Ashamed to be a vet - article by former veterinary surgeon

meoklmrk91

The greyhound's soulful eyes seemed to plead with me to help him. His thin tail tucked between his legs, he stood still with fear on the examination table as the posse of fellow veterinary students listened to the chief lecturer.

Aged 12, he had bone cancer in a hind leg and it was advanced, we were told. Looking at the dog, I imagined he'd had a good life. Obviously, from the condition of his brushed coat, and his muscled body, he had an owner who knew how to care for him.

As a student vet who in a year was to graduate to work in my own practice, I knew what I would recommend if I were this dog's owner - and that was a loving and peaceful death.

But putting the greyhound to sleep and out of his misery was not the correct answer, the lecturer told me quite sternly.

A humane death would not be the course of treatment offered to its owner. Well, at any rate, not yet. After all, didn't I realise the advances that had been made in veterinary medicine? There were 'options' that could extend this old dog's life.

No, instead, its leg was going to be amputated and then a course of chemotherapy would be tried to ensure that 'all was done to save the dog's life' - at a cost of £1,000 to £2,000, or even more.

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

What do you all think of this? While I don't personally think that I have ever had an unnecessary treatment on any of my animals, I have heard some stories of people who go to far to try and hold on to their dog when they should have already made the decision, in most cases though the vet seems to be the advocate for letting them go when the time comes. Of course there are a few cowboys around, there are in every profession, but this article makes it seem like many vets are far more concerned with their bottom lines as opposed to the welfare of the animals they are treating.

I personally don't agree with his view on crate rest, does that mean if a six month old puppy is better off being out to sleep if it has a serious break rather than a few weeks of crate rest which will often lead to a healthy, happy, full life. Also don't agreed with his take on pet insurance. I am very conflicted by this article.

Capercaille

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

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

What do you all think of this? While I don't personally think that I have ever had an unnecessary treatment on any of my animals, I have heard some stories of people who go to far to try and hold on to their dog when they should have already made the decision, in most cases though the vet seems to be the advocate for letting them go when the time comes. Of course there are a few cowboys around, there are in every profession, but this article makes it seem like many vets are far more concerned with their bottom lines as opposed to the welfare of the animals they are treating.

I personally don't agree with his view on crate rest, does that mean if a six month old puppy is better off being out to sleep if it has a serious break rather than a few weeks of crate rest which will often lead to a healthy, happy, full life. Also don't agreed with his take on pet insurance. I am very conflicted by this article.

Bullshít article from a rublish tabloid.

Ave Sodalis

I think that the article itself is quite one sided. He seems to think it's all or nothing for majority of cases (i.e put down or do nothing) and I agree, in some cases there are procedures done when they didn't have to be and in some cases, animals are not put down when it is best that they are... but I highly doubt that majority of vets do this.
I also believe (strongly) that putting an animal down should only be done as a last resort and when any other option would, in the long term, deteriorate the standard of life for the animal. For example, a young dog with cancer, I would find, worth treating. A horse who badly broke its leg, wouldn't as its life will be worse.

I find it outrageous that, given their role, any vet criticises Cruft's for exhibiting these dog breeds. After all, it is the vets themselves who have aided and abetted these atrocities.

Um... isn't this exactly what the author goes on to do?

Bullseye1

You will find its not only applicable to pets but to humans too. Doctors have become slaves to the pharmaceutical industry. Of course it's not across he board with both vets and doctors. But like any profession if money can be made from the misfortune of others you will always have the odd number who will attempt to benefit from it. If your a vet I would not feel ashamed at all. Why should you be painted with the one brush.

Outkast_IRE

Whilst I don't put much stock in such articles I have seen people shell out thousands on treatments on old dogs which never come right again.

Things such as chemo on dogs which are so old they never fully recover and seem to me quite miserable through the treatment etc. Dogs which are fully blind and partially deaf or fully deaf, and the owner refuses to put them out of their misery.

Every case is different, but there are situations where owners need to accept that putting down the dog is the better option.

Vojera

I have a massive problem with this part of the article:

Small animals such as guinea pigs and rabbits should be put to sleep if they present with an illness that can't be easily rectified with a dose of antibiotics.

Now, I have a soft spot for smallies (and I have 13 guinea pigs at the moment, so consider me biased if you like), but that sentence says to me that he doesn't consider a small animal worth saving; rather, it implies he thinks they're disposable.

I love my pigs. I'd do anything for them. I've made the hard decision to have them put to sleep. I've made the hard decision not to treat their illnesses and bring them home for whatever time they have left. I've made the hard decision to put them through surgery and had them survive to have happy and healthy lives for years after. The idea that just because a course of antibiotics doesn't clear something up (and what a narrow set of circumstances - what if their illness isn't caused by a bacterial infection?), I'm supposed to just give up on them and have them put down disgusts me.

I would never put any of my pets through needless treatment. I'm very fortunate to have a fantastic vet who always puts the animal first. He's always been completely honest about my pets' chances, and he hasn't been wrong yet. He's all about quality of life, and has recommended not treating several of my pets in instances where he could have made himself a fair bit of money by doing surgery. He has never made my piggies feel less worthy than a dog or cat in the way that the guy in this article has.

I totally agree with sup_dude, there seems to be a bit of all-or-nothing-ness in his attitude. It's not always as black and white as "the treatment is easy, let's do it, or the treatment is hard, let's put him to sleep". I'm sure there are vets out there who are only in it for the money, but I'm sure there are a lot of pushy owners who put their own wants before the welfare of their animals too. Some people refuse to let go and it's a tough position for a vet who recommends putting an animal down only for the owner to insist that's not happening and there's more to be done. I don't think the blame can be lain solely on one side in cases like that.

boomerang

Typical rant from the Daily Mail - I wouldn't take a blind bit of notice.

I have done work experience in many different vets and have yet to have the experience where an animal was given un-necessary treatment for the sake of profit. Not once.

anniehoo

Such a ridiculous article i don't even know where to start.The whole thing is just so inaccurate I'd be here all day quoting what was wrong with it.

No vet would think chemo is a waste of time if it's going to prolong the animals life and by stating "the animal is hooked up to drips for weeks on end" is just plain ridiculous and not even true. Anyone who's been through chemo with their pet knows it is nowhere near as traumatic for an animal as it is for humans, often just involving a quick(ish) injection or a tablet. There's a gazillion other bits in it i'd like to quote....but it's the Daily Mail, so everyone should know to take it with a pinch of salt.

westies4ever

once I saw it was the daily mail I didn't even bother reading. scaremongering rubbish from what you're all saying.