animal welfare through accurate information about early disease identification and treatment.

    I cannot see how this could undermine confidence.

    Posted by Hutch on: April 1st, 2009 9:02 pm

100. LondonVet, I most certainly have not admittedd that I have nothing to back up my claims. All the veterinary schools have admitted in writing to me that they have done no research into whether pet food is causing illness and so they are all just believing the pet food companies that fund them. Thank you for telling us that you have made a complaint to ofcom about the programme. I will write to ofcom and tell them I was delighted with the programme. It shows the tip of the iceberg of what is happening. The Daily Express a few years ago did an article entitled “Vets - all rip offs great and small” and said that when it invited pet owners to write and tell them about how their vet had ripped them off or had been negligent that the number of letters they received was “staggering”. I shall also write to the RCVS and say that I totally support Marc in what he said on the programme. It is good he highlighted these things. I asked you LondonVet for the research that proves pet food is not causing illness in pets but you have just ignored me. New research from Wisconsin Veterinary School shows that cats fed irradiated pet food developed severe and even fatal neurological problems which included paralysis. Vets are far too trusting of pet food companies. The Pet Food Manufacturers Association and the Food Standards Agency could not tell me whether pet food in Britain is irradiated. It is vital that we know whether it is being irradiated but because there is no regulation of pet food companies it seems impossible to get an answer.

     Posted by fiona macmillan on: April 1st, 2009 9:08 pm

101. I am very concerned that Vets are telling clients to put animals to sleep saying the pet has cancer when it does not have cancer at all. I had a cat and the Vet told me the cat was full of cancer and should be put to sleep but I asked for a biopsy which showed the cat did not have cancer at all. It is appalling negligence that a Vet would say that an animal should be put to sleep when the Vet was totally wrong in her diagnosis. I am now friends with a Vet who tells me it is impossible for a Vet to know if a pet has cancer unless a biopsy is done and yet lots of pets are being put to sleep by Vets who wrongly tell the client the pet has cancer. I know a lady whose cat had to be put to sleep because instead of spaying it the Vet cut the cat’s urethra. I know another lady whose cat died because the Vet would not listen when she told the Vet the cat was allergic to Baytril and the Vet injected the cat with Baytril and it began to foam at the mouth and could not breathe and died. When my own cat had struvite crystals the Vet kept catheterising him and operated on him and eventually euthanased him but I have it in writing from another Vet that my cat is needlessly dead because he was fed dry pet food albeit the Hills my Vet told me to feed but which quite literally killed my cat. Vets are negligently leaving cats with struvite crystals on dry pet food or changing them to Hills c/d which the Vet I am now friends with tells me is simply giving them calcium oxalate stones in their kidneys. The National Research Council’s Nutritional Guidelines for Cats and Dogs admit that feeding too much carbohydrate to a cat can give it struvite crystals and so my Vet should have known this and should have known that a high protein diet dissolves struvite crystals. Instead my cat suffered horrificaly and ended up dead because Vets never stop to think that pet food has caused the illness the animal has. The dry food chronically dehydrates pets and predisposes to kidney failure.

     Posted by fiona macmillan on: April 1st, 2009 10:11 pm

102. Dear Hutch,

     I was referring to AJ’s comment of 12th March at 12.15 ie -

     “I find the responses on the internet forums more insightful than the actual programme, the ridiculous over-reaction from the veterinary “professionals” is quite scary and even the mild reactions make you wonder what sort of people we put our trust in when our pets are ill”.

     Marc’s governing body ie the RCVS is the same as yours and therefore if it takes up the points that you have mentioned on behalf of the whole profession (assuming that they are justified) Marc will be seen by the masses to be rebuked by the profession and the record set straight. In my view that’s what the RCVS is partly there for.

     A personal post from you doesn’t have the same affect as a post from ones governing body now does it?

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 1st, 2009 11:56 pm

103. Ian,

     In response to AJs comments, I do not feel that what vets have said about ensuring that animals are treated rapidly and effectively is over reacting. As many have said already, this is often the difference between life and death.

     I would imagine the RCVS has been contacted, and is considering a response. I do not think this precludes concerned vets raising those concerns about animal welfare. I am sure the RCVS response would be taken more seriously than mine, but I hope comments by myself and others, showing concern that animals are treated, sends the message to owners that we care about the animals!

     Posted by hutch on: April 2nd, 2009 8:18 pm

104. Dear Hutch,

     From a personal point of view I’m all in for an individual’s freedom of speech but on occassions it doesn’t have the desired effect and I genuinely believe that this was one of those occassions! We may just have to agree to disagree on that one.

     I sincerely hope that the RCVS will give an official response even if it is for no other reason than to remind Marc (should he need reminding) that they are his governing body
     and not ITV!

     Regards

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 2nd, 2009 9:36 pm

105. Dear Ian,

     Thnaks for your couteous reply. As you say, we may have to agree to differ on this one!

     I also think that it does good for Marc, the general public, and vets, to be able to discuss these issues here, and hopefully we can all see that our broad aims: that of good treatment for animals, and good welfare, are much the same.

     Posted by Hutch on: April 3rd, 2009 11:44 am

106. Fiona,

     I assume that you deliberately posted the above on April 1st?

     As others have mentioned, you are cutting and pasting from stuff you wrote years and years ago under the name “Sheena” amongst others on an MRSA discussion forum, to the point that you spammed it into oblivion. Many have also pointed out that you are rehashing things which were settled years ago, suggesting that you are not really looking at this with a clear eye, but going round in the same loops over and over.

     Please let it go. Or at least update your thinking, and we can have a more meaningful discussion.

     Posted by beekeeper on: April 3rd, 2009 12:17 pm

107. Beekeeper, the MRSA website closed down about a year after I had stopped posting on it as well you know. If you were really an animal lover you would take the matter of veterinary negligence very seriously but it seems that you are probably the person who ran that website who was a lady who would not tolerate any even justified criticism of the veterinary profession on it.

     Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: April 3rd, 2009 3:52 pm

108. Dear Hutch,

     You are very welcome and I’m pleased that we concluded the matter even though an agreement wasn’t reached. It is helpful to discuss the common aims of animal health and welfar but the main topic was actually overcharging by some vets and I would like to return to that subject as I have just read an email from a lady who was charged £300 for an x-ray of her cat’s leg. The vet who responded said that the charge was outrageous and that she should change vets immediately. From a quick look at a vets website for guideline charges ie

     http://www.vetrica.com/fees/xray.shtml

     it would appear that 3 x-ray films should cost circa £53.00.

     In an earlier post I talked about the range of prices for POM-V’s and I would like to expand upon that by giving you an example of price comparisons that discovered in my quest to buy a litre of Malaseb shampoo last year. The three prices were as follows-

     Most Expensive - my local vet at £63.92 (ex Vat)

     Middle range - Pet Drugs Online (UK based internet pharmacy) at £40.68 (ex Vat)

     Cheapest - Vet Direct (Queensland, Australia) at £26.00 (shipping cost were £17.00)

     Now the Australian supplier aside - the mark up on the product by my local vet compared to the online pharmacy was 57% (£23.24).

     On the surface of it the above comparison appears to show massive overcharging but the situation isn’t as simple as that because we can’t compare the overheads that have to be recovered via these prices by the internet pharmacy and the veterinary practice but we have to bear in mind that the pharmacy doesn’t have consultation charges.

     The matter is further complicated if we look back to the Monopolies Commission report

     Background from the Office of Fair Trading

     Veterinary Prescriptions Charges is a matter reserved by the Westminster Government ie it is not a devolved issue. The ‘Supply of Relevant Veterinary Medicinal Products Order 2005′ (herein referred to as “the Order”) implements recommendations in the Competition Commission’s (CC) Report ” Veterinary Medicines: A report on the supply within the United Kingdom of prescription- only veterinary medicines”, published in April 2003. This report followed complaints by animal owners and farmers about what they perceived as the high price of prescription-only medicines for veterinary use (POM-Vs).

     One of the findings in the CC’s report was that the veterinary profession tended to understate the true cost of their professional services and offset this in their medicines pricing. This practice was found to cause two detrimental effects:

     - veterinary surgeons can hide excess profits in drug prices

     - inadequate pressure on manufacturers to maintain competitive drug prices

     The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) agreed to implement the majority of recommendations made by the CC through changes to its Guide to Professional Conduct. The Order implemented the remaining provisions: namely those aimed at manufacturers of POM-Vs and the recommendation that veterinary surgeons be prohibited from charging for prescriptions for three years. The Order imposes two main rules on vets. First, until 30 October 2008, vets must not charge clients for providing any prescriptions (whether they are for POM-Vs or for any other prescription products - including off-label human medicines). The rationale here was to provide impetus for the creation of a market for veterinary medicines away from veterinary surgeries. The CC felt strongly that a three year moratorium on prescription charges was essential to achieving this and would allow animal owners to become used to the availability of free prescriptions and encourage them to shop around. High prescription charges had been a barrier to customers doing this, but it was thought that a three-year prohibition would kick-start the market. We must now wait to see what happens after 30 October to see whether this has been the case. The availability of prescriptions was seen as the key element in opening up the POM-Vs market, increasing competitive pressure and driving prices down.

     Vets may charge a consultation fee and a fee for deciding what medicine an animal should have. These are not fees for providing a prescription. If the client is unsure what a fee is for, they should ask their vet to clarify. RCVS guidance requires vets to be clear about what clients are being charged for.

     The second rule imposed by the Order is that vets must not discriminate between those customers who are given a prescription and those who are not in:

     - the charges for prescription-only veterinary medicines

     - the fees charged for supplying veterinary services other than giving a prescription (including, for example, consultation and medicine determination fees).

     This second rule continues indefinitely beyond 30 October 2008.

     It is important to note that the Office of fair Trading (OFT) will not be reviewing the Order in October 2008. In particular, the free prescription period will not be extended beyond 30 October. The OFT will be monitoring developments after the prohibition on charging for providing prescriptions comes to an end at that time. It is a matter for the OFT to consider when and whether any further regulatory action may be needed to ensure effective competition in the supply of veterinary medicines.

     On that basis the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS)offered advice to its members of prescription fees via its website

     Advice to Practioners on Prescription Fees
     http://www.spvs.org.uk/new_site/v2/userfiles/file/SPVS%20Advice%20on%20Prescription_Fees.pdf

     The matter is even further complicated when you analyse the relationship and supply chains between Veterinary Medicine manufacturers, Veterinary medicine Wholesalers (of which there are only a handful in the UK) and individual Veterinary practices which come in all shapes and sizes and this affects their buying power.

     In short - it is not an easy subject for the average animal owner to get a handle on, especially with the to charge or not to charge for prescriptions aspect added on.

