This is no joke

Re: This is no joke

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 03:44:15 GMT

Rachel, PM me or Mark.

The Olympics? Whassamatter, did you get arrested for going within 100 yards of the torch wearing trainers that bore a brand name other than Adidas?

Re: This is no joke

Rachel Perry — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:32:30 GMT

Sorry for the tardy delay in joining in. Blame holidays and the Olympics. Well, what are we going to do? Evelyn/Mark? If it is the RSPCA or Trading Standards then perhaps a BVDA drafted letter to the RSPCA?

Re: This is no joke

Luke Edwards — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:39:22 GMT

The above posts all contain some good points.

Unfortunately because there are people who will rasp teeth without sedation because they have no choice (ie. non-vets), we come under commercial pressure to do the same.

Also a proportion of equine clients would rather see the vet injured than pay for sedation. Some clients have admitted this to me, others insinuated it when they request " a strong male vet to do his teeth - not one of the girl vets who had to sedate him last year". Guess who gets to go on that call...

I often find that if a previously complient horse starts to play up half way through a dental then it is a certain sign that I doing something/touching something painful and I need to reassess the situation.

To get back to the original subject of the thread - I am well aware that my patients hate or fear me. I am also aware that a lot of what I do causes my patients pain or distress. I like to think that most of what I do is in their long term interest and I do try to minimise the pain/distress. The author of the video seems totally unaware of the fact that she is causing distress to her patients and makes no effort to minimise it - that is the difference between her and us.

Luke

Re: This is no joke

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:26:27 GMT

I always sedate my own horses before rasping , which I always do manually-harder work, but there is some evidence of increased tooth root abcessation associated with mechanical rasping

Legally the veterinary surgeon is responsible for the safety of all parties-both 2 and 4 legged-so we have the legal authority to insist on sedation

Unfortuneately far too many veterinary surgeons go down the route of always pleasing owners instead of exerting professional authority

Wynne

Re: This is no joke

Tim Cheyne — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 05:38:56 GMT

It is not solely a question of pain though; many (most?) horses do not like being restrained and equipment placed in their mouths. Tranquillisation/sedation today has become so easy and safe that it is used for many equine procedures and it is silly and unsafe (for all parties) to ignore it.

Tim.

Re: This is no joke

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:10:39 GMT

[quote user="Luke Edwards"] In the UK we have not been very good at encouraging our horse owners to accept sedation as a routine part of equine dentistry.[/quote]

Partly because we have too many unqualified "equine dentists" () running around, sometimes with the tacit encouragement of complaisant veterinary surgeons.

Re: This is no joke

Luke Edwards — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:58:27 GMT

Glen,

As a new graduate I had a keen interest in equine dentistry. Sixteen years and hundreds of uncooperative patients later, I now have a pathological hatred of equine dentistry. Many horses will allow non sedated rasping but it does not take very much uncooperative behaviour to turn a rasping into a poor quality job which is painful for everybody involved.

Many of the leading lights in the equine dentistry world have abandoned manual rasping altogether and use motorised equipment on every patient after giving sedation.

There are some indivduals (mainly non-veterinary EDTs) who claim that the latest types of motorised burrs cause less discomfort to the horse than manual rasping and can be used in unsedated horses- this is not widely accepted or encouraged, but there certainly are some people successfully using modern motorised equipment in unsedated horses.

When I attended a BEVA/BVDA equine dentistry course, I remember the American guest lecturers stating that they would refuse to work on a horse that the owner did not want sedated. This was fifteen years ago. In the UK we have not been very good at encouraging our horse owners to accept sedation as a routine part of equine dentistry.

Regards,

Luke.

Re: This is no joke

Glenn Hodgson — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:04:44 GMT

[quote user="Mark Rowland"][quote user="Glenn Hodgson"]

[quote user="Mark Rowland"][quote user="Rob Davis"]

[quote user="MeeraM"]

Agree - outrageous video.

