Did anyone read the ex vets' article in the Daily Mail yesterday and the 200 comments following it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232217/Why-Im-ashamed-vet-shocking-expose-profession-puts-pets-painful-unnecessary-treatments-fleece-trusting-owners.html

Not till now, but it should cause a riot or two amongst veterinary colleagues and a big queue of customers outside his practice door...having changed vets myself because of their assembly line approach to animal health care I'm glad to say we now are with a good practice who don't prescribe for the sake of it, don't advocate expensive and ultimately futile treatments that are not in the best interests of the animal and best of all are prepared to discuss symptoms and treatments with you as a respected paying client, and not the boorish behaviour I've experienced from one or two who clearly thought that they were far too grand to waste time explaining this to an owner.

Very interesting article which does raise alot of questions. It's a shame that it tarnishes all vets as there are plenty who are not like this.
As a vet nurse, I have only ever worked for charity, who on the one hand would fix a stray puppies two broken legs with hundreds of pounds worth of equipment thanks to public donations, and on the other, watch the heart ache of owners who have a dog with a spinal case that could be referred but they couldn't afford it.
I no longer work with small animals but now with wildlife. I see first hand the cost of tablets, blood tests etc. As an example, my mums basset was peeing blood. My mum collected the wee and took it in. I was there. The vet took a dip stick (worth 5 pence as I worked it out), and billed my pensioner mum 12 pounds for "in house urine analysis"!
At the other end of the argument, many would say that the more expensive vets have higher running costs, due to better equipment, and having to offer higher salaries to entice more qualified vets. I have no idea about the costs of running a practice.
As for offering expensive and possibly uncalled for treatments and referrals, again its a difficult one. Something I have experienced is just how quickly referrals are offered. The vets should be more honest about the "worth" of referring. But I guess they have to offer whats out there.
Is it anthropomorphism gone mad?

Well I was with him with a lot until I got to this point and he showed his ignorance:

We have daschunds bred with elongated spines so they look 'attractive' for their breed. But these sausage dogs are prone to slipped discs and back problems which, in turn, makes more money for vets who do many operations a year to 'help' these issues (most of which do not work and cause more suffering to the dog.) We have cats that can't breathe because of their overly flat noses and weep constantly from eyes that are too large,

Even I know that Dachshunds were bred that way for a purpose, to fit into holes for hunting (as MANY still do at home in Sweden), not to look a particular way. And as for my breeds of cat -well Persians and Exotics do not have breathing problems due to flat faces, nor do they have runny eyes due to over large eyes. If any have breathing problems, then it is because the NOSTRILS are too small -look at almost any American website about Persians and you will see tiny nostrils -here our breed standard calls for good sized nose leather and with big (i.e. normal sized) nostrils, so no breathing problems. Likewise the eyes -runny eyes has everything to do with the shape of the tearducts, not the size of the eyes. Hence you can have long-faced cats with really runny eyes and really flat faced cats with eyes that don't run. I'd have thought a vet should know that.......

I'd have thought a vet should know that.......

you would have thought so wouldn't you :)

on the other hand, I think its great that a vet can come forward and have the guts to say that many of the problems they fix may be down to poor breeding

Well, I don't think I will show this to hubby, he will be clapping his hands and whooping for joy as he has said these things many times, he has always said that vets are just a business and they rip us and our animals off constantly. I've always tried to justify heavy vet fees and exploration work.

To be honest I think that forums and the Iternet give us so much information now it is very easy to look up symptoms and the real conclusions on treatments and why they are done and even if necessary, we can usually make the right decisions.

I would always come to CD for opinions and to talk to people who have been through it rather than just go with the vet, sad but true. But, I think we are all getting more clued up and clever even without the years at veterinary college.

The one thing I would never do is have a vet make me feel guilty about putting an animal to sleep. I agree entirely that an animal does not understand the weeks and months of pain and suffering to go through recovery treatments that may or may not work.  You have to be strong in your beliefs.

Good on the vet for speaking out.

on the other hand, I think its great that a vet can come forward and have the guts to say that many of the problems they fix may be down to poor breeding

I'm sorry but I had to laugh at that. 9.9 times out of ten, if the sick animal is a pedigree animal, the vet WILL blame the breeder. It seems to be done automatically without any thought at all. Only when it is a crossbreed/mongrel/moggy do they seem to think of other reasons.

Marianne, Im just talking about the badly bred examples of dogs (not all pedigree dogs!)