     According to RCVS guideline veterinary practices are supposed to publically display their common prices on the premises but I’m not sure if this is widely practiced.

     My feeling is that if vets don’t make an effort to be more up front about charging it is quite likely that animal owners will take matters into their own hands and start to publicise them region by region, area by area on a single website. The technology and the incentive is there and I think therefore that it’s only a matter of time before it happens and Marcs programme may just have been the catalyst!

     Regards

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 4th, 2009 12:02 am

109. PS - The full Competition Report can be viewed at -

     http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/2003/478vetmeds.htm

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 4th, 2009 12:06 am

110. Marc,

     In your response above you use the example of
     a 22 year old cat(according to the owner, in your consult room- maybe it was 18 in the 1st opinion vets room) you euthanased shortly after it had £2000 (according to the owner) of dental work although dx with (according to the owner) liver and kidney failure by the same vet, who talked the owner (according to the owner) into the treatment. When, according to the owner, the owner walked in requesting euthanasia. Maybe that’s exactly what happened. Maybe not.

     Were you in the consult room during the 1st opinion? Maybe the owner had all the diagnostic and treatment options, with likely cost and prognosis, carefully explained to them by the vet along with a discussion of euthanasia, opted for treatment and then had buyer’s remorse when the cat ended up being euthanased anyway. I’m pretty sure nobody held a gun to her head and made her spend the £2000. So be careful who you criticise when you’re going on what-the-owner-said-the-other-vet-said.

     Posted by ginnythevet on: April 4th, 2009 6:10 pm

111. Ian,

     Tnak you for your email, and for the detailed information you have gathered. One small point, which may help to explain some discrepancies.

     Charges vary between vets. Some have sat down and actually worked out what a service costs, others havent. Some have higher overheads. some have different profit margins on different items. So anywhere between £20-50 is within reason for an individual xray, on average.

     Cats dont sit still like people, so factor in an anaesthetic or sedation. A qualified nurse to watch that, or a 16 year old untrained person?
     Did this cat need other work? Bloods? fluids?

     This could easily come to £300.

     Posted by hutch on: April 5th, 2009 11:32 am

112. Hutch,

     Use the following link to Vetclick and the post about ‘cat with a broken leg’
     http://www.vetclick.com/forum/read.php?7,12530

     There is even one that appears to suggest that a vet wanted to x-ray a cats leg because it had been bitten by another cat! Check out the response from the vet on that one!

     When I had my dog x-ray for a calcified disc back in 2003 the x-ray and sedation only cost me £47.00.

     I know that the RCVS doesn’t like getting involved in disputes about fees but that they will get involved when they are unreasonably high and I wonder therefore if they should be informed about this case if the £300 charge was just for the x-ray.

     I have looked at some pet insurance sites and they make references to £244 for an x-ray which in my mind is outrageous.

     Something needs to be done about this and I think the Office of Fair Trading, Ministers and RCVS need to get involved again. All vets fees and charges need to be subjected to another government review as I don’t think the recommendations from the Competition Commission have had the desired effect.

     Has the RCVS ever struck a vet off for unreasonable charges before? If not I think its high time that they did.

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 5th, 2009 1:37 pm

113. as already mentioned an xray in the veterinary world is rarely just an xray. Most xrays require a sedation at least if not an anaesthetic - there arent many animals out there that are obliging in lying still or holding a position , and that costs money. Xrays produce a ‘flat’ single dimension view of the area being xrayed - so there may be a need to take different views to give the full picture, and again extra views may = extra xray plates and extra cost.
     Also take into consideration the cost of developing the xray. Manual system - ok it is cheaper but it still entails somebody taking the time to do it, they have to be paid a wage - and that entails a cost. Automatic developers, whilst they are quicker and maybe dont take up so much time they cost too (@3,500 last time I looked). Chemicals used to develop the xray - its not only the cost of these but the cost to take away the waste chemicals, and we havnt even mentioned the cost of the xray cassettes of films or the greatest expenditure which is the xray machine.
     Then we have inspections to make sure the xray machine is safe both to the people using it and the patients and xray badges which need to be checked and any ‘doses’ recorded - and the practice is charged for that too.
     So I hope you will understand that an xray is not ‘just’ an xray.
     Also to put this into perspective a little - I had some xrays done myself privately last year. Two views one flat against the plate and another side view. (2 plates total) for this I was charged £96 and a futher £45 for a written report, I didnt need sedation of anaesthetic and neither did I require a place in a ward to recover - and the xray films? 28×40 size which is comparable to the larger plates used in practice.

     Posted by Gladys on: April 5th, 2009 3:29 pm

114. In agreement with Ginnythevet over the comments on the 22yr old cat having dental work despite liver and kidney disease:

     We as vets all know how a clinical situation can be innocently (or otherwise) misrepresented by a pet owner looking for sympathy and support in what will have been a very sad and distressing situation with an elderly and presumably terminally unwell pet. However the way Marc has described this particular scenario is inflammatory and emotive in a way that can only serve to confuse other well meaning cat owners.

     As a vet with a strong interest in feline medicine I regularly anaesthetise cats with pre-existing but stable kidney failure in order to vastly improve their quality of life by removing often very painful or infected teeth that would otherwise cause them constant discomfort for the rest of their life, as well as contributing to the poor appetite issues that these cats are already at risk of. And that has included a fair few 20yr old cats that most vets would probably put the owners off treating due to lack of confidence in the animal’s ability to withstand the general anaesthesia necessary to allow us to treat their dental disease effectively. I have not yet had to euthanase a cat as a result of these procedures due to the care we take to protect them from the risks associated with anaesthesia.

     My concern is that blanket comments like Marc’s over the 22yr old cat will only result in many elderly cats not receiving the treatment they need and deserve to ensure that they live their lives to the full. Cats are incredibly good at concealing disease and pain. Would you leave a 95yr old man with a painful abscessed tooth because you didn’t want to take the risk of treatment due to his age? Or, as is often the crux of the issue, you didn’t want to spend the money. Maybe, but you probably wouldn’t do it quite so casually.

     I actually theoretically had a great deal of sympathy for the premise behind Marc’s issues with the profession, but not because I think that the majority of vets are money grabbing and uncaring. Sadly the programme has just acted as a media driven ‘Daily Mail’ style tool to flare up heated arguments that will probably never be resolved - there will always be good and bad vets just as there will always be good and bad pet owners. However the majority of vets really are there doing their very best for a nation of pets and pet lovers, and are trying their hardest to keep abreast of advances in veterinary medicine whilst living very busy working lives with little time out. I fully agree with educating owners so that they can find the best care for their pet, but I draw the line at doing it in a way that will only result in more pets suffering by perpetuating the ignorance that allows owners to ignore their stoical pet’s ability to hide pain, distress or discomfort in a way that most humans are incapable of even conceiving.

     As for cats being better off on wet, higher protein, lower carbohydrate diets in order to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes and FLUTD (cystitis issues), this is knowledge that most cat vets are already in possession of. However many cat owners prefer the dried (and therefore naturally high carbohydrate) foods for a variety of reasons, in which case a good quality processed food such as Hills or Royal Canin is a reasonable diet to recommend.

     Maybe Marc is already aware of all this, and again it’s a question of communication issues? I don’t think a witch hunt is the way forward from here for either the profession or the pet owning public, and as such would not normally have got involved in such a discussion, but having watched the programme and read this site in order to be able to have a balanced conversation with any concerned clients, I feel it’s maybe hypocritical of me not to pass comment.

     Posted by Z Rhodes on: April 5th, 2009 5:53 pm

115. Glady’s how often are your X-Ray machines inspected and by whom? Are your machines always new when purchased? How often say -one month- would you use your X-Ray machine.

     Posted by Jan on: April 5th, 2009 7:26 pm

116. in reply to Jan
     The xray machine was installed as new. It is inspected at least yearly by the manufacturer,or if any fault is detected more regularly. It is PAT tested for electrical safety once a year and is also inspected annually by our Radiation Protection Advisor along with all xray gowns and personal protection equipment. Manufacturer, PAT test and RPA inspections are all carried out at different times by different people. Daily useage varies and can be from as little as a single case to several cases in a day.
     monthly checks on the xray cassettes and xray machine are also carried out by staff.
     Xray Badges are supplied and monitored by NRPB.
     Xray developer was a reconditioned model as a new one was more than we could afford. It is serviced either once or twice a year depending on its workload, it is also PAT tested once yearly
     Xray chemicals are changed at least fortnightly - even if the tanks have chemical in them as the chemicals degrade. Waste chemicals are collected in 25 litre containers for which we are charged and are again charged for the disposal.
     I hope this supplies the information you require

     Posted by Gladys on: April 5th, 2009 8:31 pm

117. I appreciate that you are probably using the above information to determine what you feel is a reasonable cost of an xray. But please take into consideration - the cost of using qualified staff,sedation/anaesthetic, consumables (drugs, syringes, hypodermics, cannulas, xray film,contrast media if it is needed etc). Also take into consideration the amount of time an xray case can take. It is not just a case of putting an animal on an xray plate and taking a quick picture, and also take into account the amount of time that is taken to examine a plate and the expertise involved in making a diagnosis.

     Posted by Gladys on: April 5th, 2009 8:40 pm

118. Please, please, please stop. You are begining to sound like Tony Blair defending the invasion of Iraq. You cannot defend the indefensible.

     I am writing to my MP, Hilary Benn and Lord Rooker to request an urgent review of veterinary fees and charges and I hope that the rest of the pet owning public will do the same. It only takes 20 letters on the same subject to get an MP to take action, so I’d urge all pet owners to use Marc’s programme as the evidence required to justify a public review.

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 5th, 2009 9:04 pm

119. Make that Jane Kennedy in place of Jeff Rooker
     http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/kennedy.htm

     Minister for Veterinary Policy

     Posted by Ian on: April 5th, 2009 9:19 pm

120. merely answering a question I was asked Ian.Was not a defense - just stating hard facts

     Posted by Gladys on: April 5th, 2009 9:44 pm

121. That’s what Tony Blair said about his intelligence concerning Iraq’s possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction!

     Posted by Ian on: April 5th, 2009 11:51 pm

122. As a pet owner, I was appalled by the show, but not in the way iTV intended.
     My previous dog, when she got ill and eventually died (from a blood clout in her brain), initially presented with a loss of appetite, way before other symptom appeared.
     The suggestion in the show that in such a case the vet should have told me that “there is nothing wrong with her” (initially, indeed nothing was found on the PE or blood work)and sent me home makes me angry and scared.
     Yes, I’m sure that many times there is nothing wrong. But not always, and without more testing no vet can know which is which.