I notice that Vedra Stanley-Spatcher (suspected provider of the video footage?) and the founder of the Cambridge Cavy Trust, is not MRCVS registered, yet has "30yrs experience diagnosing and treating guinea pigs (and rodents in general)". Also advertising dental workshops and critical care tuition courses - the one qualification required to attend is that you're over 16

[/quote]

I spoke to Vedra S-S many years ago when I was presented with a GP which had been to see her for conscious dental treatment. I tried to explain to her why she should not be doing this. She did not receive my advice well.... I believe that she has been reported to the RCVS on several occasions, but that there is the usual response that this is outside of their remit as she is not a veterinary surgeon...

[/quote] Rediculous really. If I were to not pay my fees but still practice, I would not be a MRCVS but am pretty sure the RCVS would persue a prosecution even though I was no longer a member. The crux here is the fact that conscious molar dentals on these creatures is allowed. This is an issue in which we have to lead by example. If the practice was stopped and a vs was not allowed to carry out corrective molar dentistry on exotic small mammals and could be prosecuted, the practice by the lay person would have to stop. It is the vets who carry out conscious molar dentals who are giving ammunition to these idiots who have no love of vets and carry out these blatantly barbaric practices. It really is time this stopped. The video provides a perfect example of how barbaric the practice is and should be seen as an example of why the practice should end.

[/quote]

I have read this thread with interest and agree that ticavrio's actions were appalling to say the least, one would hope out of ignorance.

The thread has also led me to question, but not yet change, my own opinions on consious molar burring guinea pigs and rabbits. Conscious molar dentals are something I do consider acceptable ONLY when performed professionally and ONLY in the appropriate patients with certain pathologies. (I make clear, very different from the "dental" featured earlier)

The case I use as to illustrate is my mother in laws rabbit, a very important wee fella!

He suffers from chronic, very thin lateral enamel points which traumatise his buccal mucosa. In spite of appropriate husbandry they require attention regularly. The technique I use involves 3 people, the patient (standing) and a lot of expensive pneumatic equipment. One nurse holds the incisor gag and supports his head, while the other supports his body. It generally takes 3 minutes to check his teeth and burr the very thin enamel points.

I believe that this IS a stressful procedure. I am however of the opinion that the stress, and other associated risks, are outweighed by the avoidance of sedative/GA. He would be due in excess of 40 if he lived to an average age.

The thought of the my own views being used by the likes of" ticavrio's." as ammunition is unappealing, but I agree possible. I welcome input/debate on views regarding conscious molar dentals.

Of note, one of my more common soap box subjects features clients bringing me very ill guinea pigs when they have not recovered from their illness (usually dental disease) on on cocktails of over the counter/internet medications and the 0.1ml dreg of "antibiotic" that their friend had left over from 2008!

Kind regards

[/quote] And yet I have a 9 year old rabbit with thoracic neoplasia and renal compromise on my books they recieves regular dental work under anaesthesia with no pain and no distress. I'm quite happy to give you the case history if you don't believe me ;-)

[/quote]

I think you had better otherwise i would have to assume you are makeing that up!

Seriously though. I would welcome experience/input re your favoured anaesthetic protocol for a molar burr in otherwise healthy rabbits/g.pig's. In most cases anaesthesia is obligatory and I am continually striving to maximise safety.

Luke "You could try and do the equivalent level of "corrective dentistry" in a horse without sedation.

I suspect you will only do the once...."

I worked in mixed practice prior to focusing on companion and was a massive fan of not being crippled by my patients and vice versa. I have also euthanased a VERY valuable horse shortly after a third party first put a rasp in her mouth for training purposes. She kicked a brick wall and was left with a open comminuted cannon fracture, that was not a good day!

In equine dentistry I applied roughly the same principles, with (in my opinion) appropriate patient/pathology, I would perform non-sedated rasping. I agree with you generally though, in most situations/horses/ponies sedation is invaluable. For interests sake, do you use sedation during all horse dental work? You likely perform more molar rasping/burring than I in a week, although we are moveing into a different species here I think your opinions would be valuble.

