Any pet care professionals out there - past or present?
Discussion
Is this just pure cynicism or is there any truth in that two or three large corporations not only fundamentally control vets’ practices, but also the recommended regime of (dry) food, vaccinations, flea treatment and worming etc, much of which can actually be quite detrimental to our pets’ health and well-being, in order to generate themselves more business and profit?
Frequently, these are tied up in a seemingly benign, pet-friendly insurance plan - which must be a real money-spinner anyway - but if and when your pet does then become ill, means you’ll be going back for additional treatments at more cost, as well.
(Because of this duopoly (triopoly?), the charges for a consultation and / or treatments seems to have become incredibly expensive or, again, is this a fallacy and have costs merely gone up like everything else?).
Does anyone have knowledge and experience of more natural, maybe holistic treatments which avoid harsh chemicals? eg I was informed that the flea treatment we are encouraged to put on our pets regularly is the same insecticidal chemical farmers spray on fields and can itself lead to health issues.
Genuinely interested to hear from present or past employees with experience in the field to comment - and I don’t really expect a binary answer - but we’re advised of the above by an involved person with a genuine medical background: we are expecting a new puppy to join the family soon and want to do the right thing for her as we have just had our much-loved dog put to sleep at 9 years, due to health issues, having followed all of the industry recommendations.
Frequently, these are tied up in a seemingly benign, pet-friendly insurance plan - which must be a real money-spinner anyway - but if and when your pet does then become ill, means you’ll be going back for additional treatments at more cost, as well.
(Because of this duopoly (triopoly?), the charges for a consultation and / or treatments seems to have become incredibly expensive or, again, is this a fallacy and have costs merely gone up like everything else?).
Does anyone have knowledge and experience of more natural, maybe holistic treatments which avoid harsh chemicals? eg I was informed that the flea treatment we are encouraged to put on our pets regularly is the same insecticidal chemical farmers spray on fields and can itself lead to health issues.
Genuinely interested to hear from present or past employees with experience in the field to comment - and I don’t really expect a binary answer - but we’re advised of the above by an involved person with a genuine medical background: we are expecting a new puppy to join the family soon and want to do the right thing for her as we have just had our much-loved dog put to sleep at 9 years, due to health issues, having followed all of the industry recommendations.
Owning a dog can be very expensive, my daughters friend's dog is now in to £50,000 worth of treatment, insured of course, bitten by a snake to start with, had to spend a fortnight staying at the vets @£150 a day and then treatment on top of that.
Then had breathing problems(French Bulldog), lastly some kind of spinal damage, and that's the one to bring the price up.
The cynic in a lot of people with pets is 'vets know how to charge when insurance is paying'.
The old time vets would never charge to put a dog to sleep, It's around £80 now I believe.
Local independent vets around here have spent around £2million on a new animal hospital with a human grade scanner among other things, someones got to pay for it and the top of the range 4x4s the partners drive.
Then had breathing problems(French Bulldog), lastly some kind of spinal damage, and that's the one to bring the price up.
The cynic in a lot of people with pets is 'vets know how to charge when insurance is paying'.
The old time vets would never charge to put a dog to sleep, It's around £80 now I believe.
Local independent vets around here have spent around £2million on a new animal hospital with a human grade scanner among other things, someones got to pay for it and the top of the range 4x4s the partners drive.
BreakingBad said:
Is this just pure cynicism or is there any truth in that two or three large corporations not only fundamentally control vets’ practices, but also the recommended regime of (dry) food, vaccinations, flea treatment and worming etc, much of which can actually be quite detrimental to our pets’ health and well-being, in order to generate themselves more business and profit?
Frequently, these are tied up in a seemingly benign, pet-friendly insurance plan - which must be a real money-spinner anyway - but if and when your pet does then become ill, means you’ll be going back for additional treatments at more cost, as well.
Quite possibly but no-one forces you to buy pet insurance or monthly 'plans'. I have neither, and wouldn't give my cat medication unless it needed it.Frequently, these are tied up in a seemingly benign, pet-friendly insurance plan - which must be a real money-spinner anyway - but if and when your pet does then become ill, means you’ll be going back for additional treatments at more cost, as well.
Perhaps you could invest in these corporations, and use any dividends to pay the vets' bills...?
BreakingBad said:
Does anyone have knowledge and experience of more natural, maybe holistic treatments which avoid harsh chemicals? eg I was informed that the flea treatment we are encouraged to put on our pets regularly is the same insecticidal chemical farmers spray on fields and can itself lead to health issues.