     One of my elderly cats has had severe CRF for the last two years (sadly, she is now hospitalized after doing well for a long time).
     And yes, we did opt to do teeth cleaning and dental work last summer, despite her CRF and secondary heart disease.
     It improved her quality of life significantly, and probably helped improve her general health.

     Yes, it cost more than “regular” dental work, but it wasn’t because my vet wanted more money.
     Suggesting that in these cases such treatment should be skipped makes me sad for the cats that will suffer needlessly.

     I’m going to join others here saying that the show was very sensationalist and biased (I kept hoping the show will let us hear the reasoning the other vets had for the reasonable recommendations that they gave).

     It’s a shame. There is enough mistrust out there, and the show didn’t help.

     Posted by Xslf on: April 6th, 2009 11:27 am

123. Marc’s programme didn’t PROVIDE any evidence Ian, thats the whole problem! And comparing defending vets fees to defending the war on Iraq…come off it. Your concerns are reasonable, vets fees need looking at, but to say they’re “indefensible” is ridiculous.

     Posted by Vet-in-Leeds on: April 6th, 2009 8:08 pm

124. Ian,

     You did ask.

     but as we are dragging Mr Blair and all sorts of randomness into this, how about this:

     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7980512.stm

     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1938358/ITV-scandals-Programmes-shamed-by-Ofcom.html

     Posted by hutch on: April 6th, 2009 8:11 pm

125. It is up to Hilary Benn and Jane Kennedy to decide if vets’ fees and charges will be reviewed or not. Whilst I and others can request a review if there is insuffient support it aint gonna happen which leaves it up to the individual pet owners to monitor their own vets as best as they can and remember that they have a choice if they are unhappy.

     The following points should be remembered however when moving to a new vet -

     Supersession

     39. Although both veterinary surgeon and client have freedom of choice, as a matter of professional courtesy and in the interests of the welfare of the animals involved a veterinary surgeon should not knowingly take over a colleague’s case without informing the colleague in question and obtaining a clinical history.

     40. When an animal is initially presented a veterinary surgeon must ask whether it is already receiving treatment, and if so, when it was last seen, and then contact the original veterinary surgeon for a case history. It should be made clear to the client that this is necessary in the interests of the patient. If the client refuses to provide this information the case should be declined.

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 7th, 2009 12:01 am

126. “Although both veterinary surgeon and client have freedom of choice, as a matter of professional courtesy and in the interests of the welfare of the animals involved a veterinary surgeon should not knowingly take over a colleague’s case without informing the colleague in question and obtaining a clinical history.

     When an animal is initially presented a veterinary surgeon must ask whether it is already receiving treatment, and if so, when it was last seen, and then contact the original veterinary surgeon for a case history. It should be made clear to the client that this is necessary in the interests of the patient. If the client refuses to provide this information the case should be declined”

     Exactly Ian, which Mark and the ITV program failed to do. Yet more evidence that the program was nothing more than journalistic tat.

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 7th, 2009 8:46 am

127. Also Ian as you are not a vet please stop quoting great chunks of the RCVS guide to professional conduct with no context. It is available in full on the RCVS website for all to read if they want.

     Whilst the above is correct and true, aniaml welfare again takes absolute priority, and if the animals welfare were compromised the need for treatment would override the above points.

     By using isolated bits of the guide to suit your arguments you are, as ITV did, presenting a distorted, untrue picture that may harm animals if people take it at face value

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 7th, 2009 8:53 am

128. Thank you Glady’s -are you a large practice? I think you meant hypodermic syringe’s You had me thinking there was more on your list-than there actually was.
     Ian you are so refreshing actually if you want the Rt Hon Jane Kennedy MP address-it is..she is the new Minister for Rural Affairs.
     Nobel House
     17 Smith Square
     London
     SW1P 3JR

     Posted by Jan on: April 7th, 2009 3:30 pm

129. nope I didnt syringes are syringes and hypodermics are needles - the two are seperate. Not a large practice

     Posted by Gladys on: April 7th, 2009 5:06 pm

130. Wolvo vet - thanks for highlighting the lack of the hyperlink as I honestly thought it was there ie -
     http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=92570&int2ndParentN
     odeID=89737&int1stParentNodeID=89642

     Supersession is not a commonly used word and doesn’t appear in many dictionaries and I wanted to point out to the RCVS that they should try to use ‘plain English’ where possible on their intenet site.

     Peoplie should also remember that the Office of Fair Trading are very helpful in cases where a poor service is provided.

     Refreshingly, I hear that Jane Kennedy, Defra Minister is also a dog trainer and horse owner so I fully expect a sympathtic ear!

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 7th, 2009 6:59 pm

131. Dear all,

     just thought i’d some up this whole forum in one little post.

     1. not many vets like marc any more
     2. fiona mcmillen is a categoric nutter
     3. commercial pet foods fed as recommended by the vet dont give your cat diseases.

     MARC - PLEASE RESPOND TO THE POSTS!

     Thanks

     Scott

     Posted by Scott McGinlay on: April 7th, 2009 9:03 pm

132. Glady’s hypodermic relating to the area beneath the skin-application injected beneath the skin Hypodermic injection or syringe…

     Posted by Jan on: April 7th, 2009 9:19 pm

133. Hmmmmm are MP’s going to be the ones to review veterinary fees? I have the following points to make:

     1. MP’s are totally unfit to legislate on any other profession’s fee structure given how they are blatently ripping off the tax payer with bogus expenses claims. They need to get their own house in order 1st.

     2. A review will be welcomed. I’m all for transparency. When all the costs involved in running a practice, paying staff,reinvestining in the practice with up to date equipment and ongoing staff training are analysed, plus the lower wages that practice owners, vets and nurses generally earn are compared to other professions how do you know a review wont rule we actually undercharge? A review doesn’t mean fee’s will be reduced. The opposite may happen. After all the logical thing to compare prices to will be private human medicine as well as between veterinary practices

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 7th, 2009 10:22 pm

134. Wolvo vet - BRING-IT-ON ! I use the receipe below as a canine ear clear which is very cheap and works an absolute treat and was recommended by an old vet years ago and everytime I buy the ingredients from the chemists she says-

     “You’re quite right - those vets certainly know how to overcharge for their medicines” !

     Now that is a view from an independent expert worth listening to!

     Ear cleaner For Dogs
     16 oz. bottle isopropyl alcohol (or witch hazel)
     4 tablespoons Boric Acid Powder

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 7th, 2009 11:45 pm

135. Dear Scott,

     That was a bit harsh ! Poor ole Marc just wants to be loved by everyone like Steve Leonard is
     http://www.steveleonard.co.uk/

     and one day, when he moves to the BBC, I’m sure he will be !

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 7th, 2009 11:54 pm

136. Gladys, Jan,

     As this is ITV and its time for a commercial break - talking of syringes and needles what do you think of these prices ? -

     http://www.hyperdrug.co.uk/searchprods.asp

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 7th, 2009 11:58 pm

137. Wolvo vet - any review would be performed by the Office of Fair Trading at the request of the Minister
     http://www.oft.gov.uk/about/governance/

     Tell me this - in terms of animal welfare why does the government allow a farm laddie or lassie (as a Competent person), with 4 O’grades or less, to remove the tail and testicles off a piglet without veterinary supervision and yet a qualified veterinary surgeon has to dock the tails of working puppy dogs where permitted by the new law?

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 8th, 2009 12:22 am

138. Well I wouldn’t call a chemist an independent expert. She is someone who works in the subsidised NHS so is sued to people paying only their prescription charges for medicine so can only have a skewed view on costs.

     Now, what I would like an independent review on veterinary charges to recommend is the following…..it is known to cost £200 an hour to run an averagely equippped veterinary practice to break even. More for an all singing dancing tier 3 hospital.

     The review would stop us having drugs in the surgery other than those that are essential for operations and emergencies….similar to those found in an A and E department of a hospital. When an animal came in for a consultation we would examine him/her, make our diagnosis and give you a prescription for the treatment. We would be allowed to give injections if immediate treatment (eg for a very high fever)was required.

     There would also be a fixed consultation length of 15 minutes. This is the minimum required to do a good job. It is an absolute scandal that some practices are forced into having consultations of only 5 or 7.5 minutes just to keep costs down. Its no wonder misdiagnosis happens.

     This would make fee charging very transparent….£50 plus for a 15 minute consultation. No mark ups on drugs. You would also be paying properly for professional time, so it would make vets feel valued and bring fees in line with other professions.

     Now, obviously the onus of getting your pets treatment would be solely on the owner. Depending on the case the vet would set an acceptable time limit for the treatment to start. The owner would have to provide evidence to the vet in charge of the case that the animal has had the prescribed treatment. This would be a law and failure to comply with our treatment (or seek a 2nd opinion if not happy)within the specified time would lead to the owner being prosecuted for causing suffering under the animal welfare act. This would be vital as the one thing noone seems to have mentioned on here is that by prescribing and selling drugs an awful lot of suffering is exacerbated immediately.

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 8th, 2009 9:00 am

139. Also Ian,

     Wih regard to your miracle ear cleaner your chemist is such an expert she clearly knows nothing about the prescribing cascade vets work under.

     As chemists can stock and sell veterinary drugs she is breaking the law by not insisting you use the licenced product…of which there are many for ear cleaning.

     As someone who can sell veterinary drugs she needs to follow the cascade or can be prosecuted

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 8th, 2009 9:05 am

140. so….

     we as a profession are criticised by ITV and Direct Line (owned by Royal Bank of Scotland).

     You want us to be reviewed by MPs (see above comments)

     Ian has openly admitted that his pharmacist breaks the law, yet supports her fully

     and WE are the ones in the wrong?

     Crazy crazy world we live in….

     Posted by hutch on: April 8th, 2009 1:00 pm

141. Oh dear Glady’s you brought tears to my eyes.
     1 ml syringes(pack of 100) £12.75.I dare not tell you what I was charged for one syringe recently.

     Posted by Jan on: April 8th, 2009 2:27 pm

142. Jan - maybe you should have bought yourself a whole box at £12.75 then? Maybe you could have saved yourself some money.

     Posted by Gladys on: April 8th, 2009 5:51 pm

143. Why do we need reviewing?

     There is competition between vets. If you don’t like your vet you can switch. You are at liberty to get a second opinion. One vet competes with another and fees are part of that competition. Why should we be treated differently to other professions. Who here has called for solicitor’s fees to be reviewed. A pen and a desk is surely lower in overheads than a vets. Who here has called for mechanics fees to be reviewed? Dentists? Builders? Why are we different? Owning a pet is discretionary not compulsary. What is wrong with market forces. Go to a poorly facilitated, poorly trained, practice and have cheap service, where only the minimal is done with no regard for holistic medicine if you wish. Its your choice. Some of us (most of us) wish to do it better.

