"Why I'm ashamed to be a vet" - Daily Mail

Watch this thread
steph_v
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-owners.html

This is, in my opinion, a completely atrocious and biased article in the Daily Mail today (no surprise there) about vets, written by a vet. Have a read and tell me what you think.

It is entirely subjective but he has written it in such a way that the general public may believe exactly what he says. I do believe, that sometimes, euthanasia is the best option, but there is nothing wrong with amputation or chemotherapy, granted the animal's quality of life is still good.

It made me quite angry, actually.

Edit: typo
0
reply
skatealexia
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
Its so stupid... literally saying near the end that all vets are money grabbers, and deliberate at that.
0
reply
Northern
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 12 years ago
#3
Firstly the daily mail is a crap paper and always produces drivel like this.
Secondly this is obviously an article trying to catch people's attention who are worried about their financial issues in the recession and just want to blame vets for treatment they see as expensive and now this article implies is unneccesary.
In all pretty crap and honestly the vet guy gives a very one sided view of vets and treatement he is talking about....if vets are so crap why is he one.
0
reply
foamyfruit
Badges: 9
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 12 years ago
#4
Ah clare rayner an ex nurse did a similar article about nurses, how we are all too educated, don't care or do the job properly..

Don't let it get to you!
0
reply
PaulaA
Badges: 0
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 12 years ago
#5
Sorry, i couldn't read it all. ALl I could think about was that greyhound he was talking about. I've had three greyhounds to date. S*** sorry gotta go somewhere to have a cry
0
reply
Rimipie
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 12 years ago
#6
i loves me some dailyfail
1
reply
Spinnerette
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 12 years ago
#7
Well this is coming from the paper that loves to write articles about how women should never have left the kitchen yet has a new article about someone falling out of their top or showing nipples every other week, what were you expecting?

Just take it with a pinch of salt any sane person won't take this as meaning all vets.
1
reply
Lil Piranha
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 12 years ago
#8
Hmmm tricky. Whilst I agree that euthanasia is not always the best answer, I have come across this kind of behaviour before. This time last year my labrador had a biopsy and investigation on a lump in his nasal canal / sinus. We told the vets explicity that if they thought it was anything sinister, then to just let him go as he was already very old and we didn't want to put him through extensive stressful treatment.

However they didn't, they sent the samples off and it came back as a particularly virulent form of cancer, which we had suspected all along. We ended up dragging the poor thing back and forth to Cambridge for a month to have scans (which revealed the tumour was right in his brain) and to have a course of radiotherapy.

This extended his life for 6 months, but he was obviously not happy. We would have rather the vets had just let him slip away when they were conducting the biopsy. It would have been the kindest option in the long run. It was pretty obvious that it was a severe tumour.

Having said that, we have had some fantastic vets in the past. But I think it would be a lie to say that the kind of behaviour outlined in the article never ever happens. Unfortunately you will always get unscrupulous people who abuse their authority and positions of trust.
0
reply
Jelkin
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 12 years ago
#9
I love the pomposity of his calling his book "On The Destiny Of Species". Hahaha.
0
reply
TheMeister
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 12 years ago
#10
You can't deny that some vets out there do this. It's the same in any profession.
0
reply
VL86
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 12 years ago
#11
That article makes me so mad. If he's so concerned about animal welfare, why did he not stick around in the profession trying to do something about it, rather than writing articles in national papers slating vets?
0
reply
Larry<3
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 12 years ago
#12
(Original post by steph_v)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-owners.html

This is, in my opinion, a completely atrocious and biased article in the Daily Mail today (no surprise there) about vets, written by a vet. Have a read and tell me what you think.

It is entirely subjective but he has written it in such a way that the general public may believe exactly what he says. I do believe, that sometimes, euthanasia is the best option, but there is nothing wrong with amputation or chemotherapy, granted the animal's quality of life is still good.

It made me quite angry, actually.

Edit: typo
If you want to be a vet...you go girl! :yeah:

Btw, I love the animals in the sig. :awesome:
0
reply
kookabura
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 12 years ago
#13
:mad: What a rubbish, biased, article.

Whilst, yes, he does sort of mention that he isn't saying "all" vets do this, basically the article will make most pet owners feel most vets are just in it for the money and that they all suggest treatment that is not needed etc. I'm sure there will be a small minority that do, but not to the level and frequency he leads people to believe.