If you want to kill insects you need an insecticide. Just treat them with respect and only use when necessary. Phrases like 'harsh chemicals' aren't really helpful.Edited by Simpo Two on Saturday 17th June 15:05
I am not a pet care professional but have owned animals (14 dogs, 17 rabbits and 9 guinea pigs) for more than 30 years so have plenty of exposure to veterinary care.
I'd be interested to know who these 'two or three large corporations' are?
And what this means 'these are tied up in a seemingly benign, pet-friendly insurance plan'. Do you mean insurance or do you mean the treatment plans that some vets offer? They are two different things.
I'd be interested to know who these 'two or three large corporations' are?
And what this means 'these are tied up in a seemingly benign, pet-friendly insurance plan'. Do you mean insurance or do you mean the treatment plans that some vets offer? They are two different things.
netherfield said:
The cynic in a lot of people with pets is 'vets know how to charge when insurance is paying'.
Funny you say that as my folks have a miniature schnauzer who had a problem with one of her legs that required an operation.The op went OK and the total vet bill was £4000.
Their insurance was with Tesco and the policy had a max of £4000 per claim.
Probably just a coincidence.
In year 2 my dog needed an operation that cost £3.75k give or take and was insured for £6k. Right at the end of year 2 a second operation cost £4.5k and the insurerers paid £1.5k. A total claim of £5.25 k. They tried to pass the claim on to year 3's policy saying I only had a few quid left available for year 3. I had to press them that the claim was made just within the end of year 2. Therefore clarifying that I have a fresh £6k for year 3.
Thanks, all, for those replies and, to make it clear, I am really just testing some information I was given.
Moorx, I don’t want to “name names” (and suffer any potential consequences for doing so), but if you do a little search on the subject, a couple of well-known corporations do come up frequently. It does seem a bit paranoid, I know, but it does somehow resonate with our experience which I can’t just put down to the pain of losing our little dog.
Also, apologies if I was unclear but I was referring to the care plans promoted and operated by vets’ practices rather than the pet insurance schemes.
On that point, for the puppy, we will definitely be looking to get pet insurance with cover that doesn’t diminish if and when a claim has to be made on it: Our dog had a couple of lumps and bumps when she was younger and the vet recommended that they be removed and given a biopsy. We used the pet insurance to help pay for the procedure and they didn’t find anything serious but any future claims for anything similar or connected were then excluded. I do get the insurer’s perspective on “pre-existing conditions” but from the owners’ point of view, if your pet is unfortunately susceptible to a certain condition which may recur, you really want the insurance to keep them protected, especially as the associated treatment costs can be several thousands of Pounds, as per examples posted above.
Moorx, I don’t want to “name names” (and suffer any potential consequences for doing so), but if you do a little search on the subject, a couple of well-known corporations do come up frequently. It does seem a bit paranoid, I know, but it does somehow resonate with our experience which I can’t just put down to the pain of losing our little dog.
Also, apologies if I was unclear but I was referring to the care plans promoted and operated by vets’ practices rather than the pet insurance schemes.
On that point, for the puppy, we will definitely be looking to get pet insurance with cover that doesn’t diminish if and when a claim has to be made on it: Our dog had a couple of lumps and bumps when she was younger and the vet recommended that they be removed and given a biopsy. We used the pet insurance to help pay for the procedure and they didn’t find anything serious but any future claims for anything similar or connected were then excluded. I do get the insurer’s perspective on “pre-existing conditions” but from the owners’ point of view, if your pet is unfortunately susceptible to a certain condition which may recur, you really want the insurance to keep them protected, especially as the associated treatment costs can be several thousands of Pounds, as per examples posted above.
BreakingBad said:
Thanks, all, for those replies and, to make it clear, I am really just testing some information I was given.
Moorx, I don’t want to “name names” (and suffer any potential consequences for doing so), but if you do a little search on the subject, a couple of well-known corporations do come up frequently. It does seem a bit paranoid, I know, but it does somehow resonate with our experience which I can’t just put down to the pain of losing our little dog.
Also, apologies if I was unclear but I was referring to the care plans promoted and operated by vets’ practices rather than the pet insurance schemes.