     Posted by Anybody listening? on: April 8th, 2009 6:18 pm

144. or go one even better and team up with Ian and you wouldnt need a vet at all - that would definitely save you money!

     Posted by Gladys on: April 8th, 2009 6:22 pm

145. Dear Wolvo vet,

     A lot of people won’t know what you mean by “cascading”, so I think a link to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s (VMD’s) website is required here -

     http://www.vmd.gov.uk/VetSQP/Cascade.pdf

     According to the VMD follong correspondence I had with them re the following ear cleaner which contain gentian violet, an ingredient that my chemist refused to sell me because it’s a known carcinogenic substance, the VMD informed me that they can’t and do not regulate these products because they are not marketed as medicines. Check out the blurb - no doubt the handy work of a good legal team !

     http://www.quistel.com/information/index.php?page=earcleaner

     http://www.vmd.gov.uk/Industry/Non-Med/non-med.htm

     Talking of 15 minute consultations - when I walk into a vets surgery with my dog and tell them what’s wrong with the dog and they confirm it and the consultation’s done and dusted in 5 minutes - should I get a reduced consultation fee for saving time?

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 8th, 2009 7:09 pm

146. Jan,

     this is no different from buying any other small, consumable item. bulk purchase is always going to be cheaper than the individual sale. Look at the difference between prices for something like screws or nails in a trade shop by the 100, and by the half dozen in a convenience store.

     I also note with interest the way you slyly evade the issue when your pedantry over the precise vs vernacular use of the word “hypodermic” goes against you, to try another tack.

     Just out of interest, what did you want 1 syringe for?

     Posted by hutch on: April 8th, 2009 8:13 pm

147. Wolvo vet “by prescribing and selling drugs an awful lot of suffering is exacerbated immediately”-Maybe but only if prescribed by a COMPETENT vet! On the subject of animal welfare how did you rate the article published in Vet Times 16th March issue “Witnesses to get more involved in cruelty cases”. This article describes how John Hird the Director of your Veterinary Defence Society supports new legislation within the Animal Welfare Act that affords your profession “a better set of tools” to prosecute cruelty cases in the public domain. The article goes on to describe “Thankfully, the thorny issue of a veterinary surgeon being asked to give evidence against his fellow practioners by a pet owner’s legal team is less likely to occur, because of the relative worth of animals in small animal practice”. Rather a them and us attitude don’t you think? Surely if Mr Hird was sincerely concerned with animal welfare he would not condone this pre historic approach?Ironically on the same page another article descibes how Phil Hammond GP was the first to expose the problems of the paediatric heart surgery unit in Bristol which lead to the largest public inquiry in British medical history.What side of the fence do you think the majority of your profession are on John Hirds or Phil Hammonds?

     Posted by pamela stannard on: April 8th, 2009 9:14 pm

148. Wolvo vet forgot to ask- Why do you think John hird considers a veterinary surgeon being asked to give evidence against his fellow a thorny issue? Surely if it is in the interests of animal welfare that vet has a duty to act?

     Posted by pamela stannard on: April 8th, 2009 9:18 pm

149. Pamela

     1.The vast majority of vets are competent. Its only the smallest minority that are not.

     2. As someone who regularly goes to court as a witness for the rspca in cruelty cases I welcome the changes.

     3. I dont know why John Hird considers it a thorny issue. I can only imagine he means that the two vets involved may work together. If that is the case it reflects very badly on any practice involved that communication betwen colleagues is so poor that a vet is allowed to continue down the wrong path unchecked (obviously if he works alone this could happen. If an animal had been harmed then of course he has a duty to act.

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 8th, 2009 9:51 pm

150. Any anyway Pamela, the point is that the vast majority of vets are highly competant.

     We are only talking about isolated incidents of incompetant vets. It is not endemic in the profession….the same as any other walk of life. Those that are not competant should of course be weeded out

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 8th, 2009 9:54 pm

151. Wolvo vet- Do not misunderstand or misinterpret what I am saying. Of course I also support any legislation that affords animals more protection from harm.However I also EXPECT any such legislation should also protect animals from harm from within your profession. For many years now Belgravia House has referred complainants to the “civil Courts”. In my opinion they do this knowing that the average pet has no value in law.Aptly described by a professor of equine law as “the 50p ferret syndrome” Thus civil action is not an option for the average pet owner because even if they win their case they can not even recover their costs.

     I also support your opinion that the majority of vets are competent. I do not support or accept the attitude of your regulatory body or VDS to incompetence.

     Posted by pamela stannard on: April 8th, 2009 10:18 pm

152. Pamela, the RCVS deals with clinical complaints. ie they test the compentency of vets. Complaints and issues of fees are not for the RCVS but fall within the remit of civil law.

     What evidence do you have that the VDS are incompetant? You may not agree with John Hirds view but how does this make him incompetant?

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 8th, 2009 10:53 pm

153. Now that I’ve cleared the good name of my chemist, a fabulous lady who, unlike some vets, wouldn’t recommend that gentian violet be applied to any human or animal for any reason (Boric acid and Witch hazel are very mild ingredients but work wonders) - I wonder what the vets on here think about the pet owner veterinary care awareness and training videos as provided online by Vestoria-
     http://www.vetstoria.com/index.php?f=videos

     Gladys - please note that even I wouldn’t try the cow caesarean one at home - just think of the mess in the living room !

     Additionally, why do you think so many people write to email forums such as Vetclick, Emma the vet, Trude Mostrue and Marc Abrahams etc, etc etc, asking for advice about their pet’s health, especially when they have usually consulted their own vet first?

     I was involved with a forum once where an old vet spat the dummy out when corresponding with younger vets and he said that the profession had been reduced to a nothing but a “trade”. Admittedly, having encountered young vets who are obviously instructed by the practice partners to sell as many products as they can to clients - a visit to the vets can remind you of the Harry Enfield ‘I saw you coming’ and Ronnie Barker ‘Open all hours’ (Arkwright’s Store)comedy sketches or those 16 year old, spotty faced shoe shop attendents who invariably always try to sell you polish with your new shoes!

     It’s encounters like this that have made me personally very untrusting of vets on the whole which is a sad reflection on the profession. Alf White (aka James Herriot) would, I’m sure, be very sorry to hear me say that. Pets and vets - who would have them ehh?
     http://blogs.myspace.com/pethates

     Posted by Ian on: April 8th, 2009 11:36 pm

154. Ian, I’ve never even worked in a practice that has gentian violet on the premises never mind advise it be applied anywhere!

     As a “younger vet” (just about!) I have never been instructed to sell. Just provide good clinical and client care. As a someone who has recently bought into a practice I ask the same of my staff.

     And oh yes the “old vets”…..we’ve all met them or rather had to deal with the messes they create at the end of their careers.

     Someone saying the profession has been reduced to a trade smacks of someone who is out of touch with modern medicine and diagonstics and harks back to the good old days when vet medicine was nothing more than an old boys club for ex public school types. And when I say boys i mean boys as the girls never got a look in.

     Well thankfully medicine and our attitudes to sexism have modernised. Maybe you need to as well?

     With regard to what you are charged for a 5 minute consult. Does the practice you use offer 5 or 15 min appointments? Find out and make sure you get your alloted time.

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 9th, 2009 8:02 am

155. Ian, I agree we have to be concerned about the motives of Vets since money is usually the main motive. I was told by a Vet who agrees that pet food is causing illness that his boss would not allow him to tell clients that pet food is causing illness and he told me he would be sacked if told clients the truth about pet food since Vets depend on selling it for about 20% of their annual profit. Another Vet though tells me Vets can make as much as 100% profit from the sale of pet food.

     Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: April 9th, 2009 8:05 am

156. On the subject of the majority of Vets being highly competent what about the Vet who told me a cat was riddled with cancer but when I asked for a biopsy it proved the cat did not have cancer at all. That is not being highly competent, it is being downright negligent and that was a Vet who also has a PhD. Vets should not be guessing that pets have cancer since the pet’s life depends on the diagnosis of the Vet and pets are being needlessly put to sleep because too many Vets are telling clients the pet has cancer when it doesn’t have cancer since numerous people have told me the Vet said the pet had cancer and told them it should be put to sleep but without a biopsy no Vet can be certain a pet has cancer.

     Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: April 9th, 2009 8:08 am

157. Wolvo vet “The RCVS deals with clinical complaints” I do not agree. How does it assess the clinical competency of vets?
     Incidently you misread my previous post. I did not say the VDS was incompetent. To the contrary. What I DID say was that I did not like Belgravia House and the VDS attitude to incompetence. There is a big difference here.

     You also link complaints and vet fees. These in my opinion are two different issues. I am more concerned about veterinary incompetence and how it is dealt with or not.

     Posted by pamela stannard on: April 9th, 2009 11:10 am

158. Pamela, the RCVS deals with clinical complaints through the complaints procedure….see website…link above. It asseses the clinical competancy of vets by examining the relevant case files, seeking expert opinions on the cases and making judgement. The basic premise is has the vet approached the case in a logical safe and appropriate manner. Would his peers and colleagues act in a similar way? Also communication is a big factor. My personal view is that miscommunication and failure to convey realistic expectation to a pet owner are far more common than clinical incompetence.

     It is not the VDS’s place to have an attitude to incompetence. They are there to settle or defend malpractice suits depending on the case.

     Also a big part of both the RCVS and the VDS role is filtering out false and malicious claims from the genuine. We have become a society obsessed with sueing and as in other areas of life some people are just out to make a quick buck by bringing spurious legal action

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 9th, 2009 11:39 am

159. Oh, and Pamela on the contrary I was not linking clinical competance and fees…i was actually pointing out how seperate they were.

     Unlike the ITV program where the implication was a cheap vet was the best vet

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 9th, 2009 11:41 am

160. Wolvo vet I am afraid we have to beg to differ. It is my opinion that your regulatory body has failed in its duty to maintain the welfare of animals, failed the public and even more importantly failed your “profession”.

     Posted by pamela stannard on: April 9th, 2009 4:01 pm

161. Scott, you really are talking through a hole in your head by saying that pet food as recommended by the Vet is not causing illness. Well I have news for you which is that a certain MP who has responsibility for animal welfare has read all the proof I have given him and he is taking the matter very seriously. That MP has not ridiculed what I am saying and has thanked me for taking the matter of the illness pet food is causing up with him and says he wants it all properly investigated. You say I am a nutter, but you are the nutter since it is nuts to say that pet food is good for pets. Roger Meacock MRCVS said in the Veterinary Times dated 21.7.2008 that Vets should have a warning up in their surgeries about the illness pet food is causing. Scott, are you a Vet. If you are no doubt your reception is stacked high with pet food so you will naturally defend it but I am working on getting a stop to Vets being allowed to sell pet food. Doctors don’t sell food so why should Vets be allowed to sell food especially when that food is such rubbish it is causing the illness that keeps the Vets in business.

     Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: April 9th, 2009 5:45 pm

162. Dear All,

     As a last post I would like to thank you all for your very valuable contributions to the discussion - life would be extremely boring if we all agreed on everything. Having moved my dogs from a veterinary practice which I wasn’t satisfied with to a more expensive one - I hope that I have made the right move and early indications are that I have indeed made the right decision. Time will tell and as I hope you will have gathered from my posts that I am fully capable of monitoring the situation. Remember all you vets out there, there is a client like me in every practice….lol! I’m much worse than the mystery shopper !

     I have dealt with a wide variety of vets over the years - young, middle aged, old, experience and inexperienced and found good and bad in all of them. In addition to having all of the necessary skills and knowledge to apply the science and patient care, I think vets have to be extremley good communicators where paying clients are involved otherwise everything else almost seems to go un-noticed. David Grant on Animal Hospital was in my view the kind of vet that all vets should strive to be like.

     Anyway, in addition to wishing you all a happy Easter I’ll leave you with an extract from a veterinary practice newsletter from across the pond (adapted for UK readership and I hope the author doesn’t mind me using) which the vets will like - I can guarantee it!

     Kindest regards

     Ian

     PS I will keep reading the posts and chip in if deemed absolutely necessary but for the time being I feel I have voiced most of my main points.

     TALES FROM THE DOG HOUSE !

     Over the years, I ‘ve had a number of regular clients who love to tease me about their vet bills. “So today I’m making another down payment on your Ferrari veterinary” is a favourite, and the ever popular “I’ve spent enough now to own a share in this practice”. I never had the heart to tell either of these clients that their total annual expenditure wouldn’t even pay for a month’s supply of paper towels! But the subject opens up a thought process for me about the kinds of things that pet owners do that really do contribute to the local economy. It’s kind of sad really, but after thirty years of trying to educate pet owners about pet care issues that will lead to healthier pets, I find that there is a seemingly endless supply of people who just won’t listen or learn.

     Here is my top 10 ways for you to fund my Caribbean Cruise -

     1. Over feed your pet. Thanks for all the ruptured knee ligaments, lameness, arthritis, liver disease, diabetes, and skin problems that are related to obesity.

     2. Feed raw diets. Thanks for the vomiting, diarrhoea, pancreatitis cases, Salmonella and E.coli infections, and parasite issues related to unprocessed raw foods.

     3. Letting your dog chew on or eat bones. Thanks for the constipation cases, intestinal surgeries to remove bones that are stuck and the dental extractions on cracked and broken teeth.

     4. Not sticking to the recommended vaccination schedules on puppies and kittens. Thanks for the puppies with parvovirus that needed intensive care for many days and for the kittens with distemper.

     5. Transporting your dog in the back of an open pickup truck. I’m not going to thank you for the broken bones, skin tears, crushed and broken bodies and pets euthanized because your stupidity led to injuries that are beyond repair. I feel sorry for the pet that got you for an owner, but I don’t feel sorry for you!

     6. Walking your dog off leash when there are strange dogs around. Thanks for all the bite wounds and lacerations requiring reconstructive surgery.

     7. Relying on brewers yeast or garlic for flea control. Thanks for the Flea Allergies, Hot Spots and Tapeworm infections. Come on!! get with the “Program” home remedies have no “Advantage”

     8. Buying a breed of dog that has a lot of genetic diseases. I won’t even start to list those. But when I see an American Cocker Spaniel pup, I don’t wonder IF it has a genetic disease, I just wonder WHICH genetic disease it has.

     9. Leaving rat poison, insecticides and antifreeze accessible to pets. This speaks for itself.

     10. Letting the vet at ‘Mandy’s Hot Dog Stall and Discount Vet Clinic’ vaccinate your dog for Lyme disease, Giardia and a host of other unnecessary treatments. Thanks for the second opinions on vaccine reactions and sick pets that are improperly vaccinated or over vaccinated with agents that have little or no medical or epidemiological merit. And you thought you were getting a bargain! Leaving me to clean up the mess while HE goes on the Caribbean Cruise!!!

     Posted by Ian on: April 9th, 2009 6:23 pm

163. Remember all you vets out there, there is a client like me in every practice….lol! I’m much worse than the mystery shopper !

     I dont doubt you. And if your actions actually improved the welfare of animals by doing so, I would applaud you. But your criticisms of perfectly sensible veterinary policies and ideas, and your glib approval of idiocy mean that you just remain one of those barriers to good communication and a good working relationship between vet and owner.

     Given your somewhat overkeen desire for discipline, please let us know when you are going to report your pharmacist for her actions, or do you only criticise vets who break rules? and note that it was this disregard of the cascade (amongst other, more serious issues) that rightfully led to the striking off of a vet a few years ago.

     Posted by hutch on: April 9th, 2009 6:55 pm

164. Hutch,

     As I said - I approached the VMD about the issue as they are responsible for the legislation and they said there was nothing wrong with what the pharmacist was doing. So as I said, again, I did report it and got a ruling from the experts. What else could I possibily have done…please, please, please enlighten me.

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 9th, 2009 7:10 pm

165. enlightenment:

     http://www.rpsgb.org/pdfs/factsheet5.pdf

     ie the website of the royal pharmaceutical society

     page 6

     Veterinary prescriptions

     If there is no authorised Veterinary Medicinal Product (VMP) in the UK for a condition (WHICH THERE IS) , the
     veterinary surgeon responsible for the animal may, in particular to avoid unacceptable
     suffering, treat the animals concerned with the following (“the cascade”), cascaded in the
     following order:
     a) a VMP authorised in the UK for use with another animal species, or for another
     condition in the same species
     b) if, and only if, there is no such suitable product, either:
     i. A medicinal product authorised in the UK for human use,
     ii. A VMP not authorised in the UK but authorised in another Member State for use
     with any animal species
     c) if, and only if, there is no such suitable product, a VMP prepared
     extemporaneously by a pharmacist, a veterinary surgeon or a person holding a
     manufacturers authorisation, authorising the manufacture of that type of product.
     A VMP for use under the cascade must be prescribed by a veterinary surgeon and can only be
     supplied by a veterinary surgeon or pharmacist. A pharmacist faced with a prescription that
     contains a VMP prescribed under the cascade, must make sufficient checks to ensure that the
     veterinary surgeon has prescribed such a product under the cascade e.g. by contacting the
     veterinary surgeon directly.

     WHAT YOU DESCRIBE IS AN EXTEMPORANEOUS PREPARATION, THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THE CASCADE.

     does that help?

     Posted by hutch on: April 9th, 2009 8:20 pm

166. Hutch,

     I’m sure you agree that getting a good vet is very much like Karma. What you put out you get back.

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 9th, 2009 10:11 pm

167. Hutch,

     Many thanks for that link - that is a useful piece of information. However, from my recollection of the correspondence with the VMD nearly two years ago now - an ear cleaner was not defined in law as a medical product ie it’s more akin a sanitary product like soap. That is why there is a host of products out there for pets and humans alike that claim to soothe itchy skin (Carmarosa or something similar) etc etc ,which is a last resort for individuals when “proper” medicine doesn’t work for very common medical complaints. These products have never been subjected to any clinical trials to test there efficacy and they lie outwith the regulations.

     Why do you think it is that nothing can be done legally (my specific question to the VMD) about the company selling an ear cleaner with gentian violet in it (a known carcinogenic substance) which runs with a worldwide website advert stating that it is “recomended by vets” (but not Wolvo vet apparently and never has been !)

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 9th, 2009 11:32 pm

168. Ian

     Tut tut tut…you mean to say you believe adverts and everything you read in the media as truth?

     Have you learnt nothing from reading posts on here?

     Shame on you

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 9th, 2009 11:42 pm

169. Hutch,

     One other important point that just occurred to me is that the pharmacist didn’t “prepare” anything either - I simply bought the individual ingredients ie boric acid comes in a white powder and can be applied directly to an open wound to keep it clean and it doesn’t sting (I’ve tried it) and witch hazel comes in a few sizes of bottles and is commonly used by the ladies to remove makeup. Preapation ie mixing the two substances together can be easily done it home.

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 9th, 2009 11:46 pm

170. Wolvo vet,

     If legally challenged (and I sincerely hope that any vet worth their salt with animal welfare at heart would do) they would no doubt produce some vet who would stand by the claim. Large Pharmaceuticals can afford the very best Queen’s Counsel’s rates that are outhwith the reach of even the highest paid veterinary partners !

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 9th, 2009 11:51 pm

171. Ian, as you say a lowly paid veterinary partner earning half the salary of a GP in a similar position, could not afford to go up against the worldwide conglomerate might of a pharmacuetical company.

     No, the best way forward is if you dont like a product, then hit the drug companies where it hurts most and don’t buy it!

     One final comment on you mixing your own ear cleaner. I take it your vet knows you do this and your dog has been checked to make sure his/her ear drum is intact? It needs to be pointed out that all ear preperations/cleaners are only designed for use on the external ear with a healthy ear drum providing a barrier to the sensitive and easily damaged structures of the middle ear. Even the weakest acid getting to the middle ear could cause deafness and neurological signs in a dog.

     I would hate for someone to read your recipe on here, think you knew more about it than their vet and use it on their dog with disastrous results

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 10th, 2009 8:57 am

172. Wolvo vet,

     You are quite correct - that was remiss of me not to say that you should tell your veterionary practioner that you are using on your pet in that post and I do apologise. I do use it with my vet’s blessing and indeed when refered to a specialist I drew his attention to it and he said it was a damn good cleaner and he used it on all of his dogs as well. He added that you do have to get the mix correct for it to be effective which I must do because it is very, very effective and I don’t have to use it often at all. I can’t recall the cost but for the small quantity that I bought it has lasted 2 years now. I make it up in small quantities as, as you probably know when the mixture settles the two ingredients seperate ie the powder sinks to the bottom and the witch hazel (or alcohol if you prefer) floats to the top so you need to shake well before use.
     Because on his condition my dog is seen on a regular basis (almost monthly) by our vet.

     I fully agree with you - hit pharmaceuticals and pet food producers where it hurts most and don’t but their products.

     Personally, I do feel sorry for vets as at times they must feel “owned” or at least largely controlled by pharmaceutical companies and pet food producers and that’s not a postion that I would like to be in.

