# It Shouldn't Happen at a Vets' !



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

The BVA British Veterinary Association seem to be bracing themselves this week ahead of a documentary to be shown on the BBC, prime viewing time this Thursday. Panorama sent in an undercover journalist into a large London practice I believe, care and billing seem to be on the agenda. Should be interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrT5YTV-66Y

Do you get the BBC over there at all ?


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2010)

That looks kind of frightening! Us Americans can get the BBC over here on cable depending on the provider. We don't have a TV so maybe someone can post up some video links after it airs.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

This should be interesting. I would guess they should be bracing themselves if they are like 99% of the vets here. LOL


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

I've made quite a few vet visits over the years, and over a few practices too, much like many others I suppose who've had animals for any length of time.

A recent and fairly largish practice I have been dealing with lately regarding my gsd have left me with an uneasy feeling, and I'm not just talking about the bills. When my dog had been for xrays and was to be kept in at least overnight, after looking in on him to say hello, I decided there and then he was coming straight home. It was just the way the dog looked at me... the dog was screaming in pain later that night, he'd been given an injection on leaving, my topping up pain meds later...and then near over dosing him on more pain relief later on. I was almost certain they would have given him very little if I had left him there, whilst also wondering what the hell they had done to him.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Hmm, a couple of cats being carried by their scruff (have you ever dealt with an ANGRY cat??), a dog that I'm not sure what was happening, couldn't tell if they were trying to help it up or ?? and a muzzled dog who was fighting the tech. 

Not sure what the issue is. Fifi and Fluffy aren't always on their best behavior at the vets. Especially the cats which have teeth and claws. 

I'm sure they found a few instances of abuse, like any profession if you dig deep enough you will find something. But I bet most of the video will be sensationalized footage of vets and vet techs trying to control animals who are fighting them for all they are worth, while the vet/techs are trying to avoid getting clawed, bit, or otherwise injured. 

When the average owner can't even trim their dogs nails, why do they expect it's experience at the vets office to be some calm, smooth, event, like suddenly their out of control "fur baby" is going to magically behave?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

You certainly have a point Kady and that may well be the outcome although I hope not. Panorama aren't your usual in it for the sensationalism, they're a pretty respected production here, hence the prime time viewing on BBC. They were successful a couple of years back in busting a major dog fighting ring here in the same manner, they cover all topical affairs.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

_But I bet most of the video will be sensationalized footage of vets and vet techs trying to control animals who are fighting them for all they are worth, while the vet/techs are trying to avoid getting clawed, bit, or otherwise injured. 
_
Why do you bet that ??


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

we do get BBC, I"ll have to look for it. ACtually I watch a lot of BBC and I watch BBC news. The world coverage is far superior to what we have here. 

DFrost


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

maggie fraser said:


> The BVA British Veterinary Association seem to be bracing themselves this week ahead of a documentary to be shown on the BBC, prime viewing time this Thursday. Panorama sent in an undercover journalist into a large London practice I believe, care and billing seem to be on the agenda. Should be interesting.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrT5YTV-66Y
> 
> Do you get the BBC over there at all ?


People get confused about how things should be done. I know for a fact that most surgeries aren't like what people see on some tv show, there is a job to be done and time is money.

Remember the video where the woman is wrestling with a cop and eventually she gets cold cocked ?? What were the opinions of the police here ?? don't play around with her basically, get the job done.

That's life..that's what all the people say.


----------



## Gina Pasieka (Apr 25, 2010)

I would have to agree that they are going to pull out all the footage of fighting, screaming animals. Unfortunately, many cats and a fair number of dogs are not amendable to taking blood samples, getting injections or taking radiographs. Scruffing cats is a very routine way that we restrain cats. It is a natural reflex that most cats relax and become limp. As a cardiologist, I can tell you that their heart rate also drops when they are scruffed. As far as that pit pull is concerned....he has a basket muzzle on. I give every dog the benefit of the doubt...but if you go for me...you get a muzzle...and sometimes a nice trip (better living through chemistry...8)) There are bad vets just like there are bad doctors..but don't let this sensationalism color your opinion.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Hmm, a couple of cats being carried by their scruff (have you ever dealt with an ANGRY cat??), a dog that I'm not sure what was happening, couldn't tell if they were trying to help it up or ?? and a muzzled dog who was fighting the tech.
> 
> Not sure what the issue is. Fifi and Fluffy aren't always on their best behavior at the vets. Especially the cats which have teeth and claws.
> 
> ...