There are too many things mentioned in there to go through and argue every point. But a couple of things, he is talking about extremes of treatment. I agree to a point, that it can be cruel to over treat animals beyond an appropriate level. But, there are a lot of options available, so why not explore other possible avenues before euthanasia. It should all be done within reasonable limits though. Not weeks and weeks of painful, difficult treatment just to extend the life of an animal by a couple of months. Equally though, if a short amount of discomfort could resolve a problem, why not try it?

My other annoyance is about insurance. Of course vets are more likely to prescribe things/do tests etc etc on an insured pet. If you have an animal with a illness, prescribe a medicine for it, why not run a blood test at the same time. The medicine may work - great - was the blood test that big an issue to do? If in a weeks time the medication hasnt worked, you already have blood test results (or whatever) to go on. But, if the owner is paying themselves, they are unlikely to want to pay for an expensive test 'just in case'.

Argh....this kind of article makes me so cross. Same as a tv programme a month or so ago, encouraging owners to shop around for the best deal, and keep changing vets - cheapest for vaccines, cheapest to spay etc. Really, really, biased and just making the owner-vet relationship bad.
0
reply
dennisthe3rd
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 12 years ago
#14
(Original post by Rimipie)
i loves me some dailyfail
ah yeah?
0
reply
Rimipie
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 12 years ago
#15
(Original post by dennisthe3rd)
ah yeah?
YEAH!
0
reply
Future African game vet
Badges: 11
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 12 years ago
#16
This article is one mans "opinion" on the veterinary profession.
He is correct in that there are some vets out there whos main intention is to make money- there are those sorts of people in every job all over the world, however it doesn't mean that all veterinary surgeons are like that.

He doesn't seem to take into account that, yes, ok whilst vets are using AI to allow bulldogs to breed when they quite obviously should be allowed to die out - the mess that they are- vets also have a duity to their clients. They are there to provide a public service as well as just treating the animals in their care, therefore this must be taken into consideration too.

People have their own minds- if the owners pay large sums to money in an attempt to better their animals lives -that is their choice- the vet is not stood there with a bolt gun to their head saying they must take that course of action and pay money. The role of the vet in a position where there are options as to what treatment to take is to assess the situation and chose the one most suitable for the individual patient WITH the owners input - so unless the vet has the owners consent it is very hard for them to be able to be "money grabbing" in the first place!
0
reply
samz56
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 12 years ago
#17
I read this article this morning, and it made me very angry :mad: this is giving a completely one-sided view of a profession of people of which the majority will do whatever they can in the animals best interests. It makes me so annoyed when people come out with things like this. Is it true for some vets? Yes it unfortunately is. Is true for all vets? No not at all. I do worry about the effect these sorts of article could potentially have on owners that believe every word the newspapers come out with.
0
reply
alegría
Badges: 0
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 12 years ago
#18
(Original post by Future African game vet)
This article is one mans "opinion" on the veterinary profession.
He is correct in that there are some vets out there whos main intention is to make money- there are those sorts of people in every job all over the world, however it doesn't mean that all veterinary surgeons are like that.

He doesn't seem to take into account that, yes, ok whilst vets are using AI to allow bulldogs to breed when they quite obviously should be allowed to die out - the mess that they are- vets also have a duity to their clients. They are there to provide a public service as well as just treating the animals in their care, therefore this must be taken into consideration too.

People have their own minds- if the owners pay large sums to money in an attempt to better their animals lives -that is their choice- the vet is not stood there with a bolt gun to their head saying they must take that course of action and pay money. The role of the vet in a position where there are options as to what treatment to take is to assess the situation and chose the one most suitable for the individual patient WITH the owners input - so unless the vet has the owners consent it is very hard for them to be able to be "money grabbing" in the first place!
Vets have a duty to protect animal welfare, not their clients.
If a vet has an ethical reason for not going with a clients wishes then they are entitled to stick with it. I wouldnt be having anything to do with breeding bulldogs- inseminating them or otherwise. If that makes me poorer so be it - but I think a lot of vets have the belief they have some kind of obligation to their clients- even if this goes against their own beliefs
0
reply
steph_v
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#19
I just think the worst thing is the effect this article could potentially have on pet owners.. I know he wasn't saying 'all vets' but the way he argued his case could easily sway people who know little about the profession. Terrible, terrible newspaper
0
reply
samz56
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 12 years ago
#20
I totally agree, this is the biggest concern, people are too easily influenced
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Sociology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (9)
23.08%
The paper was reasonable (18)
46.15%
Not feeling great about that exam... (7)
17.95%
It was TERRIBLE (5)
12.82%

Watched Threads

View All