Good article by ex-vet in Daily Mail (shocking I know)

DreadNiK · 4 Dec 2009 at 12:11

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...essary-treatments-fleece-trusting-owners.html

Only nitpick I have with the article is the fact he claims he left the profession because he was disgusted with some of these dubious practices - I don't see how that follows, surely the practices of other less moral vets shouldn't affect whether he stays in the profession??

Also, while he makes clear there is no obvious right or wrong and that often it is just his opinion on whether a potentially life extending treatment is necessary/cost effect etc, I think it is a difficult call. Our cat was fairly young when we found it one morning in its basket unable to move with a deep scratch on its head and obvious difficulty with one of its legs. Turns out it had managed to drag itself back home from wherever it got hit, with its leg broken in two places and pelvis fractured in 14! It cost a fair bit of money for the operations, it has metal pins etc in its leg now, and had to be in a small cage for a few months while it healed, but has now lived for many years since, running up trees etc, you wouldn't even know it had happened except you can feel and see where it has had the leg repaired and she's not a massive fan of anyone touching that leg. She also lost a litter she was carrying at the time and had to have a hysterectomy.

But if that vet had been our vet, he may well have suggested it wasn't worth trying to save her...statistically he may even have been right, and if my family couldn't have afforded it (as many would have been unable to, as it is my dad wasn't 100% convinced) it might have been very different.

LOAM · 4 Dec 2009 at 13:19

Christ, only the DailyFail could make a scandal out of a vet trying to keep an animal alive, if only the Vet was an immigrant or black then they could have made a real go of it.

what's next "Dentist filled my tooth because it was more expensive than pulling it out shocker!111!".

LizardKing · 4 Dec 2009 at 13:29

You can thank pet insurance for the massive increase in veterinary costs.

Wicksta · 4 Dec 2009 at 13:35

LizardKing said:
You can thank pet insurance for the massive increase in veterinary costs.

I think pet ownership should require mandatory insurance to be honest. If you can't afford the small payments then don't keep the animal.

EddScott · 4 Dec 2009 at 14:00

Wicksta said:
I think pet ownership should require mandatory insurance to be honest. If you can't afford the small payments then don't keep the animal.

The idea is good but in reality completely unworkable. And I'm not entirely sure I agree.

My father had insurance on a rabbit for his wife and they said the bill for that was something like £2K and it still died.

I've had numerous cats and have never had insurance. The last cat contracted FIV and the vet said about costs and I just said take a card and when that runs out I'll give you another. It was the vet that said its not in the cats best interest to continue so I had him put to sleep. £400 all in and no cat at the end of it.

At £20 per month, and he was 4 years old, the insurance would have cost me £960.

We've got 2 cats right now and I'm still undecided whether to insure them.

kylew · 4 Dec 2009 at 14:04

Wicksta said:
I think pet ownership should require mandatory insurance to be honest. If you can't afford the small payments then don't keep the animal.

It's something that'd be too hard to work.

What about a cat that has kittens?

It's something that couldn't really be policed.

On that note though, I do think dog licenses should be enforced, I know technically people do require a license to own a dog, but as far as I know, it's something that isn't enforced.

At least dogs of certain breeds anyway, ie, dangerous/known to be aggressive.

If my cat tried to be aggressive, the amount of damage he'd cause would be a few shallow skin grazes, whilst a lot of dogs can deal quite bad damage out.

fadetoblack · 4 Dec 2009 at 14:28

LizardKing said:
You can thank pet insurance for the massive increase in veterinary costs.

And also drug firms & lawyers

theukmoog · 4 Dec 2009 at 15:11

kylew said:
I know technically people do require a license to own a dog, but as far as I know, it's something that isn't enforced.

UK Dog licences were dropped years ago.

A quick google shows they were abolished in 1987...

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-006.pdf

LordSplodge · 4 Dec 2009 at 15:14

LizardKing said:
You can thank pet insurance for the massive increase in veterinary costs.

Yes and it right royally winds me up. We have three cats all too old to insure but even just to see the vet they charge a "consultant fee" and that's before they even treat your pet.

Rich_L · 4 Dec 2009 at 15:39

It's a free market remember, if there's money to be made, it will be made - morals or ethics don't come into it :cool:

fadetoblack · 4 Dec 2009 at 15:45

Rich_L said:
It's a free market remember, if there's money to be made, it will be made - morals or ethics don't come into it

B/S just today my wife asked me to ask anyone at work if they wanted a 3 leg dog ? If not the dog would have to put to sleep. The vets paid to remove it's leg and also put a bolt in it's other leg and no cost to the new owner : ) not all vets are money grabbers.