Has anyone seen this article in the Daily Mail?

"Why I'm ashamed to be a vet: a shocking exposé of the profession that puts pets through 'painful and unnecessary treatments to fleece their trusting owners"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-owners.html

From the article.... It is not unheard of for vets to Google a pet owner's home to see which area the family live in. Big house in a posh road - well, you can offer more treatment to that pet owner, of course. I never witnessed this in my practice, but I heard of it happening. Charge more for your services so a vaccination that costs a few pence becomes a £35 'consultation'. And that isn't all.......

I'd like to say that I'm shocked...but I'm not Its disgusting. I hope that my vet isn't one of these people.

I watched a programme on TV a few months ago where vets were speaking up about the atrocities that go on in some practices and the unecessary amounts of money we get charged for equally unecessary treatments, dogs staying overnight (sometimes for several nights running around in their home not in the surgery on a drip) with 'ficticious' non-existing treatments that get charged to the owners!!!

Also the constant push in trying to sell things at vets, which they never used to do! My vets is like a pet shop with all sorts of food, toothbrushes, grooming stuff etc etc etc whereas it used to be a 'surgery' when I first started going to it 20 years ago!!!!

My friend in the West Country has an old school vet who doesn't charge 'consultation' fees at all and his jabs are about £16 and he said anything over £3 is profit for them!!!! My dogs ones were £56 each!!!!!! Some vets have big flashy Jags and top notch premises others have a 'functional surgery' and an 'ordinary' estate car....

Thanks for the link MrsRobinson.

I think all of us caring pet owners would think twice before subjecting our much-loved animals to prolonged & painful treatments, with no guarantee of success, whether covered by insurance or not.

The lesson to be learned is that we should go to the vets armed with questions, not be fobbed off with explanations that we don't understand & be prepared to to our own research, or ask for a second opinion. Any vet that pressurises a client into doing something that we have doubts about or do not fully understand, is not acting in the best interests of either the owner or the animal. Surely if the vet genuinely has the animal's welfare at heart, he/she should be prepared & able to discuss options in layman's terms, with the owner.

A "good" vet should take notice of what owners tell them about their animals ~ the owners know their pet's behaviour best & even if an owner is not eloquent enough or able to explain their doubts & feelings to the vet, most vets should recognise this & deal with it through questioning the owner & observing the animal.

But from a vet's point of view ~ how many have to see an animal in distress but are unable to do the "right thing" because the owner cannot bear the thought of losing a beloved pet?

Wilhemina, how often have people had "insurance" discussions on here? When I got my last dog and took it for a £56 jab my vets gave me loads of info about insurance and almost made me feel guilty for not taking it out, especially when I really read up about it, to find that lots of stuff isn't covered by insurance!!!!

One of my dogs is having an operation next week on her eye and I never had the courage to ask my vet how much it would cost and neither did she give a clue about the cost!!!

An old dog of ours that had a spleen op a couple of years ago cost almost £600 for the op and the dog Was £450 to buy 8 years before!!!! I know it's probably a big op, but £600!!!! They probably presumed we had insurance because some insurance companies have said that vets charges have gone up 4+ fold in the past 3 or 4 years and they will know what various vets in different parts of the country charge for treatments!!!


The article says:: These days, pet insurance is pushed as a 'necessity'. Sit in any vet's surgery and you are left in no doubt as you survey the dozens of adverts for it that 'good' owners have it while 'bad' owners do not. 'However you look at it, pet insurance is simply a licence to print money'

So unsurprisingly, the average middle-class family feels more comfortable having this insurance. They have medical insurance for their children, so it's only natural that they want the same for their family dog or cat. Insurance for a pet dog or cat costs on average from £60 to £250 a year. Worryingly, if you have pet insurance you can be sure your vet is more likely to offer your pet treatments - because your vet knows you won't be paying so you can afford it.

But, however you look at it, insurance is simply a licence to print money. Unfortunately, the only creatures insurance helps are vets. If you are a loving owner you will not want to put your pet through cruel, lengthy and costly procedures.

And as this is all insurers cover - they do not provide for any useful essentials such as neutering, vaccinations or teeth cleaning - there is no point to them.


I know that not all vets are 'greedy' but re this article, I do think there's no smoke without fire!!

To me this is a typical Daily Mail 'sensation' story. The vet has 'heard' of homeowners premises being googled but not seen it - probably a myth, but the fact he includes it makes me suspicious of some of his other claims.

I completely agree with the point about extreme feline and canine breeding programmes, but that is in general not the fault of vets - they may benefit from the fact that pedigrees need additional vet care, but it is the breeders who are to blame - and the people who buy the animals.

