Article about vets in the Spectator

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 13 Feb 2018 18:10:22 GMT

[quote user="Julie Innes"]

Surprised the BVA got their knickers so much in a twist about it

[/quote]

Surprised the author got so worked up about it. Somebody writes an article, someone else writes that they didn't like it - get a life, feedback is like that, the author looks incredibly petty that someone dared disagree with them. Plus, calling it 'a joke' is the standard response when someone's hand has gotten slapped for writing something rude, so the second article makes her look even worse. (No, I didn't pay to read the article. Browsers are clever things. :) )

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Julie Innes — Tue, 13 Feb 2018 16:41:13 GMT

The more I think about it, the less I can be bothered getting annoyed about it. It's the same story we hear all the time from clients who have previously been to another vets and want to tell you how they didn't even mention... despite you having the clinical notes in front of you to say otherwise!

yawnage. Surprised the BVA got their knickers so much in a twist about it

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Lucy Fleming — Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:21:21 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Maybe vets are the new transgenders. Maybe vets are some scary-ass group of professional offence-taking powerbrokers I'm not going to bother to make humour out of."

(Lucy Fleming - that was the context of the transgender thing, BTW)

[/quote]

Yes....I'm not sure the context makes it any better. If anything it makes it worse. The use of the plural to group and dehumanise all transgender people (would anyone write an article nowadays referring to "the gays"?), as well as the insinuation that transgender people are "professional offence-taking powerbrokers" as insinuated by the juxtaposition of both sentences both seem quite transphobic to me. But perhaps I'm exercising my right to be a professional offence-taker (as Ms Kite is practicing her career as a professional offence-causer!)

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Anthony Todd — Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:48:26 GMT

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]I usually do look in the mouth of a coughing dog, but I often wonder why, it's very rare to see anything useful, I get far more information from taking a good history, auscultation, gently squeezing its trachea and checking its temperature.[/quote]

I always did, plus all of the above, and I agree often you see nothing significant but then just sometimes you get a pedunculated tonsil, or look up "tonsillitis in dogs" if you want; make sure you search images as well.

PS or even:

Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere. 2010;38(6):367-73.

[Tonsillar squamous cell carcinoma in the dog. A retrospective study of 33 cases].

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Thomas Johnson — Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:28:31 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

Er, like lifting the foot and palpating the tendon area, which was all I've ever been suggesting.

Maybe she did, maybe she didn't, but AS WRITTEN [sorry Arlo] she didn't, and IMHO didn't help herself as, or if, she didn't do that simple, obvious, value demonstrating, examination.

[/quote]

The article isn't written to give an accurate account of the episode, the article is written to give the maximum contrast between the vet the author liked and the one she didn't. If the article had clearly stated that the younger vet didn't lift the foot or palpate the area then it would be a different matter, what it says is, "Then she looked at the small swelling and made a face: ‘That is right on the suspensory.’" In this context looking could encompass picking up the leg and palpating around the area. Also she didn't recommend doing a nerve block straight away, she recommended 2 weeks of bute and box rest, and then consider doing a nerve block. The author then jumped the gun and called 1 week later to get the vet she liked to come and look at it. I often have conversations with owners where I recommend a conservative approach initially, but mention the need for further investigations if there isn't improvement over a particular period of time.

[quote user="Anthony Todd"][PS, this sort of thing is not uncommon; RSPCA program; dog with a "cough" and the vet didn't ever open the dog's mouth and look at the throat....][/quote]

This is an interesting one, I usually do look in the mouth of a coughing dog, but I often wonder why, it's very rare to see anything useful, I get far more information from taking a good history, auscultation, gently squeezing its trachea and checking its temperature.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Anthony Todd — Sat, 10 Feb 2018 06:07:46 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Or should the vet have demonstrated more, er, value?[/quote]

Er, like lifting the foot and palpating the tendon area, which was all I've ever been suggesting.

Maybe she did, maybe she didn't, but AS WRITTEN [sorry Arlo] she didn't, and IMHO didn't help herself as, or if, she didn't do that simple, obvious, value demonstrating, examination.

[PS, this sort of thing is not uncommon; RSPCA program; dog with a "cough" and the vet didn't ever open the dog's mouth and look at the throat....]

Oh no, sorry, maybe the vet did, and they cut that bit out of the video.....!

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

David Mills — Fri, 09 Feb 2018 20:46:05 GMT

I think Anthony Todd and Melissa Kite are the same person. She wrote a similar article about her dog having a lump off - what sounded like a bloods, fna, fluids set up vs a whip it off and histo with an older gent.

I subscribe to the Spectator and her columns are normally amusing and well observed. What no one has raised is that if that was her impression, is that her fault? Or should the vet have demonstrated more, er, value?

