Comments on: Response to ‘Pets Undercover’

By: nathan hariji

nathan hariji — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 00:33:25 +0000

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

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:05:50 +0000

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.

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:15:40 +0000

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.

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:44:45 +0000

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 !

By: youngvet

youngvet — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:06:06 +0000

“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.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 27 May 2009 06:42:08 +0000

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!

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 21 May 2009 07:39:08 +0000

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”

By: Avril Jackson

Avril Jackson — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:23:34 +0000

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!

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 08 May 2009 09:21:35 +0000

“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!”

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.

By: Allow vets to work with integrity

Allow vets to work with integrity — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:17:44 +0000

“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!