Kind regards

Re: This is no joke

Lorna McHardy — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:21:59 GMT

[quote user="Mark Rowland"]

And yet I have a 9 year old rabbit with thoracic neoplasia and renal compromise on my books they recieves regular dental work under anaesthesia with no pain and no distress. I'm quite happy to give you the case history if you don't believe me ;-)

[/quote]

I'd be more interested in your GA protocols, myself :0)

On the subject of conscious dentals, I haven't done one involving back teeth for years, either in rabbits or guinea pigs. Not because I'm worried about the GA (I am, but that's not the point) but because I'm worried about irreparably damaging the patient and/or hurting it rather a lot when it wriggles at the wrong moment. I don't like doing front teeth conscious either; and certainly not with clippers.

But as a locum, I do find it difficult to deal with the ones that have been coming if for six years to have their rabbit's front teeth clipped. Try explaining to them (or the boss), why that is actually a really bad idea and what you'd really like to do for this rabbit, is remove those incisors :0(. And just refusing to do it seems a cop-out as well. Oh well.

Re: This is no joke

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:42:36 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]nothing preventing Belgravia House from facilitating and promoting an investigation, or otherwise using their office resources. For instance, they could write successively sterner polite letters to Vedra, pointing out that she was both acting illegally and causing suffering[/quote]

There is a whole raft of things that they COULD do but I for one would resent my retention fee being spent on such an activity. Where would it end with several thousand members each putting pressure on RCVS to go off at their own favourite tangent? If this is illegal then a simple telephone report to the RSPCA by any one of the vets expressing their (quite appropriate) displeasure at what they are seeing would prompt the RSPCA into action. Furthermore, if that same vet were to offer their services as an expert witness in support of any RSPCA prosecution then such a prosecution would be more likely to stick.

[/quote]

No tangents involved. Just the straightforward enforcement of the Veterinary Surgeons Act. All we ask is that our Royal College might "use its good offices" as we say, to put a little pressure upon perpetrators and to draw matters persistently to the attention of Trading Standards and similar agencies. No great expense there.

But Belgravia House have said they ain't gonna, so I am not going to mention RCVS again in this thread.

With regard to the AWA offence, the problem with the RSPCA is that it is private yet it has achieved virtually a monopoly. If they don't pursue a prosecution, nobody does.

Re: This is no joke

Malcolm Ness — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:18:52 GMT

Re: This is no joke

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 09:32:11 GMT

I'm totally with David and against Michealand Plantaganet on this one Without the RSPCA there would be hardly any welfare prosecutions If you ever phone the police about a welfare case they'll just tell you to phone the RSPCA-although they have a statutory duty to investigate all reported crime-and we're paying hard earned taxes to enable them to do so

Wynne

Re: This is no joke

Mark Rowland — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 09:10:35 GMT

[quote user="Glenn Hodgson"]

[quote user="Mark Rowland"][quote user="Rob Davis"]

[quote user="MeeraM"]

Agree - outrageous video.

[/quote]

I have read this thread with interest and agree that ticavrio's actions were appalling to say the least, one would hope out of ignorance.

The case I use as to illustrate is my mother in laws rabbit, a very important wee fella!

The thought of the my own views being used by the likes of" ticavrio's." as ammunition is unappealing, but I agree possible. I welcome input/debate on views regarding conscious molar dentals.

Kind regards

Re: This is no joke

plantagenet — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:10:01 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"] RSPCA spend over £10m on prosecutions each year and in general we should be bloody glad they are there in this function. I am not defending other areas of their operation, but to tar them with this wilfully cynical brushstroke comments as above is crass, ungrateful and ill-informed.[/quote]

I think the combined experience of many of the vets on this forum over the decades of the RSPCA's actions and inactions would make Michael's comments are pretty near the mark. They can be useful and some of the inspectors are great but I personally would much rather a charity - with its own ends, objectives and dogmas, were not the main force for prosecution.

Re: This is no joke

Luke Edwards — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:35:19 GMT

You could try and do the equivalent level of "corrective dentistry" in a horse without sedation.

I suspect you will only do the once....

Re: This is no joke

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:27:34 GMT

[quote user="Glenn Hodgson"]

[/quote]

A perfect illustration of why the procedure is one for a veterinary surgeon only.