These are moot points. The dachshund's longer back does make them more prone to spinal problems (whatever they may have been bred for). The ultra-persian's breathing problems are not just due to reduced nostrils, but the fact that someone thought it was a good idea to breed a cat so its nose leather sits squashed up between its eyes (which impacts on the whole internal anatomy, just as it does in a bracycephalic dog.) As for the runny eyes - 'normal' cats may have runny eyes, but it isn't due to the buckled tear-ducts found in ultra persians. And while UK persians might not be quite as extreme as the US ones, there's not much between them. Judges here do select for extreme type.

Jemima

> best of all are prepared to discuss symptoms and treatments with you as a respected paying client, and not the boorish behaviour I've experienced from one or two who clearly thought that they were far too grand to waste time explaining this to an owner.

Now why is it that all the vets that fit the above have in my experience been foreign.

That is New Zealand and currently a lovely South African, none of them needing to pretend they know it all, and are akin to God.

In the latter case he went to the trouble to find the the tel no for the Norwegian embassy and rang me at home.  Didn't have the heart to tell him I had already managed to find the Norwegian Pet Passport and blood Titre timings on-line.

The ultra-persian's breathing problems are not just due to reduced nostrils, but the fact that someone thought it was a good idea to breed a cat so its nose leather sits squashed up between its eyes (which impacts on the whole internal anatomy, just as it does in a bracycephalic dog.) As for the runny eyes - 'normal' cats may have runny eyes, but it isn't due to the buckled tear-ducts found in ultra persians. And while UK persians might not be quite as extreme as the US ones, there's not much between them. Judges here do select for extreme type.

Utterly wrong Jemima. How much Persian experience do you have? Not a lot by the sound of it. You can have ultras without any runny eyes at all. It tends to be the longer faced Persians that have the runnier eyes due to the shape of the tearducts. They also do NOT have breathing problems, full stop. I've only bred Persians for 20 years but I've never met one yet that had breathing problems. (I also worked for a vet that had a large number of Persian breeders as clients, and I still did not see any breathing problems.) Also I take it you haven't read the UK breed standard? Which states that the cat's upper edge of the nose leather must not be above the lower edge of the eye? It's only been in force since the 80's, after all. Judges do not select for extreme type, they select for the overall best balance, which is so much more than just facial type.

In brachycephalic dogs breathing difficulties are not only due to stenotic nares. It's an intranasal problem.

> One might imagine that because there are so many more vets that animals need more medical help than ever. But the truth is far simpler. A whole industry has arisen out of squeezing the most money out of treating family pets.

I find it quite intersting, we have an article here that is basically saying vets are treating animals for non-existent problems just to make money (the PDE programe led us to believe that so many dogs are treated by vets due to poor/exagerated breeding and the awfull state of pedigree dogs)

It also goes on to say;

>In turn vets are simply creating weaker animals. They are going against the force of nature, Charles Darwin's natural selection. And because weaker animals are surviving they need more medical care from vets who force them to survive

Which is it? Are vets making thier own market by ensuring weak animals survive that will need on-going medicle treatment or are the vets making up problems to treat?

Darwins theory of natural selection is about animals surviving that are most suited to the environment, not the fittest animal (a very fit snake will stand less of a chance of surviving in the artic than an unhealthy polar bear), it is a description of EVOLUTION. There is nothing NATURAL about the selection of genes in domesticated animal breeding. Why on earth he has to bring Darwin into this I don't know (allthough, Darwin did use dog-breeders to support his thoery of evolution as it shows very clearly how the (man-made) selection specific of traits can change a species).

Maybe he is confusing Darwin with NATURE, as in NATURE the weak/ill/injured die off as they have no access to medical care, but then if one believed no animal should need medical care to survive, becoming a vet in the first place is a bit of an odd thing to do.

The article contradicts itself. It sounds to me like a disgruntled vet, one which I'm glad is not practising as it sounds like he would have all weak, injured and sick animals PTS. Wow, he could desimate the entire population of domesticated animals very, very quickly :( :(

Oh, I've just spotted, he has a book available- it all makes sense now.... allthough he is no longer 'sqeezing' money out of pet owners as a vet, he is doing it as an author (controversy sells so well). LOL !!!!

> Did anyone read the ex vets' article in the Daily Mail yesterday and the 200 comments following it?

I, personally, will 'take it with a pinch of salt'.

i read an artical a while ago about vets charging loads for vaccinations (i was looking up about the 3 yearly bosters thing) and the person said that in one vet manual they read it said in there that vets shouldnt feel bad about over charging there clients.