Kadi, I don't think they would need to be undercover journalists for what you are suggesting. I am betting they are going to take in an animal that has nothing wrong with it to see how much they get gouged for for something it doesn't have.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Gerry said;
"Remember the video where the woman is wrestling with a cop and eventually she gets cold cocked ?? "

Little play on words Gerry? Guess that would work also. LMAO


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Gina Pasieka said:


> I would have to agree that they are going to pull out all the footage of fighting, screaming animals. Unfortunately, many cats and a fair number of dogs are not amendable to taking blood samples, getting injections or taking radiographs. Scruffing cats is a very routine way that we restrain cats. It is a natural reflex that most cats relax and become limp. As a cardiologist, I can tell you that their heart rate also drops when they are scruffed. As far as that pit pull is concerned....he has a basket muzzle on. I give every dog the benefit of the doubt...but if you go for me...you get a muzzle...and sometimes a nice trip (better living through chemistry...8)) There are bad vets just like there are bad doctors..but don't let this sensationalism color your opinion.


are you related to Janice ?


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

maggie fraser said:


> _But I bet most of the video will be sensationalized footage of vets and vet techs trying to control animals who are fighting them for all they are worth, while the vet/techs are trying to avoid getting clawed, bit, or otherwise injured. _
> 
> Why do you bet that ??


It's been my experience that when a "documentary" TV show is created, they have a point to make. And they show the footage that makes their point. Maybe they will have uncovered some abuses going on, which should be brought to light. But if their goal was to show "abuses in a vet clinic", be it abuse of the animal or the owners pocket book, then that will be the footage they show, they aren't going to show all the instances of happy customers and pets.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Having been around a number of UK terriermen and a number of my friends here have hunted over there in the past, I know how crazy the anti folks are over there. 
Whatever is shown won't be good.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> People get confused about how things should be done. I know for a fact that most surgeries aren't like what people see on some tv show, there is a job to be done and time is money.
> 
> Remember the video where the woman is wrestling with a cop and eventually she gets cold cocked ?? What were the opinions of the police here ?? don't play around with her basically, get the job done.


Pretty much. Today was my last day of anesthesia rotation and I saw and handled my very first Caucasian Ovcharka and Fila Brasiliero over the course of the rotation. Why someone would need one of these two breeds in Missouri is a bit beyond me, but anyways. The Fila was fearful of men, but not too awful bad around me. However, the Ovcharka was so aggressive that the head anesthesiologist had to sedate it before it even could be allowed in the hospital and it had to be wheeled around on a gurney with a muzzle on, even with heavy sedation. It was also so kennel aggressive, it had to be kept in the far back kennel runs with the greyhound blood donors away from the regular in house runs. I would just love to see the furbaby folks asking the big 160 lbs fluffy doggy who'd probably eat them and their little designer mutts for a blood sample or a sedation for surgery. :twisted:

I imagine this documentary to be much the same as the stuff that the HSUS and PETA digs up of the food animal production industry or laboratory research animals. Is abuse out there? Yes. Is it right? No. But then again, surely there are no professional dog trainer out there that use an e-collar on a dog until it screams or hangs a dog until it passes out, right? Right...? :-$

Here's an interesting response from a clinic that will apparently appear on the program:

http://www.medivet.co.uk/news_view.asp?id=112


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

_I imagine this documentary to be much the same as the stuff that the HSUS and PETA digs up of the food animal production industry or laboratory research animals._ 

You lot really have quite an attitude you know  ! All these preconceived ideas on a production you appear to have little or no experience with....kind of in keeping with some of the posts on this board lol :-D.

Panorama will stir them up that's for sure.... Why ? That could well be because there needs to be some stirring!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/about_panorama/default.stm


----------



## Gina Pasieka (Apr 25, 2010)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> are you related to Janice ?


 

Who is Janice?????:-s


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

maggie fraser said:


> You lot really have quite an attitude you know  ! All these preconceived ideas on a production you appear to have little or no experience with....kind of in keeping with some of the posts on this board lol :-D.


