I'm sure many babblers have a pet, if not a handful of them. As a pet owner myself I know of the high costs often associated with pet ownership. But Erica Johnson's report on CBC tonight was nothing more than an attack on the profession of veteranarians. I admit I'm biased, with a number of family members in the field, so I'm very curious to hear if there are any other reactions, mostly to the report itself, though I think it did manage to bring up a few good points about the lack of regulation in the animal healthcare industry. Any thoughts?

The apologist for the veterinary industry was a complete jerk, with no sense of professional ethics or responsibility, and not an ounce of care or compassion for consumers or their pet animals. His response to tough questions was to bleat about how it's a free country and veterinarians are free to charge whatever the fuck they feel like, and if the pet owners don't like it, well tough. A revolting man.

It was interesting to read the "Comments" on the CBC website. The veterinarians lobby was obviously primed and ready to spam the Comments with their self-serving crap as soon as the show was over.

Now, I have pets and love them dearly. And, they get better medical treatment than 90% of the humans in this world. But, I really question the prices. Frankly, I think that people don't shop around with vets. There was one comment to the linked story by a pet owner who said that she switched vets and the new vet was just fine with not filling prescriptions at the vet clinic. On my next vet visit, I think I'm going to ask my vet if I can just take the prescriptions and get them filled elsewhere. In a weird way, I'm afraid of offending her.

[ 28 November 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

The apologist for the veterinary industry was a complete jerk, with no sense of professional ethics or responsibility, and not an ounce of care or compassion for consumers or their pet animals. His response to tough questions was to bleat about how it's a free country and veterinarians are free to charge whatever the fuck they feel like, and if the pet owners don't like it, well tough. A revolting man.

---

quote:

---

I didn't see the show this week (I will have to catch it on the weekend) but I'm not surprised it came across as an attack, because the entire show is confrontational. They position themselves as Davids fighting against the Goliaths of businesses out to swindle consumers. But this model works better in some cases than others. Unlike the Q-Ray manufacturer or internet service providers, I think vets provide a service that goes beyond a direct business transaction.

---

You’re right, and that is what I was trying to explain to my family (of veterinarian technicians) who saw the show as a personal attack. Since they don’t watch Marketplace too frequently, they saw it as a biased news report and not as the confrontational consumer report that Marketplace often is.

But I understand how they could be upset to watch it. Both of them working close to full-time, at under the poverty line, coming home in tears day after day after having to put an animal down, or not being able to save one in surgery. And to say that vets are like morticians, and are out only for profit does anger me. Should there not be some responsibility on the consumers to be aware of the pricing model? If consumers are going to money-grubbing, stone-cold vets who couldn’t care less about their animals’ well-being, is that not their fault? (especially if they live in an urban centre where there are clinics popping up all over the city.)

quote:

---

I think this highlights the whole issue of animal "ownership". Just calling yourself the "owner" of an animal is part of the problem if you ask me. Why wouldn't vets view animals as a commodity when the rest of society, including pet "owners" do as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I think this highlights the whole issue of animal "ownership". Just calling yourself the "owner" of an animal is part of the problem if you ask me. Why wouldn't vets view animals as a commodity when the rest of society, including pet "owners" do as well?

---

I don’t understand the concern about calling a pet owner an “owner”. As a pet owner, you decide what the pet eats, how much it eats, when it gets washed or groomed, and when it gets vet care (and when you will elect to withhold vet care). You restrict its freedom of movement (confining it to a home, or perhaps to a fenced-in yard, and you walk it on a leash). You can give away or sell its puppies or kittens. You can neuter or spay it. You decide whether it gets a vaccination or not. You decide when it gets put down.

quote:

---

For sure, Sven. But most people don't walk around calling themselves child-owners!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:
Should there not be some responsibility on the consumers to be aware of the pricing model? If consumers are going to money-grubbing, stone-cold vets who couldn’t care less about their animals’ well-being, is that not their fault? (especially if they live in an urban centre where there are clinics popping up all over the city.)

---

You sound just like that apologist on the program who didn't give a shit about either the pets or their "owners". He said the same thing about how the free marketplace should take care of the consumers, who will pay whatever the market will bear.

Blaming consumers for getting ripped off by "money-grubbing, stone-cold vets" is crass, P.T. Barnum, neo-liberal, social-Darwinism thinking.

quote:

---

Surely you don't think children and pets are equivalent?

---

quote:

---

Blaming consumers for getting ripped off by "money-grubbing, stone-cold vets" is crass, P.T. Barnum, neo-liberal, social-Darwinism thinking.

---

I haven't used a local vet since. (speaking of which, I have yet again forgotten to call the vet I use in St. Thomas to get the flea bags deflead)

Personally, I don't terribly disagree with the social Darwinist veterinarian. I've had bad experiences with vets in London, so I don't use a London vet for the cats. And, it's also part of the reason why I won't ever own a dog again.

I don't want to have to make the decision to put a dog down because I can't afford a treatment. In the final analysis, I can't afford a dog... or my attachment to them, so I won't own one.

quote:

---

I don't want to have to make the decision to put a dog down because I can't afford a treatment. In the final analysis, I can't afford a dog... or my attachment to them, so I won't own one.

---

A friend's cat was hit by a car and drastically injured (crushed pelvis). She took kitty to the closest vet, who recommended euthanasia, but she refused, and the vet agreed to perform treatment, including multiple surgeries. He waived his fee for many of the procedures, and at the end of it they negotiated a price that was much less than market rates (not sure what those are but it could have cost her thousands). So she spread the word, and needless to say, most of us around here go to him. Though he's kind of eccentric and has a sense of humour that some folks can't take. (Eg, when I commented on a forlorn-looking kitty in a cage, he remarked, "His balls are on the chopping block.")

So...with the lack of regulation, word of mouth seems to be the only way to go.

It's a hard thing to do.

It's funny Sven mentioning morticians, because the only two professions I have ever caught out trying to manipulate my emotions for profit are vets and morticians.

Oh, and my ex's lawyer-- who may have been a mortician/vet hybrid.

None are more the richer for their attempts.

[ 29 November 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

One surgery for our Shepard was lowered because I said I would have her put down instead. And Rebecca was given less expensive treatment for a cat ( which was successful, btw) than what the vet wanted to do, after she did the same.

---