What a silly mess the clueless BVA has made of it. One gets the impression that veterinary political bodies are increasingly amateurish.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

vs0u — Fri, 09 Feb 2018 15:43:27 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]How do you think she would have reacted if the "younger vet" had actually examined the leg?[/quote]

She probably did examine the leg! The original article didn't reflect badly on the young vet in my view - it was pretty obviously just an anecdote (perhaps loosely based on a real experience but perhaps not) made up to help her grind her axe.

I thought the BVA letter was over defensive and not very honest. New grad vets don't usually have 'a wealth of practical experience' and are not 'incredibly knowledgeable'.

The letter appears to be saying 'all vets are always right and don't challenge them because they'll get stressed'. A better message would have been 'different vets have different approaches, if you aren't happy with their suggestion, communicate, and if you still aren't happy go to another vet and stop being so melodramatic'

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Thomas Johnson — Fri, 09 Feb 2018 14:26:53 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]For which, she got a response that talked about how she 'denigrated' and 'belittled' the younger vet, and about the stress faced by the profession. [/quote]

How do you think she would have reacted if the "younger vet" had actually examined the leg?

[/quote]

Will you please stop saying this, we don't know that the younger vet didn't examine the leg, you are denigrating a professional colleague without having all of the facts.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Alistair Graham-Evans — Fri, 09 Feb 2018 02:19:23 GMT

I think the Spectator article was an attempt at an entertaining story, rather than an accurate account of the veterinary visit. Perhaps it had a pinch of truth as the approach of a new graduate may differ from that of a more confident experienced old git. Both of these individuals are capable of mis-diagnosis - we are all fallable. Clients may favour a particular vet based on personality rather than an insight into their knowledge. That's life.

In my opinion this is best fended off with a dose of self-depreciating humour rather than intense navel - gazing and outrage. I read it, identified with the young and the old and moved on.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Anthony Todd — Thu, 08 Feb 2018 18:24:34 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]For which, she got a response that talked about how she 'denigrated' and 'belittled' the younger vet, and about the stress faced by the profession. [/quote]

How do you think she would have reacted if the "younger vet" had actually examined the leg?

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 08 Feb 2018 18:16:34 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]I thought it was fine.[/quote]

[quote user="David Mills"]Whilst their letter appears balanced to us[/quote]

Well, it would, woodenit!

The point is that she wrote a somewhat flippant article in the first place, but it wasn't, well, like it was saying vets are fraudsters, or something. She just drew attention to the fact that the new young vet had been quick to talk about a more expensive prognosis, whereas her wise-old-james-herriot-type had come back and advised a more conservative (cheaper approach).

For which, she got a response that talked about how she 'denigrated' and 'belittled' the younger vet, and about the stress faced by the profession.

Unfortunately, she then rang the BVA to be met with what she described as a sarcastic response to a question about how many vets had been offended by her article; writing in her piece that:

"If it's two vets with their pants on their head, I'm not worrying. But if it's 1000, I'm maybe going to think twice before I crack a joke about vets again because maybe it's not worth the hassle. Maybe vets are the new transgenders. Maybe vets are some scary-ass group of professional offence-taking powerbrokers I'm not going to bother to make humour out of."

(Lucy Fleming - that was the context of the transgender thing, BTW).

As I say, I think the moral of the story is that with columnists, better to take them out to lunch and/or win them over, rather than preaching to them (which is always going to be a red rag). Or just ignore them. In this case, given its the Spectator and given her track record, I'd probably go for the lunch option myself!

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Anthony Todd — Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:33:46 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]fuel, fire, pointless.[/quote]

[and that's me on here as well]

Somehow I managed to click on areas enough to get on her page and lo and behold there's a picture of a male hand etc examining a horses lower leg with the fetlock flexed in his hands.

The piece she wrote to accompany the picture was totally unrelated and even more irrelevant than her other ramblings, but at least she got the idea across [by accident I'm sure] that some vets sometimes can appear do the job properly, and even a photo to show it.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Wren — Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:30:25 GMT

The only bit of good news here is the pay wall. I have seen her response shared fairly widely on the internet and not one person who has commented has actually been able to view it, or interested enough to subscribe for that purpose.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

David Mills — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:58:17 GMT

One of the reasons not a member of the BVA. Whilst their letter appears balanced to us, fuel, fire, pointless.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Lucy Fleming — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:26:22 GMT

Transgenders? Transgenders? FFS. What an unpleasant bit of humanity she appears to be...

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Virginia Campbell — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 19:24:44 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

'fantastically pious', sanctimonious and hubristic.

I have a lot of sympathy for the BVA - in a previous career, I came a bit unstuck with the odd columnist, and I know how awful it feels.

That said, if I'm completely honest, the BVA response did read to me as a bit po-faced

[/quote]

I thought it was fine. I don't think it's hubristic to state that anyone who is registered as an MRCVS must have received a lot of training and know their stuff.

I don't subscribe to the Spectator but I think I can guess the gist of her second story by the title. Does it contain the words "snowflake" "millenial" and the suffix "brigade" by any chance? What a dose.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:41:02 GMT

Well, the BVA responded to the Spectator journalist, and it has backfired somewhat. She's written another story, this time about the BVA's response.

Unfortunately behind a paywall, but for any subscribers:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/are-vets-the-new-transgenders/

I can't share the article in full, but in short she describes the BVA letter (https://www.bva.co.uk/news-campaigns-and-policy/newsroom/news-releases/bva-upholds-the-skillset-of-vets-in-letter-to-spectator-columnist/) as 'fantastically pious', sanctimonious and hubristic.

I have a lot of sympathy for the BVA - in a previous career, I came a bit unstuck with the odd columnist, and I know how awful it feels.

That said, if I'm completely honest, the BVA response did read to me as a bit po-faced, and I'm not altogether surprised at the outcome.

Anyway, prize for the best answer in the thread goes to Evelyn Barbour-Hill

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"][quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]BVA responding with a letter to the editor. [/quote]Why?[/quote]

I think the best thing to do with columnists is either ignore them, or take them out to lunch (in the hope of winning them round / giving them a different perspective for the future). In this case, I think given her previous form pointed out by Clive Ansell, I'd have opted for the latter.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Andreas Ege — Sat, 16 Dec 2017 02:48:59 GMT

I personally wouldn't give a penny on an article like that. Or any other client's story without either having access to the clinical notes, the vets side of the story or, with some reservations, knowing the client very well.

I had it too often, that I was told what I, or a colleague, supposedly had done or not done, or said or not said, that certainly never had happened. And that's without the context of complaint or selling a story. I'd be surprised if that's not happened to everybody with a little bit of experience. And that's not necessarily because people are untruthful but how our minds and memories work - most of them will genuinely believe that that's what's happened. Then add a bit of drama and the wish to sell an article - et voila, there you got a bad vet, a good vet, and an innocent owner in between. Great stuff for a story.

I'd think reacting to that article publicly just gives it more publicity then it deserves.

In regards to diagnostics, my usual approach is to tell clients what we can do and what makes or doesn't make sense in my opinion at the given time (after I have examined the animal) and what is supposed to be "gold standard". For me, the measuring bar is whether the diagnostics will change, or at least have a realistic potential to change, what I'm doing.

Then the ball is in their court. And I get them all over, from the disappointing pu/pd cat where the owner doesn't want any diagnostics at all to the dog with a scratch on the head where the owner want's a CT scan in case there's some brain damage. I'm not speculating anymore whether the owner wants a full work up and complete diagnose or whether they just want symptomatic treatment and see what happens. It's their decision and I'm not gonna make it for them. (Yes, I know, if I tell them "that's what I would do if it were my animal" is in most cases making the decision, but the final yay or nay has to be theirs).

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Liz w — Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:04:32 GMT

I bet she would have been happier if Ms Kite had been unable to catch it at all, possibly allowing the boss to go back the next day.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Danny Chambers — Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:06:20 GMT

I would imagine the vet was very pleased to turn up and find that the horse was not in the stable/yard waiting for her but she had to traipse across the field hoping the owner could, in fact, catch the horse.

She's clearly a right battleaxe, sexist and ageist.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

grumpyoldman — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 15:49:15 GMT

Drivel surprised they are replying to it.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Liz w — Sat, 09 Dec 2017 12:02:01 GMT

Anyone else desperately hoping the boss sacks the client for this?

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Virginia Campbell — Fri, 08 Dec 2017 23:13:52 GMT

"Money for old rope" - I'll say. As a previous poster pointed out, appealing to the readership's confirmation bias sells, even if the articles are a rather dull whine-fest about the journalist's dissatisfaction with the minutiae of her life (Owning three horses and a dog and attending vets in a posh bit of London? How perfectly dreadful for you).

If "the young female vet" happens to lurk on vetsurgeon.org - Hi. With any luck that client will specifically request not to see you in future. Result. I hope you get some nice Christmas chocolates from your nice clients.

RE: Article about vets in the Spectator

Anthony Todd — Fri, 08 Dec 2017 21:51:40 GMT

I'm just thinking of the mischief the journo could have got up to describing the vet's inability to lift the foot of an uncontrolled geed up horse, so I reckon she didn't lift the foot, but we'll never know.

No matter, hopefully somewhere sometime soon a young vet will make sure he or she insists on always palpating the tendon area if symptoms described suggest it.