     Out of interest how easy would it be for you to move into a GP’s position given that I’ve heard people say that students who fail veterinary school go for second best and become GP’s?

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 10th, 2009 10:35 am

173. Wolvo vet,

     On reflection of your earlier email I noted that Quistel Soothing Ear Cleaner gives no such warning about a dog’s ear drum being checked prior to use. Given that you rebuked me for ommiting the advice - will you know pursue Quistel with the same vigor for the sake of animal welfare and challenge them on the gentian violet issue which may be the higher health risk?

     Given your wish to exercise some control over me if you do not seek to exercise the same control over Quistel it becomes obvious as to who is calling the shots when it comes to veterinary medicine does it not and it certainly aint the vets in practice!

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 10th, 2009 7:33 pm

174. Wolvo vet,

     Your statement ” a lowly paid veterinary partner earning half the salary of a GP in a similar position, could not afford to go up against the worldwide conglomerate might of a pharmacuetical company”, gives me serious cause for concern as I feel that this is exactly what Marc’s programme was all about.

     Marc had the guts and independence to stand up to and face the bully boy tactics of a veterinary partner who constructively dismissed him for failing to put profit before animal welfare.

     If you and your MRCVS colleagues do not have the guts and independence to stand up to worldwide conglomerate might of a pharmaceutical company then this calls into question the both the veterinary profession and the VMD’s ability to ensure the welfare of animals and it seriously undermines the recently introduced Animal Welfare Bill and the Defra Minister must now take action to address this.

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 10th, 2009 10:03 pm

175. Well Ian, I see it was only “absolutely necessary” for you to post at least a dozen times since your sign-off.

     I have to admit, while you seem prepared to engage in some form research before treating your pets with your own concoctions, the majority of owners are not, and you can add to your “Caribbean Cruise” List the amount of messes I have had to clear up because of the home remedies that owners have tried… whether it’s the first thing they found in the cupboard, heard from Uncle Bob or read on the Internet, I have seen all manner of rubbish put into eyes, ears and wounds, sometimes with devastating results.

     They do this because people like yourself and your erstwhile buddy Marc make them feel like they are being ripped off, to the extent that concern about the finances over-rides the welfare of their pet. This becomes self-fulfilling when the straight-forward case that I could have fixed for 45 quid last week is now a 200 quid disaster.

     Fiona, might I extend that theory to your stance… even if it were conclusively proved that there was a better alternative, you simply couldn’t trust the majority of owners to get it right, with the understandable consequences.

     In the absence of hard evidence, you can quote all the vets you like, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert, and I can’t help but get the impression that your fundamental premise is the old “my dog got vaccinated then developed cancer, ergo the vaccine caused the cancer” chestnut.

     I can only but agree with the sentiments of those predicting the outcome of your inquiry into veterinary fees. The scenario has been raised that veterinary fees may in fact rise. If your inquiry was to result in legislation to force vets to charge less (hideously unlikely), everyone will lose. If it was mandated to reduce fees by, for example 20%, this would not be enough to signicantly change client’s attitudes to vet bills, yet it would drive almost every veterinary practice out of business overnight.

     So I must ask you… considering all possible outcomes, what EXACTLY are you hoping to achieve with your agitation?

     PS Fiona - I thought your cat had cancer caused by commercial cat food, now it doesn’t have cancer after all. Would you care to clarify?

     Posted by AussieVet on: April 11th, 2009 5:20 pm

176. I almost forgot Ian - in my state of Australia, it is NOT legal to supply vaccines over the counter.

     Posted by AussieVet on: April 11th, 2009 5:22 pm

177. Oh dear, I seem to keep forgetting things.

     Fiona - I fear that you are only telling half the story about our “profiteering” on food. Your assertion that food is a large profit driver is simply untrue. Here’s how:

     Firstly, your instance of 100% mark-ups is either fictitious or extremely rare - this would make your prices unrealistic.

     Let’s work with a margin of 30%. That is, a 30% increase on the wholesale price of the total amount of food purchased.

     Any gains are only realised on food that is actually sold, so when you subtract the amount of food that is used in the clinic/hospital, that figure drops to 15-20%.

     Now here’s the rub: the amount of food sold contributes around 8% of our total income. 20% of that 8% means that the profit made on food is around 1.5% of turnover for the month.

     In real terms, profit on food equates to a few hundred dollars a month in a turnover of tens of thousands.

     You can then subtract from that the time, effort and cost in ordering it, storing it etc… add to that the fact that it is generally difficult to have owners change from whatever totally unsuitable diet they are currently feeding (because of habit/Uncle Bob/the breeder/internet experts such as yourself), and for the sake of maybe $150 a week, sometimes I wonder whether on a purely economic basis, it is worth the effort to have it at all.

     Reluctant as I am to make this all about the money, I feel it’s necessary to point out the realities of the numbers to scotch the myth you are propagating about food profits.

     Posted by AussieVet on: April 11th, 2009 5:45 pm

178. I wasn’t going to bother commenting on here again but the thought of veterinary stocked / prescription diets as suitable for dogs and cats made me chuckle, what a joke!!!

     Posted by AJ on: April 12th, 2009 1:09 am

179. Z. Rhones, you know very little about nutrition for cats and dogs if you think Hills and Royal Canin are good for pets. On Hills my cats got cancer, kidney failure, fatty liver disease, cystitis and struvite crysals. Former Hills Vet, Elizabeth Hodgkins, says she would not recommend any Hills product. Royal Canin are currently being sued by pet owners over the illness and death of their pets from eating Royal Canin ie. are being sued for $50M by Rochon Genova, lawyers in Toronto. Neither of these foods is good for pets. A glance at the ingredient list should tell any Vet or pet owner that these foods will eventually create illness in pets of one kind or another.

     Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: April 12th, 2009 12:05 pm

180. AJ, you are right that prescription diets are rubbish. Professor Marion Smart did research into them and found they are almost exactly the same as the usual food of the same company and was concerned that Vets just were quoting the pet food company claims for the prescription diets because her research showed that the pet food companies usually did not have research to back up the health claims made for prescription diets. Vet, Elizabeth Hodgkins, says that eg. Hills c/d can give cats calcium oxalate stones in their kidneys and so can create a completely new illness. Instead of putting pets on any prescription diet if the pets were fed real food instead of any kind of pet food they would not get the illnesses they are getting.

     Posted by Fiona MacMillan on: April 12th, 2009 12:08 pm

181. Oh Fiona, you are no different to every other crank I’ve come across… when challenged, you have no recourse but to repeat your absurd claims.

     Your theory about c/d causing oxalate stones hinges on the incidence of the problem… if it occurs in 1 in 10 cats fed this food, it is a problem. If it is occurring in 3 out of 800,000 cats fed this food, it is not a problem. There is a point beyond which the benefit gained by the majority outweighs the risk to a small number of recipients. This is the same for any drug or food in the history of medicine, and we are unlikely to change that any time soon.

     In my experience, I have recommended these sorts of foods to many struvite cats, from the occasional spotters to the repeat blockers. These cats do much better, and I have not had one of them re-block while on it, much less develop oxalate stones. I have however had one or two owners revert to “real food” and guess what - blocked cat.

     You also don’t elaborate on what your “real food” is… but short of going out and killing your cat a bird or rabbit each day (and aside from the attendant parasite risk), anything you compose your “real food” out of will have many of the same issues. Sulphur dioxides spring immediately to mind, throw in the growth promotants, pesticides and all of the other things in “real food” that cause disease and it’s hard to see how you are any better off. Of course, this is all before you get the nutritional balance right… a task that would be beyond most pet owners.

     I see far too many animals on “real food” and their owners wonder why their dogs have gastrointestinal problems, terrible skin and are overweight, the many and undesirable sequelae of which are beyond doubt.

     I certainly don’t assume for a minute veterinary diets are perfect, and if I see irrefutable scientific and clinical evidence that they are inefficacious or harmful, I will stop using them. But until then, pet owners deserve a little bit better than “my mate Liz said”.

     One final question for you - I have two cats with renal disease, one with a toxic aetiology, the other inherited as an old cat with a pre-existing problem (presumably fed “real food” all his life). In the absence of a renal prescription diet, which so far seems to be doing an admirable job of keeping them not only alive but healthy, what “real food” would you advocate feeding them instead?

     Posted by AussieVet on: April 13th, 2009 5:13 am

182. Having been in a rush to set off for a weekend with the inlaws for the Easter weekend and having had constant interruptions from the kids - my pre departure posts were a bit piecemeal but I’m afraid that happens in family life and therefore I’m certainly not apologising for that! Especially not to an Aussie Vet but more of that latter if absolutely necessary. Home remedies have been commonplace for centuries (especially with Aboriginal tribesmen) and do of course remember the Yorkshire farmers that James Herriot used to deal with (eg Uncle Tom urinating in a lame cow’s ear to get it to walk and marshmallow ointment for Mallisons and Sanders Disease) it is inherent in human culture and will never ever be addressed unfortunately!

     I did manage to talk about this fees and charges subject with the inlaws as they to are pet owners and they have a very different set of circumstances to me when it comes to dealing with their vet as they are in a very remote country location and the vet operates a mixed large (farm) and small (companion) animal practice.

     The inlaws commented that the vet operates a Gold, Silver and Bronze treatment package to suit the pockets of their clients. Gold being the insurance cover package where the owner gets everything thrown in whether its absolutely essential or not since its not the owner’s paying for it - it is the insurance company.

     The Silver and Bronze packages present the grey areas which by their very nature are at the very heart of the cost issues being debated because they involve many assumptions and negotations and unless both vet and client are skilled in both of these attributes, problems are going to arise in my view.

     For example, the vet can assume that the client has a reasonable income and therefore can afford the Silver package and therefore he/she pushes this but unbeknown to them the client has had some hefty unplanned expenses which has blown the budget and therfore he aims to pay the Bronze package.

     There can be a large amount of permutations to this scenario as I’m sure you can image and that will inevitably lead to conflict and mis-trust between vet and client unless the communication between the two parties is particularly strong and has resulted in mutual trust.

     A need of the client is indeed a scale of charges that is reasonable for their pocket with the fixed tariff being available before treatment starts if this is required. Few practioners are in a position to give a quotation but an estimate of costs should be available.

     I personally have been in a position where a vet recommended that my dog had an operation costing £2000 (the Gold treatment) and I rejected the recommendation and went for the Bronze treament instead and that was 6 years ago and my decision has been proven to be correct.

     That sort of situation is reflected in Marc’s programme and it certainly gives me cause for concern, however, after my in depth conversation with the inlaws - I’m not so sure what the answer is, as it is a hugely complex matter.