I find his comment "if you are a loving owner you will not want to put your pet through cruel lengthy and costly procedures and as that is all insurers cover ... there is no point to them" utterly astonishing. One of my cats was run over when he was a year old and broke his hip, knee and pelvis. The cost of his surgery and aftercare was over £1000 and was covered by insurance - should I have not 'put him through it'? He made a complete recovery and lived happily for many more years.

I have never ever had a vet who behaved in the way he describes re the greyhound with cancer. When my own cat had lymphoma last year my vet actually told me that chemotherapy would be distressing and only lengthen his life by a few months, and advised me against it, and supported my decision to have him PTS. Most vets are not, in my experience, grasping charlatans - and it is fairly easy to spot ones that are and avoid them. But vets are running a business not a charity so it is perfectly reasonable that they make a profit.

And I completely agree with wilhemina's point about vets wanting to 'do the right thing' and have an animal PTS and being prevented by an owner. My own mother is a serial offender in that regard and has had to be ordered by the vet to stop treatment and let the animal go.

I've never visited a vet that has "pushed" insurance at me. Yes they've asked if we've got insurance but in a life-threatening situation I would find the money anyway, whether insured or not. And I would never continue with a vet that I felt was using emotional blackmail to push certain treatment options on me. I've got a brain & a voice & I have no qualms about asking questions, however silly they may seem to the vet. That's what they're there for!

Whenever one of my pets has needed expensive treatment my vet always provides an estimated breakdown of the costs (without me having to ask) with the proviso that the actual bill could change depending on what treatment is required. I don't think comparing how much you paid for your dog has any relevance to the cost of treatment that that dog might require during it's lifetime. One of my moggies had to have £2,000 treatment for a leg operation ~ I paid £50 for the cat from the CPL!! Even if I'd paid thousands for a prize Bengal stud cat, the cost of the cat wouldn't even enter into the equation if one of my pets was ill.

I'm under no illusions as to what is & what isn't covered by pet insurance so I know full well that annual vaccinations, teeth cleaning, neutering etc etc are not covered & I budget accordingly. It is part of the costs of having a pet, the same as long term chronic illnesses that may cost £25 a week in medication which adds to a lot of money over the animal's lifetime. These things happen & if you have a pet, then you are responsible for the costs of ensuring that it is well looked after & kept pain-free & healthy. Insurance, for me, is for those very unlucky accidents & illnesses where treatment can be very expensive, plus 3rd party cover in case the dogs cause accidents/damage.

To a certain extent isn't it up to all of us (vets included) to develop a mutually beneficial & trusting relationship between vet & client? If you find that your vet can't/won't explain options, costs & treatments to you in a way you can understand, then find another vet!

I think it is very sad that there may be unscrupulous vets around that "prey" on peoples' devotion to their pets & view their profession as nothing more than a profit-making machine. But the best way to put these vets out of business to to go to another vet!

I read somewhere a while back that some time ago vets started to charge domestic pet owners more to treat our beloved pets and made it cheaper for farmers because in some cases farmers were not calling vets to treat some sick animals because their fees were more than the value of the animals.... but that a dog or cat owner is hardly likely to ignore their pet's health, whatever it costs, whereas farmers generally may have let the animal suffer or shoot it and bury/burn it (so I read)!

I've heard this too & I think it was in the TV programme that you'd referred to earlier. But there's nothing to stop us pet owners shopping around to get the cheapest vaccination/neutering costs.

Just goes to show what a bargain you get when you adopt a rescue dog/cat which is already vaccinated, chipped, neutered and any ongoing illnesses identifed & treated!

I have a tremendous vet.
He has never ever mentioned insurance. I pay £28 per year for his booster injection and worming treatment

In the last 4 years my dog has required treatment 4 times and have never felt fleeced by him.

I have heard of the charges made by other vets in our area and am quite horrified.

Skimmed the article earlier and will read again & comment properly, but on first impressions if he was as bad a vet as he is a writer, I'm glad he is no longer practicing. No references, no statistics, nothing to back up his claims, entirely anecdotal, sensationalist, popularist. The one sided opinion of a former vet with only 8 years under his belt. Even if he does have a point, it is hard to take seriously.

I won't be buying the book he is promoting.

I have always checked out my vets before mine need any sort of emergency procedures - taking them in for visits even when well (gets dogs used to seeing nurses ect too). If you frequent the surgery when you are calm and rational you get to judge whether the vets are any good or will be charging like a bull etc. Nothing betters a bit of home work before you need their services.

Whilst I have disagreed on occasions with the vets we use we always find they do their best by our pets.