On that point, for the puppy, we will definitely be looking to get pet insurance with cover that doesn’t diminish if and when a claim has to be made on it: Our dog had a couple of lumps and bumps when she was younger and the vet recommended that they be removed and given a biopsy. We used the pet insurance to help pay for the procedure and they didn’t find anything serious but any future claims for anything similar or connected were then excluded. I do get the insurer’s perspective on “pre-existing conditions” but from the owners’ point of view, if your pet is unfortunately susceptible to a certain condition which may recur, you really want the insurance to keep them protected, especially as the associated treatment costs can be several thousands of Pounds, as per examples posted above.
In which case, you need to look for 'for life' insurance policies. We have one with Petplan for one of our dogs and had them with the same provider for two of our previous dogs - they covered chronic conditions as well as acute illnesses/injuries. Moorx, I don’t want to “name names” (and suffer any potential consequences for doing so), but if you do a little search on the subject, a couple of well-known corporations do come up frequently. It does seem a bit paranoid, I know, but it does somehow resonate with our experience which I can’t just put down to the pain of losing our little dog.
Also, apologies if I was unclear but I was referring to the care plans promoted and operated by vets’ practices rather than the pet insurance schemes.
On that point, for the puppy, we will definitely be looking to get pet insurance with cover that doesn’t diminish if and when a claim has to be made on it: Our dog had a couple of lumps and bumps when she was younger and the vet recommended that they be removed and given a biopsy. We used the pet insurance to help pay for the procedure and they didn’t find anything serious but any future claims for anything similar or connected were then excluded. I do get the insurer’s perspective on “pre-existing conditions” but from the owners’ point of view, if your pet is unfortunately susceptible to a certain condition which may recur, you really want the insurance to keep them protected, especially as the associated treatment costs can be several thousands of Pounds, as per examples posted above.
Hi,
All treatments recommended by vets are in you pets interest. We have a regulatory body (RCVS) that would look down on anything other than that.
There are corporate entities that have bought out a large proportion of veterinary practices across the UK. IVC, Medivet, CVS, Vet Partners.
There are however still ‘independent’ vets about.
I have worked for both, there are pros and cons to both. They are business’ at the end of the day and they all exist to make a profit. Also - why can’t we drive nice cars?! - we are highly trained professionals who should be fairly compensated for our work. If it was easy there would be lots of people undercutting etc but there isn’t, it’s bloody hard to set up on your own.
Vaccines - essential, the reason we don’t see some of the vaccinated for diseases is because they have nearly been vaccinated out of the population.
Flea and wormer - generally needed (in certain circumstances needed less bit it’s very hard to Taylor every animals individual risk so usually a general approach is used). Many people like covering their animals in all sorts of mystery ‘holistic’ treatments that are toxic… also loony things like feeding rabbit ears ti worm their dog…
All in all, there are lots of people who think they know better - vets will always put the animals first and animal welfare is their top priority. We are nice people!
All treatments recommended by vets are in you pets interest. We have a regulatory body (RCVS) that would look down on anything other than that.
There are corporate entities that have bought out a large proportion of veterinary practices across the UK. IVC, Medivet, CVS, Vet Partners.
There are however still ‘independent’ vets about.
I have worked for both, there are pros and cons to both. They are business’ at the end of the day and they all exist to make a profit. Also - why can’t we drive nice cars?! - we are highly trained professionals who should be fairly compensated for our work. If it was easy there would be lots of people undercutting etc but there isn’t, it’s bloody hard to set up on your own.
Vaccines - essential, the reason we don’t see some of the vaccinated for diseases is because they have nearly been vaccinated out of the population.
Flea and wormer - generally needed (in certain circumstances needed less bit it’s very hard to Taylor every animals individual risk so usually a general approach is used). Many people like covering their animals in all sorts of mystery ‘holistic’ treatments that are toxic… also loony things like feeding rabbit ears ti worm their dog…
All in all, there are lots of people who think they know better - vets will always put the animals first and animal welfare is their top priority. We are nice people!
Vet who treat farm animals and horses are far more justified in owning a 4x4 than most of us.
Straight 'A's/A*s are typically the minimum requirement to get on a veterinary medicine course, which is then be five to six years of study. That effort should get commensurate reward at the end.
A vet's bill covers the practice, reception staff, nurses, insurance etc.
No one is compelled to buy a pet. Unfortunately, no one is compelled to research the likely future costs of owning that pet either.
The big companies have got where they are buy buying veterinary practices from retiring vets, then staffing them with (often) newly qualified staff who could not afford to set up a practice themselves.
