Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:12:41 GMT

Maybe

Wynne

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:03:10 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Your nurse and I would get on!

At this particular minute, so would you and I

[/quote]Yeah but we would have killed each other long ago!

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 15:47:36 GMT

Your nurse and I would get on!

At this particular minute, so would you and I

Wynne

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 15:05:13 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"] I asked my friend how much this cost the NHS once- she's an obs&gynae reg or whatever the level is called now. She didn't know, had never been asked and my impression was that she thought it an amusing but pointless question with no relevance to her work.[/quote]That is an interesting, possibly even commendable philosophy but one which can only promote the climate of ignorance of the true cost of things.

It is more enlightening to look at a private health care bill. The surgeon's and anaesthetist's fees are usually the most reasonable things on it until you realise that each is equal to our total bill. Its the hospital charges drugs and dressings that seem outrageous. Of course our fees include all of that.

My head nurse gives it to them straight when clients complain and says; 'do you think it goes straight into his pocket? Who do think pays me and for all this you see around you. And how do you think your employer pays your wages? Oh, of course, your a welfare scrounger, so as well as subsidising your pet's treatment we're paying you from our income tax'.

OK maybe not the third sentence but I have actually said something similar to some scrounging underclass individual who expected free treatment.

When you're dead, you don't realise your dead, only other people do. You could say the same about being stupid.

(edited)

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Virginia Campbell — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:32:12 GMT

Good to know. I asked my friend how much this cost the NHS once- she's an obs&gynae reg or whatever the level is called now. She didn't know, had never been asked and my impression was that she thought it an amusing but pointless question with no relevance to her work.

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

patrick murphy — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:52:57 GMT

£6200

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:26:12 GMT

Tell them to phone the nearest private hospital for a quote for a hysterectomy.

Wynne

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

svn — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 22:25:14 GMT

I had a casual acquaintance moaning at me yesterday that they had been quoted £180 for their 6 year old bitch to undergo an OVH. They soon shut up when I pointed out that OVH is major abdominal surgery, and that £180 is probably barely covering costs as it includes an experienced Surgeon and a RVN present throughout the procedure, and another RVN covering ward/recovery, an up to date theatre with capnography, bair hugger, all the emergency drugs etc on standby, 'gold standard' practice with regards fully gowning up and multimodal analgesia, including a further opioid shot 6 hours post premed and discharged with NSAIDs and a buster collar. Oh and periop IVFT too.

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:33:37 GMT

If only the NHS was scrapped, the public would find out what expensive healthcare really meant - or doctors would have a huge reality check.

Wynne

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

J G Wray — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:15:23 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"] but of course "so expensive". It seems to be some sort of deeply ingrained received wisdom handed down through the generations that vets are "so expensive" backed up with a lot of confirmation bias (get charged £300, write about it; get given a compassionate/welfare discount for a stray or something- no story). Still, I'd rather people think we're expensive but good than cheap but a bit rubbish.[/quote]

No. This is what the survey said:

Levels of satisfaction with veterinary services are high

–

78% are satisfied or very

satisfied with the service they receive from vets

Levels of trust in the veterinary profession are also high

–

94% trust the veterinary

profession ‘generally’ or ‘completely’

70% of the general public rate their vet positively for value for money

–

however,

this leaves almost a third of respondents rating this poor or very poor

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Virginia Campbell — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:05:58 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Yawn, tomorrows chip paper and all that. Public trust in the veterinary profession - 94%[/quote]

<Sigh> I suppose you're right. Public perception seems to be that most of us are decent sorts who are quite good at our jobs and do care about animals, but of course "so expensive". It seems to be some sort of deeply ingrained received wisdom handed down through the generations that vets are "so expensive" backed up with a lot of confirmation bias (get charged £300, write about it; get given a compassionate/welfare discount for a stray or something- no story). Still, I'd rather people think we're expensive but good than cheap but a bit rubbish.

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

J G Wray — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:52:08 GMT

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"]Janice Turner in the Times , another snide piece of lazy writing from a journalist who resented paying £300 for a consult, blood samples , antibiotics and prescription diet for her cat and decides to use column space to complain. Disappointed that the editor did not discard it but I assume the readers enjoy kicking the profession too or they wouldn't print [/quote]

Yawn, tomorrows chip paper and all that. Public trust in the veterinary profession - 94%

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:51:50 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Unlikely the Times would do anything much, even if BVA did respond.

More effective would be an immediate comment under the story.

[/quote]I would consider an angry of Tunbridge Wells type letter to the editor but even if it was printed (unlikely) it would have one of two impacts. Those who are of the same mind as the journalist would think we were just trying to justify the excessive charges with a 'well they would say that wouldn't they'. Or those who know its a load of tosh and think the same way as we do. Either way it would achieve nothing other than make the uncommitted think we're a bunch of wingers.

The irony is that I bet Janice Turner earns a damn sight more than any of us.

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:37:31 GMT

Hear hear

Wynne

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Virginia Campbell — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:33:58 GMT

My heart sinks a bit when I see these. The cat had "lain inert for 2 days" according to the owner so the empirical therapy ship was leaving port - I do strongly encourage bloods in these ones that haven't improved by themselves to rule out renal failure and diabetes...as Wynne said, you don't want to be the person to give steroids to something that's starting a DKA crisis, and several times I've ended up ringing the owner when I have results in hand to ask them to bring the cat back for fluids if they are more azotemic than their clinical hydration status suggested was likely.

These cats always provide an opportunity for "guess the amount of recent weight loss" - last recorded weight was when it was castrated years ago and you have to rely on the guess of somebody who is willing to leave a cat lying inert for 2 days.