Nah, we've just learned not to trust the media and let them spoon feed us our information and opinions.



> Panorama will stir them up that's for sure.... Why ? That could well be because there needs to be some stirring!


And that would be the reservation many people have, that they are out there specifically to stir things up. Maybe things need to be stirred up, or maybe they are just trying to go after sensational TV, who cares about the facts. The trailer that was linked to earlier makes me think they are after sensational TV. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I'm not going to believe those animals were being abused just because some "investigative TV reporter" tells me they were.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

_And that would be the reservation many people have, that they are out there specifically to stir things up. Maybe things need to be stirred up, or maybe they are just trying to go after sensational TV, who cares about the facts._ 

Who cares about the facts ?? I do for one, and apparently the British public too! And what's more, I expect Panorama to deliver those facts in a balanced way...now, that could well end up sensational tv, but then again maybe not.

I posted a link in my previous post to a little background on Panorama, they've been in the business a long time, investigating and reporting on all current affairs. Like you, I haven't yet seen the programme, I am a little curious though of the defensive attitude.... Do you think it wrong Kadi that the veterinary profession should be subjected to an investigative report on behalf of the British public ?


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

maggie fraser said:


> Who cares about the facts ?? I do for one, and apparently the British public too! And what's more, I expect Panorama to deliver those facts in a balanced way...


Hopefully they will.



> now, that could well end up sensational tv, but then again maybe not.


And if it is, how much damage will be done in pursuit of ratings? Are the viewers going to be willing or able to differentiate between one program when they do present just the facts, and another when they sensationalize things? Or will they just believe whatever the media wants to spoonfeed them?



> I am a little curious though of the defensive attitude....


Defensive? I don't think so. Would be hard to be defensive when I'm not in either the TV industry or the Vet industry, so I have nothing to defend. Willing to believe whatever they want to feed me? Nope.



> Do you think it wrong Kadi that the veterinary profession should be subjected to an investigative report on behalf of the British public ?


No, as long as it's balanced. But like I have pointed out already, based on the trailer, I have doubts about how balanced the report will be. Not when their trailer is trying to present scruffing a cat to control it, and wrestling with a clearly aggressive dog as abusive.

Also, is this report about the veterinary profession, or just one or two vets that they have issues with? Because that's my other problem with this type of "reporting", they find one or two instances of abuse, and try to paint an entire profession with the same brush, based on the few. We all know each profession has a few bad apples. There are bad vets, doctors, cops, teachers, cooks, garbage collectors, you name it. But there are way more good ones. So will this report point out that there are many more good then bad, or try to paint the entire profession based on the behavior of a few?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Here is a little more detail I hope....

From the RCVS website


*Panorama - date announced*

_13 July 2010_ 
*







*

*The long-awaited Panorama programme on the veterinary profession will air on Thursday 22 July at 9pm on BBC One.*


We have not seen the programme, but understand it is set to cover a range of issues, including the role of unqualified nursing staff in the practice, support for new graduates, over-charging in relation to insurance and regulation of corporate practices. 

Senior Vice-President Professor Sandy Trees (at the time, President) was interviewed by Jeremy Vine (pictured) at Belgravia House on 13 November 2009 to contribute to the programme. 

We expect there might be increased public interest in the regulation of the profession following the programme and would suggest that anyone with concerns over the programme’s contents should either speak to their own veterinary surgeon, or contact us directly (details below).

We will post a statement on RCVSonline shortly after the programme has aired which should help answer some of these concerns.

In addition, a set of briefing papers on commonly-asked questions from members of the public can be found on our ePolitix microsite – ePolitix is the leading resource for MPs and their researchers. 

We currently receive around 700 complaints a year – about one every 15 years of a member’s practising life. It’s a record to be proud of. However, if the programme raises areas of genuine concern, we will do all we can to act on them and we have already made it clear to the BBC that we would expect their support in this.

Following the programme, we will work with the British Veterinary Association and other organisations to ensure that the robust nature of the regulatory system is communicated to the public, from undergraduate degrees through the Professional Development Phase and the_ Guide to Professional Conduct, _to mandatory continuing professional development and the voluntary Practice Standards Scheme and Register for Veterinary Nurses. 

If, following the broadcast, you have questions, do not hesitate to contact us, either on our Advice line within the Professional Conduct Department (020 7202 0789) or the Communications Department (020 7202 0725).


http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=7099259


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> _I imagine this documentary to be much the same as the stuff that the HSUS and PETA digs up of the food animal production industry or laboratory research animals._
> 
> You lot really have quite an attitude you know  ! All these preconceived ideas on a production you appear to have little or no experience with....kind of in keeping with some of the posts on this board lol :-D.
> 
> ...


The animal rights crazies sure love the stirring. That's all they are good at, as they want to eventually rid us of ALL domesticated animals. PETA never shows the videos of the beef farmers who bring in a day old half frozen calf with scours (diarrhea) in the cab of their pickup that spent the night in the living room trying to warm up, even with the smell. Or the lab animal workers who show kindness to the primates or that try to adopt out the dogs or cats that are retired from research studies. It's all about sensationalism as what sells in the media. They wouldn't do it if it didn't sell.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Maren, what you say about the animal rights crazies may be true, I can't comment on HSUS or PETA vids as I have only ever watched one in my life, and that was on the fur trade in China. I'm selective on what I watch on tv, I don't have cable or Sky as I don't care for hundreds of junk tv stations and commercials.

Did you know that the BBC don't air commercials ? (piece of useless information), anyway, I've watched Panorama for over forty years, I started young and have found them to produce weighty, interesting and informative programmes.

Like I've already said, I haven't seen this programme so will reserve judgement until after I have, I thought it may have been of interest to those who have access to the programme, although those with internet can probably view it via the BBC site.

I do know that the British public are becoming increasingly concerned with the trend in increasiing bills and procedures and are losing confidence in the profession. I'll be viewing it with an open mind, and if you should decide to watch it too, an open mind is the best mind to view it with.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I am not an animal right nut and I would be shocked of they found much good to say. Being a realist, sure vets help many animals that are in need, no doubt.....it is their screwing the owners with stuff they neither understand nor need is where they need to be raked over the coals.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Gina Pasieka said:


> Who is Janice?????:-s


I will take that as a no :lol:


----------



## Kristina Senter (Apr 4, 2006)

Someone thinks Fluffy should just "know how to behave" and that boundaries and corrections are cruel => Fluffy's owners have no control over fluffy => Fluffy needs vet care or training=> Vets and trainers who can handle Fluffy do so in the only safe way to handle aggression and retain staff without unnecessary stress to Fluffy => Fluffy's owners believe that surely Fluffy was an angel and there was no need to hurt Fluffy's ego => Vet or trainer is put on public chopping block for hurting Fluffy's ego => Other vets and trainers are smart enough to learn by example and are no willing to treat/train Fluffy since it can't be done safely => Fluffy grows completely out of control => Fluffy's breed is banned for being uncontrollable => And...."another one bites the dust".


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I'll try and watch it before I comment but that about holding the cat by the scruff of its neck is laughable!!

We have a very good vet and he even came out top in the regional survey for price/competence ratio (Preis-Leistungsverhältnis).

I do know of a vet who treated the one dog for eye trouble and castrated the other when it should have been the other way round. I know one of the owners personally! I think this would alarm me more than my cat being scruffed or my dog having to wear a muzzle.

I don't think any bills were sent out by the vet :-\"


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Here is a question to think about. If there were no vets, would todays dogs,as a whole, be healthier? :wink:


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

That's an interesting question Don.

I tend to my dogs' bites, as well I can, check out other maladies as well I can and only consult my vet when I can't see an improvement.

However, if you eliminate the vet, you need to have a fairly good knowledge of first aid for the dog and maybe for certain herbs, and other natural remedies otherwise we'd be back to the last few centuries of "death unknown" which applies to humans as well.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

As an afterthought -

Our dogs are not always kept as dogs should really be kept. They live in over-heated apartments in Winter, rarely have enough exercise (owners' faults) in Summer and are given kibble that is much too rich for the lifestyle they lead as a rule.

Compare the average sport dog to a hunting dog? It probably gets too much rich food for what it performs.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> That's an interesting question Don.
> 
> I tend to my dogs' bites, as well I can, check out other maladies as well I can and only consult my vet when I can't see an improvement.
> 
> However, if you eliminate the vet, you need to have a fairly good knowledge of first aid for the dog and maybe for certain herbs, and other natural remedies otherwise we'd be back to the last few centuries of "death unknown" which applies to humans as well.