If you think the big companies make too much profit, then buy shares in them. This is CVS Group's share performance over the last ten years:
Straight 'A's/A*s are typically the minimum requirement to get on a veterinary medicine course, which is then be five to six years of study. That effort should get commensurate reward at the end.
A vet's bill covers the practice, reception staff, nurses, insurance etc.
No one is compelled to buy a pet. Unfortunately, no one is compelled to research the likely future costs of owning that pet either.
The big companies have got where they are buy buying veterinary practices from retiring vets, then staffing them with (often) newly qualified staff who could not afford to set up a practice themselves.
If you think the big companies make too much profit, then buy shares in them. This is CVS Group's share performance over the last ten years:
So, from someone who sold out to a corporate, my comments and experiences.
Firstly, the comment about driving expensive 4x4s, honestly, you cheeky b
d, after many years of underpaid grind, I got my first ever new car, a disco 4x4 in 2016 which allowed me to do my job as a farm vet. I have not met one single small animal vet with a 4x4 ever. And so what if someone earning 75k can afford a big car. We spent years getting sigma phi alpha for our efforets due to the UK attitude of it should be free or at cost for animals, so why pay us less than your dentist who is less likely to be bitten than we are. I'd love to be able to show some of the attacks I've had by 750kg patients!!
Anyway, back to the thread, if any vet doesn't charge for puting a pet to sleep, then why not? Would you get out of your bed for someone who should have gone to the practice through the day? I have but it is because I have been working with the owners and the individual animals for over 35 years. When I ask a regular builder or heating bod for help, it has to wait until they have time. Why is a vet's time so much less worthwhile?
Harsh chemicals? If you want to use products that are not scientifically evaluated, then fine on your animals head be it. You could easily say that as vets with an interest from big pharmaceuticals that we would say that, but despite my open mind, I cannot accept some alternative therapies, but welcome any help for my patients to improve.
Breaking Bad.... as ever few people are prepared to back up their posts with evidence. I sold out to Indepent Vet Care, and although some of the crap from in high is laughable (usaually I reply with NO and of you dont like it, Sack me!) but they are a company placing massive importnace on animal health.....and just like any business, making a profit.
The profession I grew in was ashamed of charging well enough to pay for a decent living and retirement, so criticise the "health plans" and other ways we make money, but if you don't pay your vets or nhs bods(who will get a pension unlike us) then we won't be there.
Most, if not all, of the vets I employed are focused on animal health rather than profit, but now a good proportion of them are being educated in making a business profitable and paying a pension that is a fraction of the police, fire brigade or RMT.
Firstly, the comment about driving expensive 4x4s, honestly, you cheeky b
d, after many years of underpaid grind, I got my first ever new car, a disco 4x4 in 2016 which allowed me to do my job as a farm vet. I have not met one single small animal vet with a 4x4 ever. And so what if someone earning 75k can afford a big car. We spent years getting sigma phi alpha for our efforets due to the UK attitude of it should be free or at cost for animals, so why pay us less than your dentist who is less likely to be bitten than we are. I'd love to be able to show some of the attacks I've had by 750kg patients!!Anyway, back to the thread, if any vet doesn't charge for puting a pet to sleep, then why not? Would you get out of your bed for someone who should have gone to the practice through the day? I have but it is because I have been working with the owners and the individual animals for over 35 years. When I ask a regular builder or heating bod for help, it has to wait until they have time. Why is a vet's time so much less worthwhile?
Harsh chemicals? If you want to use products that are not scientifically evaluated, then fine on your animals head be it. You could easily say that as vets with an interest from big pharmaceuticals that we would say that, but despite my open mind, I cannot accept some alternative therapies, but welcome any help for my patients to improve.
Breaking Bad.... as ever few people are prepared to back up their posts with evidence. I sold out to Indepent Vet Care, and although some of the crap from in high is laughable (usaually I reply with NO and of you dont like it, Sack me!) but they are a company placing massive importnace on animal health.....and just like any business, making a profit.
The profession I grew in was ashamed of charging well enough to pay for a decent living and retirement, so criticise the "health plans" and other ways we make money, but if you don't pay your vets or nhs bods(who will get a pension unlike us) then we won't be there.
Most, if not all, of the vets I employed are focused on animal health rather than profit, but now a good proportion of them are being educated in making a business profitable and paying a pension that is a fraction of the police, fire brigade or RMT.