     I know of some owners who travel absolutely ridiculous distances to visit a vet and that they pass a number of veterinary practices en-route but they do so because they feel that at last they have found a vet that they can trust. Cost is no object - its the trust in and competence shown by the vet that matters above everything else. That may be a unique situation because on most occassions if you are outwith a group of vets 24 hour emergency cover - they will refuse to accept you as a client.

     However, it does perhaps demonstrate the importance of shopping around to find the vet that fits your specific needs but of course “supersession” requirements make that a very burdensome task for all parties concerned.

     Perhaps veterinary practices having their own websites with information about the staff, services and costs will address this problem and indeed it is becoming more commonplace, so more development time and fine tuning may be required before a informed judgement can be made.

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 13th, 2009 9:09 am

183. Hehehe

     Well Ian you learn something new everyday. Today I first became aware of the existance of Quistel Soothing Ear Cleaner. I have not seen it in any of the vet practices or universities I have worked in or attended. Neither have I had a specialist recommend it. It is not used in many vet practices in the uk as far as Im aware. I suspect it is possibly used by old vets but in terms of its claims its very out of date in terms of ear cleaning products that are now available.

     Posted by Wolvo Vet on: April 13th, 2009 7:02 pm

184. I can tell you Wolvo vet that it first came onto the market last year and was brought to my attention through an advert in the Our Dogs email newsletter. I wrote to both Our Dogs and the VMD and requested that it be withdrawn because of gentian violet content. Our Dogs failed to comment. Quistel responded immediately saying that animal welfare was there number one concern and they hoped that they could continue to be of assistance to the pet owning public. The VMD replied saying that the regulations don’t cover these kinds of non medicinal products. No concern for animal welfare from the VMD then! Perhaps if the Defra Minister writes to them instead then they’ll do something about it. Afterall the VMD are due to be reviewed for compliance with Hampton principles and Macory charateristics and could end up being merged into core Defra, so being lambasted by the Minister might just do the trick !

     As you say there are other more up to date anti fungal treatments that can be used and I am the first to use them if necessary.

     But over the last two years due to occassional use of the boric acid/witch hazel mix I’ve never had to ask the vet for anything else. Indeed I had to stop using a steriod based ear cleaner (which was very expensive) because it caused more problems than it was worth and my vet agreed that a change was necessary and I’ve never looked back.

     So, yes I agree you learn something knew everyday. Indeed looking at the Vetclick website this evening there is another embarassing case of over-charging that has Walter Beswick sounding as if he is totally ashamed to be associated with today’s veterinary profession!

     Ian

     Posted by Ian on: April 13th, 2009 11:22 pm

185. I was sorry to see derogatory comments by bloggers about the Ancare surgery in Canterbury and the struck-off vet. These bloggers are completely ignorant of the true facts of the case.

     Mr R K Sanyal is regarded by the overwhelming majority of his clients as exceptionally gifted and as one of the best vets in South East England. His support organisation, FRIENDS OF ANCARE, came together spontaneously within days of his original disciplinary hearing with well over 300 supporters and will shortly hold its fourth AGM. It does not represent Mr Sanyal but its members are pledged to uphold his reputation.

     FRIENDS OF ANCARE has investigated the case papers and has found that every single charge brought against him was either completely false or backed by such flimsy evidence as to amount to nothing at all. There is also clear evidence of a group of about half a dozen persons in the Canterbury area who for reasons of their own have conducted a deliberate campaign of persecution against Mr Sanyal for more than five years. The following remarks offer only a few samples of the malice that pervades the case at every turn.

     Two ladies were interviewd by Jonathan Maitland in the programme, PETS UNDERCOVER. One, Mrs Sparrow, is known to have made racist remarks about Mr Sanyal while in his employ. The other, Ms Price-Tupper, was one of the complainants at the disciplinary hearing. Her puppy had internal bleeding due to an RTA. The bill she received was for £216 (not £500 as claimed in the programme) covering consultation, x-ray and four days’ residence in the surgery for observation while the bleeding drained. Ms Price-Tupper did not suggst the puppy had come to any harm, nor did she complain about her bill. For some reason that was not properly explained she got the idea that Mr Sanyal had told her the puppy had suffered fractures to its pelvis. Mr Sanyal denied having hold her this and there was no reason why he should have done so. About nine months later she made a scene at the surgery, had to be asked to leave and physically attacked him, causing an injury to his hand which required hospital treatment (her partner subsequently came and apologised for this). The scene was such that the staff summoned the police.

     In 2004 Mrs Sparrow seems to have struck up a close relationship with Claire Forman, a barrister, who at that time was Deputy Head of Professional Conduct at the RCVS. By the time of the hearing in April 2005 they were heard to greet each other as “Claire” and “Noddy” (Mrs Sparrow’s nickname). Mrs Sparrow and others in the group had apparently managed to persuade Miss Forman that Mr Sanyal was a menace to the animal population of the area and should be got rid of. This conviction seems to have taken hold of the Professional Conduct Department at the RCVS and to have been communicated to the Disciplinary Committee (DC) which accordingly determined to strike Mr Sanyal off.

     He had never previously been in trouble in some twenty-five years of practice. His legal defence team, comprising London solicitors Hill Dickinson and Liverpool barrister John Corless, seem to have been lulled into a false sense of security by the belief (expressed by Mr Corless) that the worst outcome would probably be a reprimand. About two days into the hearing they realised that the DC were after a striking-off, but by then it was too late to carry out a thorough investigation or revise the preparation of the case. The consequences for Mr Sanyal were disastrous and I shall give just two examples.

     The first is the charge alleging that Mr Sanyal had applied bandages too tightly to a Rottweiler bitch, Darcy, belonging to a Mr Bowles. Some time after Mr Sanyal saw Darcy, Mr Bowles took her to another vet with her leg in such an advanced state of necrosis (i.e. gangrene) that it had to be amputated immediately. Mr Bowles asserted in his original statement that he contacted the second vet on the same day that Darcy was last seen by Mr Sanyal. But the evidence recorded in the transcript of the case (which can be viewed in the RCVS library) shows that over four weeks elapsed between Darcy’s last visit to Mr Sanyal and her first visit to the second vet. Since gangrene results in death from septicaemia in ten days at the most, it necessarily follows that whatever caused Darcy’s condition could not have been any fault of Mr Sanyal’s.

     Astonishingly, no-one in either the legal defence team or the DC seems to have spotted this. The DC not only found Mr Sanyal guilty of something that the evidence showed he could not possibly have done but also pronounced all the witnesses to have been “witnesses of truth”, even though Mr Bowles admitted during his evidence that his statement was untrue in the crucial respect of the lapse of time.

     The second example relates to the disappearance of Mr Sanyal’s records, including an important x-ray and the record cards of several of the animals which were the subjects of charges aginst him. Mr Sanyal claimed that they had been stolen. The DC evidently concluded that Mr Sanyal was an inveterate liar, as they were at pains, in their published judgement, to emphasise their disbelief of his claims.

     They could not have been more mistaken. The records had indeed been unlawfully removed by members of Mr Sanyal’s own staff. This fact was known both by the RCVS and its solicitors, who chose not to inform the DC. The full truth was even worse. Miss Forman wrote in the autumn of 2004 to the Canterbury solicitors then representing Mr Sanyal, saying that she had authorised the removal. But for Mr Sanyal’s decision, apparently at the behest of the Veterinary Defence Association, to instruct Hill Dickinson in place of the local firm, these shabby and, indeed, almost incredible events would doubtless have been exposed and the entire case might well have collapsed.

     Unsurprisingly, the RCVS has not admitted that anything was wrong. It is known, however, that Miss Forman resigned her position a few months after the the original hearing and declined to be interviewed by a lawyer representing Mr Sanyal.

     The case must rank as one of the worst miscarriages of justice in the annals of any professional body.

     Posted by Christopher Smith on: April 18th, 2009 1:13 pm

186. gosh thats all very interesting. has this been reported anywhere eg vet times or vet record?

     Posted by hutch on: April 19th, 2009 1:02 pm

187. The answer to Hutch’s question is that no article has appeared in the Vet. Times or any similar publication, though there was at least one hard-hitting letter, viz., in the Vet. Times on July 30th 2007. The case papers are voluminous and complex and the task of analysing even the transcripts in the RCVS library would overwhelm any but the most determined investigative journalist.

     The objective of FRIENDS OF ANCARE has always been to support Mr Sanyal. We felt that it would serve no useful purpose to embarrass his enemies by publicising their unsavoury conduct and seeking revenge was certainly no part of our aims. We had assumed that, following his restoration to the Register, he would be able to resume the practice of his profession in peace. Unfortunately his enemies have continued to persecute him at every opportunity and the recent disgraceful TV programme has forced us to hit back by speaking out about the true facts of the case.

     Posted by Christopher Smith on: April 23rd, 2009 5:10 pm

188. Presumably a formal complaint has been lodged with both ITV and OFCOM ?

     OFCOM Contact Details

     http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/?itemid=286458

     ITV Contact Details

     Address Gas Street, Birmingham, B1 2JT
     Website http://www.itv.com/page.asp?partid=1215
     Email dutyoffice@itv.com
     Phone 0844 88 14150

     Posted by Ian on: April 24th, 2009 6:58 pm

189. Christopher Smith wrote-

     ‘Astonishingly, no-one in either the legal defence team or the DC seems to have spotted this. ……’

     Surely Mr Sanyal would have spotted this fact and drew it to the attention of both his legal team and the DC - afterall it was his career that was on the line!

     Posted by Ian on: April 26th, 2009 9:48 am

190. He tried to but the point was apparently ignored.

     Posted by Christopher Smith on: May 3rd, 2009 5:25 pm

191. We understand that a complaint has been lodged with Offcom, but the result is not known yet. They apparently accept complaints only from injured parties.

     Posted by Christopher Smith on: May 3rd, 2009 5:27 pm

192. “Recently I was called to put down a 22-year-old cat that had only 6 days previously had over £2K worth of dental treatment done on her after the owner had been persuaded to, even though the cat had confirmed renal and liver failure by the same vet. Her worried owner had originally gone in to have her euthanized. She told me she’d had cats all her life but this experience has put her, and her family off ever owning another cat forever.”

     What a ridiculous scenario. Most people can’t afford £2K dental care for themselves.

     I’ve not seen the programme being debated (I don’t even have a TV…), but feel that it’s becoming impossible to offer decent veterinary services at an affordable rate. I believe the profession is reaching a stage where it can only offer services to the select middle and upper classes. This move is becoming entrenched by the increasing regulatory burden - for example, it is now illegal to prescribe cheaper generic versions of animal drugs - this is simply madness!