Dogs are not people. I think dogs would be healthier and much better off. The ones that shouldn't make it won't. It would take care of the pet overpopulation and the amount of savings to animal owners themselves would be better than a stimulus for the economy.

I put my own dogs back together after every hog hunt. You would be downright amazed at how resilient animals are. Healthy animals. Always kept plent of super glue handy.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

That's a bit hard Don, although I understand your standpoint.

A bite wound is not a reason to let the dog die!

I have 2 males in the house, garden, kennel, as you wish and if one (no.1) bites the other before I can stop it, I can usually attend to the victim's wounds.

I'm not too sure what you mean?


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

I think without vets we'd see a lot more dogs dying of treatable things. Things that have nothing to do with the quality of the dog, like broken bones (how many people can set a bone properly, so the dog has no lameness when it heals??), poison, obstructions, snake bite, etc. Or non lethal injuries like an eye injury. Properly treated, the dog is fine, without treatment, the dog has impaired vision or goes blind, not going to kill the dog but a problem for a working dog. 

I do lots of the basic care on my own dogs, vaccines, minor injuries or illness, etc. Even thrown a few stitches into a dog when I was to far away to get them to a vet. And used super glue on more then one occasion. But when I had a dog eat something poisonous, or had one get an obstruction, I was very glad to have my vet on hand to save their lives. 

In general without vets I think we'd see a lot more dogs who lived unhappy lives, due to their owners having no clue how to vaccinate, care for minor or major wounds, illnesses, etc. Some of the dogs would get lucky and die from their problem, but many would just hang on and suffer. How many pet owners actually know how to treat a minor infection, or case of mange, etc. And then people with dog knowledge would start helping other people with their dogs, caring for the wounds, illnesses, etc And we'd develope a culture of laymen who were trying to preform the services the vets used to perform, but with much fewer resources.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Points taken. Let not include accidents. The dogs need care for puncture wounds, broken bones. Let's just eliminate all the preventative care foisted on the dogs for things they will likely never get. Foisted upon the same people that can't dress a wound because they just don't know. Breeds would be healthier with put all the preventative care. The weak ones wouldn't make it and that makes the breed stronger.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

We couldn't do without vets full stop!!

The vet that operated on my Briard, we saw the symptoms pretty quickly as he was a lively dog and lay down in the grass after coming home from training. His flanks had started to swell and so we rang
the vet who wasn't overly convinced but we insisted and he told us to bring him in.

Without doubt, this dog would have died a terribly painful death without the operation that took place. He lived to do his IPO3, working trials 1-2 and otherwise was a healthy animal.

I tend to a lot of wounds, etc., nowadays that I wouldn't have done so with the first dog but I always have "feeling" for when I have to go to the vet.

I cannot quite understand the need for the bit media showdown on the vets - I find that bad news travels extremely quickly, but we will see.

From one who is totally satisfied with her vet.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> .... From one who is totally satisfied with her vet.


I'm another.

I interviewed vets for POVs that were compatible with my own (minimal vaccinating, raw feeding, etc.), and I'm very happy with the vet I settled on.

So far, I haven't died of shock when I open the bills, either.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

I think the main grumble over here are the soaring bills, and 'procedures' which are very routinely carried out, particularly by the larger practices. It is becoming increasingly difficult finding the smaller independent practice where folks can take their animal and get treated without knocking up hefty bills.

Now, the more specialised and higher quality of service if you like, is being forced on those who are not necessarily seeking the latest in veterinary medicine, but help for their animal within their budget or who are averse to unnecessary and or unauthorised expensive procedures being conducted.

In the last twenty years there has been a big shift from the agricultural practice to the small animal practice and is becoming very lucrative apparently, I have had my share of both good and bad practice, but I've been more than a little disappointed of late, it is becoming more and more driven by money .

The media coverage has been gathering a little ahead of this programme tonight, I heard some real horror stories on the radio today, one guy being charged in excess of £300 I think for some tooth clipping on his bunny rabbit that went a bit wrong, and another where there was a cock up with a cat that was there only for a routine injection, ended up getting put on a drip, a short time later it took a fit and the outcome,....four attempted euthanasia jabs, a very stressed cat, a distraught senior owner, and a £240 bill for the priviledge!