My vet isnt too bad on price for most things but after spaying my rabbit i found a vets doing it for allmost half the price, but two of the vets there i realy like and do trust, when my guinea pig came down with a mistuy illness one of them actualy didnt charge me for some of the work. Also my vets arnt pushy which i like, where as my brothers vet ended up pushing them into neutering there cat when they had only gone in for something small. When one of my rabbits turned out to have a genitic spinal problem my vet said that they treat it in dogs but it wouldnt be fair on a rabbit so they wouldnt do it, they could of eayserly agreed and taken my money but they didnt.

I think its just a case of finding a good vet, like with finding a good breeder, some care more for the animals but some care more for the money.

There are also many other vets leaving the profession (I know 2) because they are sick of clearing up the mess created by poor breeding, be it inherited problems or conformational. One has even said to me how desensitized they were becoming to the scale of certain conditions.

There are also many other vets leaving the profession (I know 2) because they are sick of clearing up the mess created by poor breeding, be it inherited problems or conformational. One has even said to me how desensitized they were becoming to the scale of certain conditions.

Many other just because you know two is a bit of a sweeping statement !

I would suggest they were not cut out to be vets if that is the reason why they quit !

The poor breeding is coming in the main from backyard breeders and puppy farms though who are doing nothing to improve and aim to eradicate health issues.

I can also say how many cross breeds have health conditions as I see plenty of cross breeds if I am ever at my vets :-) 

> I would suggest they were not cut out to be vets if that is the reason why they quit !

Sorry, I meant to say "general practice" not profession

> It's a shame that it tarnishes all vets as there are plenty who are not like this.
>

It's a business.

Whilst at a vet friends house I casually flicked through one of her trade magazines and was interested in the way the ads were worded - advising them how to position goods to get more from their customers from point of sale products toys, collars etc, prescription diets and the best way to convince the public that they need them.

There were articles on maximising customer 'spend'.

As my vet friend says when she started it was a profession ....now it's a trade.

> One has even said to me how desensitized they were becoming to the scale of certain conditions

Hopefully Doctors dont feel that way Olive or they may stop treating obese people or those who drink and smoke.

Vets are trained in the whole animal kingdom so there is no need to give up treating animals,just companion animals - if that is how they feel.
Perhaps they could give back a proportion of the incredibly lucrative income that is gained from treating pets and go into research.

> Vets are trained in the whole animal kingdom so there is no need to give up treating animals,just companion animals - if that is how they feel.

As I said, they have just left "general practice". They both work with wildlife, and also continue to treat staff pets at a HUGE discount and in their own time

The veterinary world is a business that I guess does have to cover costs. Not all vets mark up prices of drugs considerably but some do. But maybe this is because they are covering the costs of better equipment, more experienced vets. I don't know the ins and outs of running a practice.
If they could offer a cheaper human version of some drugs they probably would, but if a veterinary version is available they have to use that one.

>As my vet friend says when she started it was a profession ....now it's a trade.

I think that is correct, all professions have to take money into consideration nowadays. The Health service is always looking for ways to save money often at the expense of patient care too and if it was politically correct to do so then they would be trying to make a lot of money too.

Vets, dentists, private medics are always open to "greed", and there will be those who take advantage. However, some vet's practices are struggling especially in rural areas and if they can make some money from placing dog bowls and toys for sale in the waiting room then I would prefer that, than they close down all together.

>Jemima wrote:These are moot points. The dachshund's longer back does make them more prone to spinal problems (whatever they may have been bred for). The ultra-persian's breathing problems are not just due to reduced nostrils, but the fact that someone thought it was a good idea to breed a cat so its nose leather sits squashed up between its eyes (which impacts on the whole internal anatomy, just as it does in a bracycephalic dog.) As for the runny eyes - 'normal' cats may have runny eyes, but it isn't due to the buckled tear-ducts found in ultra persians. And while UK persians might not be quite as extreme as the US ones, there's not much between them. Judges here do select for extreme type

I would have to agree. Breeders of all breeds do tend to breed for "extremes" and if they get away with it, things get out of hand. I blame judges for a lot of these "cosmetic" issues because if they didn't give first places to "unhealthy" looking cats in shows then the breeders wouldn't breed them. It is all very well saying judges only judge on the standard set by the breed club, but it is their judgement on the day that matters and many breed standards are fairly woolly so are open to interpretation either way.

I would like to speak as a "client" who has had a vet who wouldn't listen regarding a long term illness.