     I have frequently heard it said in response to the claim that vet bills are unaffordable for many, that if you can’t afford to look after a pet then you shouldn’t have one. NO! Vet services should be available (and be legally possible to provide!) to cater to people on all incomes. It is arrogant and incorrect to claim that homeless people shouldn’t be allowed to have pets.

     My complaint is that as a vet, I can’t see how I can maintain professional integrity and provide a much-wanted affordable service while fulfilling unnecessary legal requirements and avoid myself getting struck off the register. There is a real need for some common sense to cost effective veterinary practice to return to the profession. Those writing articles on ‘good practice’ and ‘minimum work-ups’ are frequently working in specialist referral settings and while there is nothing wrong with people spending this kind of money on their pets if they have it, making it appear a necessity is outrageous. One of the reasons vets spend so much on investigations etc is that they graduate knowing no other way - those who taught them worked in a university setting where frequently money was not considered an issue - not that it would be easy to consider money at this stage seeing as the cost of a given procedure / drug etc may be quite arbitrary and different amongst practices, which leads me to…

     Equally ‘pricing for good practice’ is something which goes missed. I frequently hear vets say something like, “we can’t do that as it’s too expensive”, and then proceed to do something else no less time-consuming for which they happen to charge less - the pricing structure was created to enable the practice to take in reasonable revenue and survive as a business, yet many vets seem to become a slave to their very own pricing structure!

     Posted by Allow vets to work with integrity on: May 5th, 2009 3:17 pm

193. “This move is becoming entrenched by the increasing regulatory burden - for example, it is now illegal to prescribe cheaper generic versions of animal drugs - this is simply madness!”

     My complaint is that as a vet, I can’t see how I can maintain professional integrity and provide a much-wanted affordable service while fulfilling unnecessary legal requirements and avoid myself getting struck off the register.”

     From what you have said you appear to be indicating that the cascading legislation may be inhibiting the economic progress of veterinary practices in the UK and if this is the case when the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) is subjected to a Hampton Implementation Review by the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR) then perhaps this could be addressed.

     Animal Health (an agency of Defra) was subjected to a Hampton review last November and the report is available on BERR’s website at -

     http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file50889.pdf

     During the review of the VMD veterinary practices and veterinary medicines wholesalers will be invited to attend stakeholders meetings and therefore this subject could be raised then. Perhaps the RCVS will co-ordinate this.

     Posted by Ian on: May 8th, 2009 10:21 am

194. I will reitereate what I said in my earlier post. This programme presented the Veterinary profession in a negative light. It was completely biased. I am saddened to read here that someone has been charged £2k and had their cat put through dental treatment when (s)he was suffering from severe renal and hepatic malfunction. I cannot imagine what kind of tests and treatment were given and how they were justified to come to this figure?
     I would like to present another side to the picture. There are often owners who will never let their beloved pet go. We recently had to refer (due to owner insistence) an elderly dog for MRI scan and the Practice I work for and the referral Practice BOTH recommended that the dog be euthanased. The owner refused and demanded brain surgery at a huge cost. The dog came through surgery and was put to sleep 2 weeks later.
     It is sometimes a difficult task judging how people will react to recommendations for their animals. I am in the final stages of becoming a qualified RVN and I happily work for a Practice that I feel runs effectively and ethically. We always try to offer various options and do take into account and sympathise with people’s financial restrictions offering standing orders and other payment options. Since this programme was aired, however, I feel slightly uncomfortable when offering pre-anaesthetic bloods and IVFT when admitting older animals almost as if the owner will think I am trying to get more money out of them.
     I also regularly see owners who have seen another vet and their animal has been on steroids for, for example, atopy and they think that the vet is trying to get money out of them when offering a proper work-up when all they want is that “magic” jab of dexafort or depemedrone. I also very regularly see owners bringing in dogs for subsidised neuters paid by animal charities but they have paid £800 for the pedigree dog!!! There is plenty to moan about in Veterinary Practice from both the people employed in it and the people using it as a service. I am sure there are unscrupulous vets out there just as I’m sure there are unscrupulous lawyers, doctors, MPs, shelf stackers, builders etc etc!!
     I just feel that this programme was an unnecessary, pretty useless waste of time!

     Posted by Avril Jackson on: May 14th, 2009 12:23 am

195. I think that it is fairly clear the vets can’t win here. If veterinary treatment is instituted sensibly based on an owner’s complaint - where is the harm? I have seen many pets that appeared normal on physical exam but were quite sick at a later date. Of course the treatment should be safe, and most drugs have possible side effects (even paracetamol and ibuprofen in humans). I personally find people become offended if you suggest nothing is wrong with the pet presented.

     Clearly some of the comments made here (about animals sick, passing away etc) suggest that the vet “didn’t do/know enough”. However this tv show suggests that the vets “did too much”. Clearly damned if you do damned if you don’t.

     Also, does anyone know how DAMN expensive a vet practice is to run? Compare that to a plumber who has a vehicle and materials… do you really expect your vet to get less than your plumber? Because in my experience I do!! (and not by a small margin)

     Regarding emergency vets asking for some payment: try and find me a plumber who will get out of bed at 3am in the morning, rush to your emergency leak and fix it without expecting or discussing payment on the first time they have met you!!

     One last point, I am quoting this from some site on the internet, probably some of the most accurate information contained on the web:
     “vets aren’t expensive, they’re priceless”

     Posted by Sam on: May 21st, 2009 8:39 am

196. I hear what you are saying and can agree with some of the points to a degree - especially the emergency cover.

     However, when you read Josh Artmeier’s ‘Pet Hates - The Shocking Truth about Pets and Vets’ and in particular the chapter on x-rays, which concludes - “If the boss finds out you’re not taking every opportunity to maximise profits…well so help you!” and then you read the posts on the Vetclick internet forum with Walter Beswick (retired vet) the words “rogue traders” certainly do spring to mind!

     Posted by Ian on: May 27th, 2009 7:42 am

197. “I’m certainly not apologising for that… especially not to an aussie vet”
     Hmmm, that says it all doesn’t it Ian, what a delightful member of society you are.

     Posted by youngvet on: August 15th, 2009 11:06 pm

198. That’s right youngvet - because it was an aussie vet locum who, when he couldn’t competently micro-chip my dog on the table, took him outside into a filthy kennel, terrified the living daylights out of him by forcing the needle into him in what I can only imagine was a brutal power struggle from the blood curling yelps that I heard from the waiting room. The “vet” then proceeded to present me with an exhausted, shaking, wreck of an animal covered in faeces and urine and he had the gall to charge me for the privilge.

     I should have had the b_ _ _ _ _ d struck off - the delightful member of society that he was !

     Posted by Ian on: August 28th, 2009 11:44 pm

199. Extract From Vetclick Internet Email Forum

     Need advice on my dogs death - Please

     Posted by Eggs

     Forum List Message List New Topic
     Eggs
     Need advice on my dogs death - Please

     July 20, 2009 09:26PM Registered: 6 weeks ago
     Posts: 2

     Where do i start

     She wasn’t well, obviously, so went in for checks, she was losing weight, was at home on medicine but things were not better

     Went in to vets for a few night where they said as she was not eating she had some liver problems

     They said she could come home on steriods for 5 days and then have a check up, but vet wanted to take a needle sample before steriods to get a true reading.

     So I agreed ok, was told nothing about any risks, just that maybe they may not get a result from it. 3 Hours later my dogs dead.

     When I questioned the Vet she put phone down on me. She is now on holiday for 2 weeks, which only makes us feel that it’s convenient. My mum (who is a nurse) asked how she died and we have had no answer.

     They even at one stage said my dog was a ‘he’ and died at a vets 40 mile a way. The night she died my mum and dad went to say goodbye (I could not bring myself to deal with see in my dog in that manner)

     When they got there - she was laid dead in a kennel amongst other dogs, poo, sick, blood all over, her eyes were not even closed. As a nurse my mum has gone mental.

     She has been through some codes of practices - so there in a quick nutshell - is what’s happened and trust me there’s more things that they never did or never said

     The tip of ice berg was on Saturday morning when we got a call saying when can we pick up Eggzy’s Ashes

     They cremated her without asking us for our thoughts !

     To me it means - destroying the evidence of any mistake !

     So that’s a simply quickish explanation of what’s happened, I don’t know the code of practice so anything would be great please. It was my baby I lost and just need answers

     Walter Beswick
     Re: Need adive on my dogs death - Please
     July 21, 2009 08:33AM Moderator
     Registered: 3 years ago
     Posts: 4,530

     Hi,

     Contact the Professional Conduct Department, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Belgravia House, 64 Horseferry Road, LONDON, SW1P, 2AF, or telephone 020 7222 2001, saying that you wish to reigister a complaint against a veterinary surgeon,

     From what you tell me, I think that you have a very good case.

     W

     Posted by Ian on: September 4th, 2009 7:15 am

200. What the documentary makers did not make clear was that Mrs Sparrow had sought to make a lot of money by taking Mr Sanyul to an industrial tribunal. It seems that she thought that by discrediting Mr Sanyul’s reputation as a vet she would be more likely to win her case. The local press reported Mrs Sparrow as saying that she thought she might get £100,000 in damages if she won her case. In the event she did win, though the chair of the tribunal stated that it was a case six of one and half a dozen of the other, but the damages she won were I believe equivalent to about 6 months pay. When the press took her up on her earlier statement that she thought she might get £100,000 she changed her story to it wasn’t about the money! When I asked the producers of this documentary whether they had paid Mrs Sparrow for her contribution they declined to comment.

     Posted by Stephen on: March 20th, 2010 1:05 pm

201. tsk tsk tsk

     why did i become a vet? to spend my whole life slaving away to TRY and do something useful and purposeful in my life. Of course, it is the first choice occupation for making TONS of money. Fiona, you ignorant twit, check the average salaries for professions. where do you see vet? down the bottom? yes, that is correct you fool. if i really wanted to maek money from pathetic individuals liek yourself,i would have gone into a truly unscrupulous profession like law (where thy charge you to read an email!!!) please people, get a grip. if you want to start complaining about unscupulous charging, i think other profressions need to be given a fair shake up aswell.

     lastly, i would like to make the point about owning a pet. i say this to all idiots who want us to do everything for free because we are differnet to everyone else and dont need money to live.

     owning an animal is a choice!!! It is not ocmpulsory

     if you CHOOSE to own an animal, realise that there is no NHS and that it WILL cost money to look after it.

     If you accept the above 2 very logical points, get insurance out so that you dont have to worry about vet bills.

     i would have thought that all this is very logical. unfortunately our society is littered with half wits who make our life misery

     my hell is other people

     Posted by nathan hariji on: April 5th, 2010 1:33 am

Add a Comment