Totally agree with you molliepops. I also take both dogs to the vets even if only one needs to see the vet. Plus I pop in now & again to check their weight ~ all helps Wilma get over her anxiety about strangers plus I am not stressed, worried etc.

I've not been in a position where I've fundamentally disagreed with a vet over treatment options or whether to euthanase or not, but I have taken my pets to another vet when I've not been happy with the way the vet handled my animals. This is nothing to do with the costs of treatment, the need for treatment or the diagnosis. It was simply that the vet's methods & skills in handling my pets was not to my liking. It made both the animals (one cat, one dog) very scared, necessitating muzzling, rough handling & unnecessary pain/stress to the animal. However I liked the practice generally so I just moved to the premises slightly further away. There the vets are both male & female, the surgery is much bigger & less cramped & the vets there have been very adept, kind & understanding in handling nervous animals.

One potential problem could be that however much you & your animals trust & like your vet, there may come a time when you need to see a locum vet ~ someone you don't know & doesn't know you or your pets. I've been lucky in that the one locum I've seen with Barney was fantastic ~ kind, caring, took a lot of trouble explaining treatment options & clearly made a great effort in putting both dogs at ease & making the visit a pleasurable experience.

But do spare a thought for the "good" vets ~ there are plenty out there who see their profession as a vocation, have the welfare of the animals foremost & treat their human clients as well as they treat the pets. It would be wrong to taint the whole profession with the financial greed of a few.

Completely agree with Stress Monkey's post above. I'm glad he's not my vet - or indeed anyone's vet any longer - some of the points he makes are barely coherent.

At the moment I have two cats insured and one not insured (because she is elderly so premiums are prohibitive) and the three of them are treated exactly the same by my vet, insurance is never mentioned during a consult.

One thing I DO have issues with is dental cleaning - I think a lot of vets over-treat; yet this vet mentions this as a routine necessity, which I completely disagree with.

(Re the comment about farmers letting their animals suffer - you get good and bad in all professions; our local farmer takes supreme care of his sheep and cattle.)

I must be lucky, my vet is really good. I went in last week for my puppy's second vaccination and I asked how much micro chipping was, thought I'd get it done while I was there, the vet told me it was £24 in surgery, but the dog warden does it for free, and the local PDSA do it for £14, he even gave me the dog wardens number.

Same when I got my older dog neutered, vet said to call the dog warden and he'd give me a voucher for some cash off the op. He's given me many free samples of frontline, drontal etc too.

Without doubt there are some shocking vets out there, as I'm sure there are shocking members of every profession, thankfully they're not all bad.

Insurance is not a payment plan!
It is a gamble, the insurance company bets you'll pay more than you'll claim, you bet you'll claim more than you pay.
Of course routine and elective treatments aren't covered, any more than car insurance or AA breakdown cover covers the cost of servicing or MOTs, both essentials, or house insurance covers routine maintainance!
The people who profit most from insurance are not the owner or the vet but the commercail insurance company, or they would no longer offer it!
As for offering treatments for insured animals knowing the owner won't be paying, several excesses operate on a % basis so yes, often the total bill does affect how much the owner pays.
Private vets, as opposed to charities, are precisely that, private medicine.
What does the purchase price of a dog have to do with the cost of the operation?! Does it cost the vet any less, or take any less time or skill to do a spleen operation on an ex-rescue mutt than a pure-bred pedigree?
What do you suppose a private human spleen operation would cost? I expect it would be very much more than £600!
It is not that owners without insurance are bad owners, but owners who take on pets without properly budgetting to care for them that are bad owners (in some cases), pets are a priviledge, not a right.
People need to either put sufficient funds aside to pay for treatment, or to pay insurance premiums albeit people's circumstances can unexpectedly change throughout an animal's lifetime and the charities are a godsend in those circumstances.
I find it astonishing that the article's writer's answer to many situations seems to be to put the animal to sleep! Each case needs to be considered individually and the owner can them make an informed choice having been given the appropriate information for different options.
As others have said this article is poorly written, very poorly researched and deliberately sensationalist to help promote and sell a book.
An alternative angle to fleece trusting pet owners maybe?

It is surprising that this vet could not find a single veterinary practice with ethics he found acceptable, yet almost every poster on this thread has expressed very positive opinions about their own vet. I suspect the writer may be hoping for a lucrative media career, and the fact he chose to give his story to the Daily Mail, the home of constant outrage, tells its own story.

I also wonder how he thinks this is at all helpful to the animals he is so concerned about - the only thing it is likely to achieve is that people reading the article may be reluctant to take their pet to the vet, which in itself could result in unnecessary suffering.

We have a fantastic surgery down my road and the staff are all lovely and helpful.