We need vets, but they need to be affordable...I think this stuff needs looked at.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I'm another.
> 
> So far, I haven't died of shock when I open the bills, either.


That's pretty obvious!!!


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Sorry, couldn't resist it, but glad to know there are vets around that people trust!


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

maggie fraser said:


> I think the main grumble over here are the soaring bills, and 'procedures' which are very routinely carried out, particularly by the larger practices. It is becoming increasingly difficult finding the smaller independent practice where folks can take their animal and get treated without knocking up hefty bills.


Weren't you the one that just recently posted how your vet pads the bills of some people, to help cover the expense of others? And you thought that was just fine?

So it's OK when your vet pads certain people's bills, because they think those people can afford it, but you are in support of an investigative report about soaring bills and unfair charges??? Maybe the people "grumbling" are the ones who's bill your vet is padding.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Let's put a different spin on this. You have an accountant that charges top bucks for sub par work. He has cost you big bucks for years. If we are talking an accountant or lawyer that screwed you that is different than a vet? 
Vets schools were covering the ill effects of yearly and gang vaccines at least 20 years ago. Never stoped anyu vet from giving them because it is cash flow. I hyad a goiod friend in vet school that was spending the weekend 20+ years ago and I was going to give them shots when I got the lecture about how I shouldn't be doing this and neither should the practicing vets. Having a vet come clean about it "after the cats out of the bag" doesnj't endear me to him any more than the lawyer or accountant when you wonder how many dogs died so they could have their cash flow. Yet people trust them where they would trust no other professional slighted them far less. It boggles my mind as to why. The last thing I say to people is to take the pup to the vet when you get home for a clean bill of health. After that remember one thing, the vets will kill your dog faster than you can. They look at all the dogs in the yard and always comment about how healthy and strong they look. I tell then that is because they have never been to a vet. Next thing I get a phone call and they said the vet should take this and have this done to prevent that and they want to know what I think. I may not use vets anymore but believe me, I hear all the angles they lay on people almost on a daily basis. I am probably exposed to far more of the veterinary world than people that take their dog to a vet.

Here's one from a couple opf days ago. People bought two male littermates. The dogs are about 10 mo old. They take them to every dog park and what have you they can plus they leave them in a kennel (day care)off and on. They both came up coughing recently. One was off his feed and not himself. I told them to take both their temps. The one was higher. I told them they should take him to the vet but don't worry about the other. I told them the lungs will be white if he has pneumonia so they would know what they were looking at on the exrays. He did have it. That was last Friday. Monday they call and the gal is convinced he is worse. There was no reasoning with her so I told her to take him to a different vet and have him exrayed then compare the exrays from today to those of last week. Well, they didn't ask to keep the exrays so the didn't have the first ones. The second vet said the dog had pneumonia and had to stay in their hospital for $3300....or he would die. The called from the vet. I told them to get the dog and go home and pick up the first exrays on the way so they could compare them. The lungs on the second set were halfway cleared up already so the dog was getting better. Now, this had me pulling my hair out. Their perscription was almost used up because they had been giving half of it to the other pup....just in case. I got them to stop and use it for the other dog that was sick. Long story short, the pup is fine. They saved $2500 dollars by taking the pup home and they will never use the second vet again. Capitalism at work.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Weren't you the one that just recently posted how your vet pads the bills of some people, to help cover the expense of others? And you thought that was just fine?


Absolutely ! And are you that same poster who denied a defensive attitude ?

Well, that could well be because I was one of those 'contributors' that made it possible for someone to have their animal treated ! The vet in question made it possible for some people to have their animals treated, he's kind of old fashioned I suppose. He provides a service...not the best, but he does what he can for animals....and he's also under the going rate even when he 'pads' the bills as you say. I don't have a problem with that, neither do the queuing line of clients both rich and poor, new, and those of thirty odd years, have a problem with that!


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

maggie fraser said:


> And are you that same poster who denied a defensive attitude ?


Yup, and still do. Like I said before, I'm not a vet, I'm not in the TV industry, so I don't know how you can think I'm being defensive in a conversation about those two things. 