(And, incidentally, enamel is not a sensitive tissue. But that's not very relevant when the enamel is attached to dentine, which is a sensitive tissue, forming a tooth which is fixed in sensitive tissue and inside a mouth which is full of sensitive tissue.)

Re: This is no joke

Glenn Hodgson — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:07:35 GMT

[quote user="Mark Rowland"][quote user="Rob Davis"]

[quote user="MeeraM"]

Agree - outrageous video.

[/quote]

I have read this thread with interest and agree that ticavrio's actions were appalling to say the least, one would hope out of ignorance.

The case I use as to illustrate is my mother in laws rabbit, a very important wee fella!

The thought of the my own views being used by the likes of" ticavrio's." as ammunition is unappealing, but I agree possible. I welcome input/debate on views regarding conscious molar dentals.

Kind regards

Re: This is no joke

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:40:49 GMT

Randomly wondered whether as they seem to be a registered charity whether the Charity Commission may help. They want to know about:

serious criminality and/or illegal activity within or involving a charity (including fraud and money laundering)
charities set up for an illegal or improper purpose

Now when you search for their number you'll see she's not especially compliant with her paperwork (some paperwork is 1355 days overdue)

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=801103&SubsidiaryNumber=0

Re: This is no joke

Utlendigur — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:02:42 GMT

Oops, Sorry, was trying (and failing) to inject a little humour. Mea culpa.

Re: This is no joke

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:31:06 GMT

I don't want this to yurn into the familiar Belgravia-House-bashing thread. The current inhabitants have made it clear they can't be bothered. Let's have more thoughts on what we actually can do.

Re: This is no joke

Utlendigur — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:21:05 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]All of which they are well suited and equipped to do at little expense.[/quote]

I was with you until that point This is the same RCVS that spent God knows how much on an IT system, and don't mention the register of veterinary practices

Re: This is no joke

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:12:27 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

My understanding was trading standards are the prosecuting authority for the AWA.

The RSPCA are just a private charity that have a habit of getting a little above their station.

[/quote]

In practice if there is a cruelty aspect the police or trading standards will usually recruit RSPCA to lead the investigation and prosecution. It is certainly outside the authority of RCVS no matter how outraged our Mr and Mrs Angry Vets might get themselves.

[/quote]

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (savour those words) was well established long long before it was given the duty of regulating veterinary surgeons. Its other functions were not removed by the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act. Belgravia House also has pretensions to being the premier source of information upon animal health and welfare, or something like that. It may not have the resources or authority to lead an investigation or prosecution, but there is nothing preventing Belgravia House from facilitating and promoting an investigation, or otherwise using their office resources. For instance, they could write successively sterner polite letters to Vedra, pointing out that she was both acting illegally and causing suffering. Belgravia House could lay information before the relevant Trading Standards Authority instead of leaving it to individuals, could inform the TSA authoritatively of the provisions of the VSA and the AWA (of which the TSA may well be ignorant) and could keep politely prodding the TSA (progress-chasing, it's usually called). All of which they are well suited and equipped to do at little expense.

Re: This is no joke

David Mills — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:11:09 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

The RSPCA are just a private charity that have a habit of getting a little above their station.

[/quote]

This is needless. Without the RSPCA, prosecutions under AWA would fall to a trickle, or perhaps none. Although not protected in law, they are the main prosecuting body for any AWA breach and prosecutions are normally referred to them from the police and other people. Trading standards tend to deal with farmers, depending on area, largely because they are producers and so their product production should meet certain standards, and do so under WoFAR more than AWA. RSPCA spend over £10m on prosecutions each year and in general we should be bloody glad they are there in this function. I am not defending other areas of their operation, but to tar them with this wilfully cynical brushstroke comments as above is crass, ungrateful and ill-informed.

Re: This is no joke

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:00:25 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

My understanding was trading standards are the prosecuting authority for the AWA.

The RSPCA are just a private charity that have a habit of getting a little above their station.

[/quote]

Re: This is no joke

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:55:35 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]The RSPCA is the appropriate prosecuting authority and anyone that feels strongly enough should report it to them.[/quote]

My understanding was trading standards are the prosecuting authority for the AWA.

The RSPCA are just a private charity that have a habit of getting a little above their station.