I had to get my Impossible Princess' eye sorted out this week and it cost 38 pounds for consulation,eye exam and antibiotic cream. It was money well spent as I presume it also goes towards the heating,the staff and the phone bill as well as get the scales mended.

Something I expected with my vet, when I had to make the agonising decison to put my old dog down.
I should never have had to make the decison, be advised of my choices yes, make the final decision, but not the ultimate decison.
Keeping a sick dog going when there is no cure just bide time and especially not before discussing costs of that treatment with the owner is wrong. I was insured (well dog was), but not once did I know the costs involved until I got to that card machine.

Even when I took my 2 year old cat in for her booster jab last month. I was told she had slight build up of tarter on her teeth and surprise, surprise they were at time doing a special offer on teeth cleaning involving aneseptic!!

Well done to this young man standing up and speaking out.
I don't feel so bad now about my dog, as I have never forgive myself ,all the the what if's?

I have heard that also. I have a horse and vets are quitting treating livestock, as there is more money to be gained from smaller domesticated animals!

I distrust those vet chain establishments. Slick and money grabbing - all sorts of tests and procedures that turn up nothing but cost the earth. The vets in these places all talk in exactly the same way and say the same things, practically word for word - so they are obviously being trained that way. I get no feeling that they give a toss about the animals. I sometimes think that because they know you have insurance, they pile the work on and put our pets through unnecessary and distressing procedures, all in the name of profit.
I much prefer to visit the local vet - two man practice and straight as a dye.

I think it's a little ironic that here is a guy who has failed in his calling as a vet, and left his profession, possibly (probably?) because he could not sustain his practice on the basis of his views on cost and ethics, and now he earns a pretty penny by writing books and articles decrying those who are successful and skilful in their services to pet owners.

And even more ironic that people buy into this garbage.

Our vets are part of the Vet Doctor organisation, we were worried at first but we have only met one vet out of about 15 who was any thing less than great, she is much more into the money making than the others but easy enough to ask to see one of the other vets. We notice when she is on duty the surgery is heaving on one side where the other vet works and almost empty on her side, so people are voting with their custom. One of the nurses told me this vet will not be renewing her contract which means we can influence who works in the bigger organisations even more than the two man surgeries.

And just to balance things up here's a story about a caring vet:

I was in the waiting room with my dogs waiting for their annual boosters & the receptionist apologised for the delay & said the vet was running about 10 mins late. She then went on to say (rather indiscreetly) that the vet was with a client who could talk for Britain, was a bit dirty & left a horrible smell in the surgery!

After a few more minutes, the surgery door opened & the vet & his client (an elderly, scruffy & unkempt man) came out & we were soon all surounded by an awful BO smell. As soon as the client & his cat had left, the receptionist got out the air freshener & started moaning to the vet about why they should refuse to let the client in the surgery, that he needs a good scrub & what is the point of advising clients to deflea their pets when they'll probably catch more fleas from that old man!!! The vet just stalked back into the surgery & called me in.

The vet then apologised for the smell & for the receptionist's behaviour & started to clean down the table. He said that the elderly gentleman had no-one else in his life & that the cat means everything to him. He could not afford vet fees or the transport costs to go to the PDSA. This gentleman had really interesting tales to tell & had travelled the world with the Merchant Navy in his younger days & the vet said he could listen to him for hours. He was an extremely caring owner & the vet practice had decided that they they would continue to help & support this gentleman with his cat & waive their fees. The practice staff were making a collection amongst themselves to buy him a Xmas hamper.

I was so impressed that the vets had taken the time & trouble to get to know this gentleman & his circumstances & had overlooked his rather unkempt appearance & poor personal hygiene, that I offered there & then to donate £5 towards his hamper. Things like this restore my faith in human nature.

I know what you mean.... we had an old dog that we rescued a while back and cared for him until he was PTS long after he should have (long story) - even though my husband told the vets that he wondered if it wasn't kinder to have him PTS after several treatments/ops/procedures/tests costing a fortune, as he no longer wanted to go walks as he was struggling at times.... they still kept going and taking our money (not insured) and the week before we finally had him PTS a sample of a lump was snet to the labs and they must have known there was no hope!!!

I know that not all vets are greedy but regarding the article, I believe there is no smoke without fire! The good old-fashioned 'traditional' vet in a village/country practice has to be the most personal/caring person for our pets.... and sadly we moved miles away from our lovely old vet who didn't charge a £30 consultancy fee (and a follow up £26 fee.. not forgetting the VAT) like we now have.... and we now have one of these multi-vet chains who have surgeries in several nearby towns and are happy to take our money!