There is also usually an opportunity for playing "guess how much the multiple resorptive lesions are contributing to the anorexia" and if your guess is "significantly" then you get to play "pick an effective analgesic that won't depress appetite or hammer already compromised liver or kidneys" and bonus round "try to convince the owner to pay for extractions once the dehydration is corrected and concurrent problems are under control".

Judging from the history in this case, my diagnosis is that the cat was suffering from "just a cat" syndrome, which is worse and more prevalent than "just a dog" syndrome but not as bad as the endemic "just a rabbit" syndrome.

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Dagmar Steele — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:02:58 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

But you don't offer a plethora of tests with costs and ask the owner which tests, or how much they cost.

[/quote]

Even if I've turned into a cynic over the years I'm still trying to work with, not against the owner. So if money is an issue I do give options, the best option is having all the necessary tests done at once. If they can't afford that we discuss which test is most likely leading to a diagnosis and therefore should be done first. So, yeah, I do offer tests and costs and stuff. And sometimes I don't need any tests at all. Surprisingly (just said as an aside) this mostly occurs in patients where the owner seems really disappointed that no further tests are needed and is reluctant to believe that you can make a diagnosis after looking at their dog for merely ten seconds. Oh well, you just can't win I'm afraid.

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Dagmar Steele — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:54:35 GMT

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"]

Would you be brave enough to upgrade to Dagmar 10 ;) risky

[/quote]

Given the retirement politics of my government I might have to ;-) At least I'll see another twenty years in practice I guess :-(

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:22:51 GMT

Diolch

Wynne

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

David Mills — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:01:29 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Back in pre-mobile days that was easily done - the kiosk smelled of what has just spoiled Arlo's bed - the phone had been vandalised - at that point you started tearing your hair out.

Wynne

[/quote]

Dduw bendithia y Gymraeg

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:56:26 GMT

Back in pre-mobile days that was easily done - the kiosk smelled of what has just spoiled Arlo's bed - the phone had been vandalised - at that point you started tearing your hair out.

Wynne

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:50:08 GMT

I think we are all saying the same thing aren't we ??

Examine the animal throughly , advise the clients to allow the necessary test for us to do our job properly resulting in the best outcome for their pet and without them accusing us of ripping them off.

Sometimes I think people on this list can start a fight in a telephone box on their own

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Anthony Todd — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:46:20 GMT

[quote user="Dagmar Steele"] As long as I don't know what's wrong with the animal I will need further tests to find out.[/quote]

Exactly, as you say!

But you don't offer a plethora of tests with costs and ask the owner which tests, or how much they cost.

You give the reasons why they are essential which has nothing to do with cost as far as you are concerned.

Sometimes you actually don't suggest any tests at all, and even then, make the correct diagnosis!

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:44:23 GMT

[quote user="Dagmar Steele"]

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

And what would have been written if the tests hadn't been offered, but the cat just given the standard cocktail of antibiotic and steroid, and the reason it was unwell is it was diabetic?

Wynne

[/quote]

Exactly. As long as I don't know what's wrong with the animal I will need further tests to find out. I don't have a crystal ball (and those who do don't ask that one for free either!) so informed consent mainly means "If you don't want to pay for tests until we find out what's wrong with Fluffy the only thing we can do is guess and that can go horribly wrong". If they're fine with that and sign it, so be it. And I'm no mod vet, being 26 years qualified and will have used my fingers, ears, eyes and nose before saying I need further tests to know what's wrong. But I don't have the x-ray eyes yet, they only come with Dagmar 7.1 which I haven't been upgraded to so far unfortunately.

[/quote]I agree entirely Dagmar although you have phrased it better than I . Diagnosis is far more accurate with the all the diagnostic aids we have nowadays and clients need to know that vet fees have increased overall not because we are rip off merchants but because there is so much more we can do than twenty years ago , and it has to be paid for.

Would you be brave enough to upgrade to Dagmar 10 ;) risky

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Anthony Todd — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:15:20 GMT

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"]I don't agree Anthony and I am far from being a mod vet. The choice is the owners and the vet is there to provide the options, the benefits and explain the costs.[/quote]

You sort of make my case for me....

There are usually no options in order to make a diagnosis or, at worst the options are essentials.

The benefits are the essentials to get a diagnosis.

Similarly the treatment depends largely, with some exceptions, on the above.

And the costs are incidental but these days often in the owners mind are both the options and the essentials.

But these days the options are all essentials but the diagnosis is dependent on what the owner is prepared to pay.

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"]If this owner had said "thanks for offering bloods and prescription diets but I have decided that I do not to spend any money on my cat " then that is their choice and responsibility. In this case she wanted to make the vet the money grabbing villain[/quote]

But that's because of the lack of "art", for want of a better word. The reasons for "offering bloods" was to get a diagnosis because....., and the reason to offer the prescription diet was because it was part of best treatment.

[I realise that the hack may well have had the supervet approach but from the many posts on here the emphasis and "art" is usually as I describe]

There should be no "offering" of anything until the end of the process not at the beginning and I bet no dinovet did the former.

Watch supervet, and I'm not a total fan, but he is a master at explaining the reasons for what he wants to do and the reasons why it should be done; cost is never mentioned.

It's not a wine-list!

He never gives a menu of procedures, processes, treatments and cost; owners aren't competent to make those decisions, er, except the cost.....

Then you go on to explain the "art" very well, but then you say you are a dinovet.....

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"] I could go on but I will spare you my evangelical zeal about the art of being a first opinion vet [/quote]

RE: Another lazy vet bashing piece of journalism

Dagmar Steele — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:27:23 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

And what would have been written if the tests hadn't been offered, but the cat just given the standard cocktail of antibiotic and steroid, and the reason it was unwell is it was diabetic?

Wynne

[/quote]