When my boy was diagnosed in 2008 with AIHA, I knew the signs straight away as I had lost another to the same disease two years earlier and knew the probable outcome,  my vet said we can deal with this - "I've treated ONE case before". I did so much research into this disease and treatments, spoke to Jean Dodds in the States, the RCV, a specialist professor at Bristol Uni and took info to my vet but to no avail.  For eight months we struggled before someone said get a referral to an expert.  At this point he was being pumped full of prednisolone and aziathroprine on a daily basis, blood tested every week, sometime twice a week - on average every visit cost £100.  The referral cost £500 to be told that it was now the treatment my vet was giving that was killing him - not the disease, the side effects - and she slashed his drug regime that day.  Following further complications over Xmas which was charged at double time, I asked on 4 seperate occasions to let him go to the bridge and was refused.  Finally he spent his last day slipping in and out of consciousness and died almost a year after diagnosis.  He wasn't insured and we paid for everything ourselves but instead of listening to my head/heart I listened to the one person who I thought would know what to do.  Unfortunately this episode has killed my trust in vets.

On the other hand, I had a vet when we lived in Yorkshire who went above and beyond the call of duty to help and she would very often say "just give us a tenner".  So I know there are good ones out there, I just haven't got faith in the ones where we live now.

I wanted to write this because the main point that seems to have been picked up on is the breeding subject again.  I have to say that last year when I was spending £1,000's with them I got a Christmas card - we'll see if one comes this year!

Years ago when pet insurance was first intoduced my vet told me that he had to charge slightly more to cover his costs for the administration the insurance companies insisted on, So he operated a two tier system where owners of  insured pets got charged slightly more, and owners of non insured pets were charged less.

I find it annoying that the insurance companies will cover you for one year for an ailment then the following year not cover you for the same problem. For example, one of my dogs developed a small wart like growth on his gum. My vet said that this would probably go down by itself and not to worry as this can happen due to the dog damaging the gum. It did but I noticed that the following year the insurance company had covered the dog for everything except the warty growth and problems in his mouth.

Thinking about old dogs, I do know of people who will keep their dogs alive at all cost. I do question this, how often are people heard to say "If I was a dog I'd put me down" when they do not feel so good? So why do they keep some really sick or really old dogs going? If the dog is living a good life then that is fine, I have had a flatcoat live to just over 16 and a half years of age, she was always happy to potter around the house and garden until her last week, when it became obvious that she had had enough.

Having worked in vets and having vets as friends and in the family, I can say there is a big difference between the practices, and some of the agency practices springing up every where I would really not recommend. Olive 1 I think it was said something about vets having to prescribe vet medication even when a cheaper human version is available, I know of a veterinary practice which serves an area where many of their clients cannot afford large vet bills, they regularly prescribe human medications where these work out cheaper for the clients as they do put the welfare of the animal first, and realise that while not everyone can afford large bills they are more likely to continue treatments where necessary if they can get cheaper medicines by other means.

All in all the cost of veterinary services has gone up dramatically since pet insurance was introduced, and with it a number of veterinary practices have moved from professional/vocational status to business status first and foremost.

>I find it annoying that the insurance companies will cover you for one year for an ailment then the following year not cover you for the same problem.

That depends on the level of cover you choose. 'Lifetime' policies will cover conditions year-on-year (usually up to a certain limit each year) - other policies will only cover a condition for 12 months; not great if your dog develops HD, or diabetes, for example.

> That depends on the level of cover you choose. 'Lifetime' policies will cover conditions year-on-year (usually up to a certain limit each year)

Yes but they do like to confuse and hide what they are covering.... Having had a battle over theterms with a certain company on this point, since I had asked when taking out the policy if I was getting lifetime cover or not was told I was, so discover I was not was somewhat annoying.

Another thing many insurance companies refuse to do ( but do not put it into their policies in a way it can be spooted easily), is to cover show dogs. They say that pet dogs are less likely to be put in a situation where they are going to be out in public places or in cars on the roads, plus they do not have commercial value like show dogs.

>Another thing many insurance companies refuse to do ( but do not put it into their policies in a way it can be spooted easily), is to cover show dogs. They say that pet dogs are less likely to be put in a situation where they are going to be out in public places or in cars on the roads, plus they do not have commercial value like show dogs.

If a insurer is making a clear differentiation between a show dog and a pet dog, then they are obliged to make this clear on the proposal form at the inception of cover.  But I have never come across this though Polly, is this a new thing?  What insurance companies are doing this?

> is this a new thing?  What insurance companies are doing this?

No it isn't. It came to light a year or two back when JoFlatcoat found this out. I think she posted it on the CD forum and I remember I followed it up for the dog press. I rang several companies and they said they did not cover show dogs.