Just didn't understand how you can support a vet padding someone's bill, then support a TV show that is supposedly (we don't actually know for sure what it will be showing) going to show the evils of a vet clinic that pads people's bills.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I am curious, if everyone thinks so highly of vets, how come no one has even come close to considereing that the show may have a positive view of vets. I have seen many shows that are very positive concerning different things. Strange that not one person thinks it possible that this can be one of those positive views.....it would be akin to having a positive show about lawyers. LOL


----------



## Tammy St. Louis (Feb 17, 2010)

>>>, how come no one has even come close to considereing that the show may have a positive view of vets.

probably due to the trailer? people scruffing cats and fighting a muzzled dogs, just shows some things that look bad in most peoples eyes , didnt look like a possitive show from the trailer , but who knows


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Well, this programme's just finished and no sensationalism I'm afraid. Only Medivet, one of the country's largest veterinary chains was under the spotlight....the focus was trebling prices in the last 10 yrs, dishonesty, over billing, illegal duties to be undertaken by unqualified staff, and unprofessional conduct throughout their different branches.

Not much focus on bad handling or stressed out animals other than those shown in the original trailer.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> Well, this programme's just finished and no sensationalism I'm afraid. Only Medivet, one of the country's largest veterinary chains was under the spotlight....the focus was trebling prices in the last 10 yrs, dishonesty, over billing, illegal duties to be undertaken by unqualified staff, and unprofessional conduct throughout their different branches.
> 
> Not much focus on bad handling or stressed out animals other than those shown in the original trailer.


ahh, but why put that in the trailer in the first place then, perhaps for the appearance of expected sensationalism without real sensationalism...???

I did think this whole thread was a little silly....not initially..but how it progressed....just wait and watch the damn show....and see....after all that it was not much....


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Actually Joby, it wasn't sensational in the sense that it wasn't anything new lol, I'm referring to the concept of fraud and malpractice of course. As for it not being much, I doubt the veterinary chain in question will agree....

The feedback over the next days or so could be interesting, after all, there are many who speculate it could well be fairly common practice in other larger groups, we will see, I am merely an observer.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Medivets response to Panorama....

http://www.medivet.co.uk/news_view.asp?id=115

And the response by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons..

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=292933


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> Medivets response to Panorama....
> 
> http://www.medivet.co.uk/news_view.asp?id=115
> 
> ...


you get up early? I couldn't sleep...I was thinkin about you...it's 4 am here...


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

It's not early here Joby, I'm ahead of you over there ;-). 

And taken from the British Veterinary Association....

The programme also highlighted a number of concerning incidents of alleged fraud, dishonesty and bad practice that pet owners and the general public will have found very distressing. The BVA, BSAVA and SPVS cannot condone any bad practice. Some of these incidents featured are clearly unacceptable; others will require further investigation and it is vital that the RCVS is given the evidence to take this forward.

The veterinary associations are very concerned that viewers may now have concerns about their own vets. It is vital that the relationship of trust between a client and their vet is maintained. As was made clear in the programme, the vast majority of vets provide a high quality service and have the best interests of their clients and patients at heart.

We would advise pet owners to talk to their vet, as well as the rest of the practice team, if they have any concerns. We are advising our members to spend extra time dealing with clients’ questions and concerns following the programme, as well as offering the opportunity to meet the whole veterinary team and see behind the scenes in the practice.

http://www.bva.co.uk/2012.aspx


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

As usual it does not pay to guess what a program will contain, especially on the basis of a trailer (which are designed to provoke interest, much like misleading headlines).

The main points were:

-Vets mischarging/overcharging. This is confirmed to be a concern by contacts that I have in the insurance business.
-Vets recommending unnecessary procedures and treatments. This to me is the most serious accusation, due to the potential effect on the animals.
-People performing roles/procedures beyond their capabilities and training.

There is no way that an entire profession should be defined by the 'bad apples', but even so many people here will not be surprised at the findings. The RCVS have reacted and promised to investigate thoroughly all claims made in the program, without prejudging and have asked the BBC to contact the relevant authorities with any eveidence of fraud etc.

In the UK there has been quite a trend for smaller vet practices to be taken over by national chains. Nothing wrong per se, but the reason that these national chains are taking over small practices is to make money, not out of a commitment to the local area and its pets.....


----------

