Daily Mail vet-bashing again.

Re: Daily Mail vet-bashing again.

Clive Ansell — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:23:22 GMT

If there were genuine clinical or welfare reasons for euthanasia, then whether the vet knew about the bequest or not should have made no difference to their decision.

If it was a convenience euthanasia which I hope it was not, for example because not enough kennel room, that is a different matter, and I agree that the elderly widows wishes should have been respected.

Re: Daily Mail vet-bashing again.

Bob Russell — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:10:53 GMT

From the article it seems unlikely that the vet knew about the bequest so should not therefore have been influenced either way.

I do worry more about the possibility that rescues are choosing to euthanase older pets rather than make any real effort to re-home. If this was a factor and I was the elderly lady sitting up on a cloud I would not be wishing the charity well! But then I would probably be too busy taking my pet for a walk!

Re: Daily Mail vet-bashing again.

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:00:16 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]The decision to euthanase should be made by a veterinary surgeon on solely clinical and welfare grounds. The £100K bequest is a separate issue and irrelevant[/quote]

Not really. I imagine that the lady thought that the donation would allow the best care for the rest of the dogs life 'I express the hope they will look after him'. Maybe an elderly goldie with arthritis may not have ticked all the 'good dog to rehome' boxes, but I'm sure that the old lady intended that they money was to look after the old girl and any left went to the charity. I actually think it is sickening behaviour.

Many animals have been trapped for longer and their kidneys survive. I can honestly say that a dog's response to NSAIDS can take a couple of weeks to measure - I'd never give up after 24 hours. There are plenty of other drugs etc that could have been tried.

Re: Daily Mail vet-bashing again.

Clive Ansell — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:24:15 GMT

Agree with Bob. The decision to euthanase should be made by a veterinary surgeon on solely clinical and welfare grounds. The £100K bequest is a separate issue and irrelevant

Re: Daily Mail vet-bashing again.

Bob Russell — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:12:32 GMT

There is no link between the donation and the decision to euthanase so without knowing more about the condition of the pet it is difficult to judge fairly.

Sadly more and more of these charities are losing sight of their purpose and they are becoming money generating businesses rather than there to promote welfare.

This place seems to be taken by the smaller, local charities and these deserve our support. We have long-since removed any Dogs Trust, RSPCA collection boxes.

Re: Daily Mail vet-bashing again.

Lucy K — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:06:11 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

The top story sickened me. You'd think for 100K they could have made the old dog happy. If it was up to 'playing' with a policeman it can't have been that crippled.

[/quote]

There must have been more to it, surely. Either the vet wasn't told any history about the dog and just saw a pining, very arthritic golden retreiver or the dog was in far worse shape than the article makes him out to be. He went several days without water. I wonder how his kidney function was.

Re: Daily Mail vet-bashing again.

Michael Woodhouse — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:57:22 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

Yes, it seems charity bashing is their latest theme.

Also hot off the press. "Death sentence: Humane bolt guns, like the one pictured, are often used to kill pets" appalling journalism.

[/quote]

Clive - it's just the RSPCA that use captive bolt guns to kill pets

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6115690/RSPCA-puts-down-10-German-Shepherds-with-bolt-gun.html

The top story sickened me. You'd think for 100K they could have made the old dog happy. If it was up to 'playing' with a policeman it can't have been that crippled.

Re: Daily Mail vet-bashing again.

Neal Palk — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:02:42 GMT

I know it;s a 'topical topic' on here is respect of what the RCVS does/doesn't do, but some of these are crting out for a pro-active 'industry body' from whom comment would be sought and who would properly represent the profession?

This doesn't seem to be happening. Although a complete non-vet myself it does annoy me when people/groups carp on about medicine prices which are largely set by the pharma companies, yet the dispenser gets the brickbats. A 'proper' industry body would articulate this.............

Re: Daily Mail vet-bashing again.

Anne Seawright — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:16:07 GMT

And in the Telegraph "My pet insurance premiums rose by 40pc". Same old about vets prescribing most expensive drugs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/pet/9796798/My-pet-insurance-premiums-rose-by-40pc.html

Re: Daily Mail vet-bashing again.

Clive Ansell — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 10:22:12 GMT

Yes, it seems charity bashing is their latest theme.

Also hot off the press. "Death sentence: Humane bolt guns, like the one pictured, are often used to kill pets" appalling journalism.

Re: Daily Mail vet-bashing again.

Mark Hedberg — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 10:06:43 GMT

Looks like charity bashing rather than vet bashing.