Polly, the only thing I can find under the exclusions on a policy I have here, is a claim arising from where the dog has been used for commercial, guard, breeding, security or working purposes.  It makes it higher risk for the insurer but, it would be an incident  arising from any of above acts that is not covered so it wouldn't void the whole policy.  Still, it's a key exclusion that really should be brought to the policyholder's attention at the point of sale. 

ive never been asked if my dogs are show dogs, only if they are used for breeding.

> I know of a veterinary practice which serves an area where many of their clients cannot afford large vet bills, they regularly prescribe human medications where these work out cheaper for the clients as they do put the welfare of the animal first, and realise that while not everyone can afford large bills they are more likely to continue treatments where necessary if they can get cheaper medicines by other means.

Polly, I thought that the Cascade system only allows the use of human medicines if there is no animal version available. They have to used animal medicines before human, but can use human if there is no animal version (legally)??

>Polly, I thought that the Cascade system only allows the use of human medicines if there is no animal version available. They have to used animal medicines before human, but can use human if there is no animal version (legally)??

Absolutely correct. Vets cannot legally prescribe a human-licenced drug if there's an animal-licenced version available, unless the animal version has already been tried and found not to suit that individual. Only if there is no animal-licenced alternative can the vet start with the human version, no matter how much of a financial saving there would be to vet or client.

Errrr.rr - I don't remember that at all, Polly - don't think it was me.....

Jo

My vet after treating Whistler for a wasp sting on his nose said if I kept piriton in the fridge use that its cheaper!! So we have.

This explains the cascade regulations which vets are legally bound by.

The comment about badly injured cats being given costly treatment when it would be kinder to euthanise struck a chord with me. Years ago a gorgeous long haired cat moved in with us, within a fortnight she was hit by a car. The graze was superficial & luckily it was only her jaw damaged. I paid the bill, 2 weeks later I found her on my doorstep in a pathetic state. She could barely pull the back end of her body along, she had been hit again. I took her to the vets one last time, the vet however wanted to give her painkillers, keep her for a few days & get her strong enough for x-ray's & surgery. He explained that they would show me how to empty her bladder & bowel manually. I felt as though I was really letting her down having her put to sleep, but I wasn't prepared to put her through all that & quite frankly could not justify spending all that money (estimate between £600 & £800). She needed euthanising, but I felt like a murderer when I told the vet of my intention. Her quality of life would have been nil, she was an outside cat & I knew that if she did come home & ever got out, she would have been a gonner in no time because of her disability. I know now that I did the best for her, but the vet definitely had other ideas.

> I know now that I did the best for her, but the vet definitely had other ideas.

We've had the oppostie experience with a cat of ours. She got attacked by 2 dogs (lurchers), the vets advised us to have her PTS because she would need so much fixing back together, it would take a while for her to recover (she was 2yrs old). We opted to have her treated anyway (several hundred pounds, 22 years ago). It took a few months in, that time she was confinded to a cage, but everything healed. She went on to live to be 14 years old (sadly got hit by a car & killed on the road :( ).

I think blanket statements like the vet in the article are wrong, some animals can go through a lot of surgery and benefit from it, others wont.
The vets should give guidance with the well being of the animal in mind, but I don't think that lots of surgery/painfull recovery for a young animal is a reason to automatically have it PTS as long as there is a stong possibility of a good quality of life afterwards (I completely agree you made the best decision for your cat, a future of paralysis is not a bright one :( ).

There is no 'one size fits all' treatment or prognosis especially with major problems, each case is different and each case should be approached & treated on it's own merits.

>There is no 'one size fits all' treatment or prognosis especially with major problems, each case is different and each case should be approached & treated on it's own merits.

I think that is true and although things can look bleak at times, time is a great healer if you want to spend the time and put the effort in. Young animals especially have great healing capacity and I feel that not to give them a chance is often criminal. Not everyone however can deal with a sick animal and I feel many animals are put down, solely because the owner cannot cope emotionally, financially or logistically and it is easier for them to say the animal would "have had a poor quality of life" than for them to have to look after it for a few weeks, not really knowing whether it will improve or not.

I could take the article seriously if I hadn't seen a quote from the author that said some thing along the lines of "this story will make my fortune"

Also he's written a book so is on an advertising mission.

And although he 's ashamed to be a vet and no longer practices, he does pay his dues so he can stay registered, perhaps when the book falls flat he's hedged his bets and will return to practice.

He's not a vet I'd be using, I much prefer vets that get on with the job and aren't in it for what they can get at the expense of tarnishing all the other vets.