BreakingBad said:
Is this just pure cynicism or is there any truth in that two or three large corporations not only fundamentally control vets’ practices, but also the recommended regime of (dry) food, vaccinations, flea treatment and worming etc, much of which can actually be quite detrimental to our pets’ health and well-being, in order to generate themselves more business and profit?
Frequently, these are tied up in a seemingly benign, pet-friendly insurance plan - which must be a real money-spinner anyway - but if and when your pet does then become ill, means you’ll be going back for additional treatments at more cost, as well.
(Because of this duopoly (triopoly?), the charges for a consultation and / or treatments seems to have become incredibly expensive or, again, is this a fallacy and have costs merely gone up like everything else?).
Does anyone have knowledge and experience of more natural, maybe holistic treatments which avoid harsh chemicals? eg I was informed that the flea treatment we are encouraged to put on our pets regularly is the same insecticidal chemical farmers spray on fields and can itself lead to health issues.
Genuinely interested to hear from present or past employees with experience in the field to comment - and I don’t really expect a binary answer - but we’re advised of the above by an involved person with a genuine medical background: we are expecting a new puppy to join the family soon and want to do the right thing for her as we have just had our much-loved dog put to sleep at 9 years, due to health issues, having followed all of the industry recommendations.
My mother was a homeopath and used to treat her dogs homeopathically. They all died unfortunately.Frequently, these are tied up in a seemingly benign, pet-friendly insurance plan - which must be a real money-spinner anyway - but if and when your pet does then become ill, means you’ll be going back for additional treatments at more cost, as well.
(Because of this duopoly (triopoly?), the charges for a consultation and / or treatments seems to have become incredibly expensive or, again, is this a fallacy and have costs merely gone up like everything else?).
Does anyone have knowledge and experience of more natural, maybe holistic treatments which avoid harsh chemicals? eg I was informed that the flea treatment we are encouraged to put on our pets regularly is the same insecticidal chemical farmers spray on fields and can itself lead to health issues.
Genuinely interested to hear from present or past employees with experience in the field to comment - and I don’t really expect a binary answer - but we’re advised of the above by an involved person with a genuine medical background: we are expecting a new puppy to join the family soon and want to do the right thing for her as we have just had our much-loved dog put to sleep at 9 years, due to health issues, having followed all of the industry recommendations.
Again, thank you all for your replies and comments: MrTom, GliderRider and thevet, particularly useful inside info which is very much appreciated.
I’m sure that vets, like doctors, would always strive to do their best for their patients and it’s reassuring to hear that from independents and corporates alike.
(Personally, I wouldn’t begrudge anyone their worked-for earnings and whatever possessions they may derive from them).
Anyway, I suppose the main concern, then, has been answered: although practices are becoming more corporate and profit-focused, the guiding principles are still what they should be. But, maybe, as animals are individuals in the same way that people are, a one-size-fits-all policy regarding nutrition, vaccination / immunisation and other treatments may not always be appropriate and a more tailored approach - if that is possible to ascertain and achieve - may make sense?
Is it fair to say that these and other changes within the profession tend to lead toward a diminution of that possibility and this, for some people at least, leads to the beliefs suggested to us, as per my original post?
I’m sure that vets, like doctors, would always strive to do their best for their patients and it’s reassuring to hear that from independents and corporates alike.
(Personally, I wouldn’t begrudge anyone their worked-for earnings and whatever possessions they may derive from them).
Anyway, I suppose the main concern, then, has been answered: although practices are becoming more corporate and profit-focused, the guiding principles are still what they should be. But, maybe, as animals are individuals in the same way that people are, a one-size-fits-all policy regarding nutrition, vaccination / immunisation and other treatments may not always be appropriate and a more tailored approach - if that is possible to ascertain and achieve - may make sense?
Is it fair to say that these and other changes within the profession tend to lead toward a diminution of that possibility and this, for some people at least, leads to the beliefs suggested to us, as per my original post?
Mr Tom said:
Flea and wormer - generally needed (in certain circumstances needed less bit it’s very hard to Taylor every animals individual risk so usually a general approach is used). Many people like covering their animals in all sorts of mystery ‘holistic’ treatments that are toxic… also loony things like feeding rabbit ears ti worm their dog…
Isn't this quite misleading? Wormers in particular aren't preventative, they can only kill what's there so the recommendation for routine use is exactly what the OP was suggesting regarding unnecessary use of harsh chemicals.
It's very simple to test for worms and about the same cost as treatment so why isn't that the recommended option?
Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff