ITV's Tonight programme broadcast last night portrayed a veterinary profession in which overcharging is commonplace.
Researchers for the programme took three healthy animals (a cat, a dog and a rabbit) to a number of different vets, telling them that the animals were off their food. The advice they were given varied. In the case of the rabbit from no treatment necessary, to dental work under general anaesthetic.
TV vet Marc Abraham then looked at each animal and told viewers that the correct advice in each case would have been the least expensive.
The programme also highlighted the substantial savings that pet owners can make by buying drugs online, and questioned whether the penalty meted out to a vet that had committed malpractice was sufficient (the vet had been struck off for 14 months, where presenter Jonathan Maitland argued it should have been for life).
Veterinary business consultant Mark Moran said: "So often, vets rely to a large degree on what owners are telling them, and the degree to which they insist the animal is ill, or off its food, will affect the advice and treatment given. Marc Abraham had the luxury of being presented three animals that he knew to be perfectly fit and well."
However he agreed wholeheartedly with the response from RCVS President Jill Nute this morning, that the thing both vets and pet owners need to learn from the programme is "the importance of communicating with each other".
Mark said: "It's a question of managing people's expectations. There'll always be a variance in the advice being given, but being up-front and open will help mitigate the risk of being accused of overcharging".
Click here to watch the programme. Click here to read the reactions to Marc Abrahams' blog
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
The whole programme got my back up from beginning to end. As has been rightly pointed out, client / patient history is the most singularly important factor in deciding the approach in treating or investigating a pets apparent ill health.
We did not see how the animals were presented to the vets in question. If i was presented with an owner claiming there pet had been off food for several days and yet appeared bright in themselves i would be a fool to dismiss this as nothing to worry about and even more likely to be hauled up in front of the RCVS if the pet had subsequently developed serious morbidity or indeed died.
I am certainly not the first to throw the textbook at everything that walks in, but as more clients are demanding a better standard of care this does involve better work up. what is the point in medical advances if we are to be hand tied to using them only when all else fails.
The reponse to the questioning by the RCVS on the programme was unsurprisingly limp wristed and gave the profession i hold dear very little support.
Owning a pet is a privilege NOT a right, and as such people need to be prepared for the emotion and financial burden of ownership. We are not the NHS. We are a private profession no different to private health care and we should charge in an appropriate manner.
We have pet insurance for a reason and every pet Owner in todays climate should take this opportunity. Insurance companies will always whinge that we are overcharging / over treating / over investigating because by the nature of the beast they don't like coughing up. Animal health care plans are likely to have more claims per life time than say humans, simply because we are not subject to the life style of the average pet. the majority of the population do not crash through undergrowth, chew on bits of dead god knows what, eat socks and knickers for the hell of it, or jump from fence to roof top to get a good sun bathing position.
I could go on. But for gods sake. As a profession we need to grow a spine and stand up when confronted in this way.