Medivet under fire
Detail:
Did you watch last night’s Panorama programme, It Shouldn’t Happen at a Vet’s? The undercover investigation looked at what was going on behind closed doors at some of Medivet’s 75 practices. Among the footage screened were trainees administering injections, drawing blood and inserting catheters (which according to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is illegal); a dog being hit hours after major surgery; and a cancer-stricken dog being recommended a jaw-droppingly expensive MRI scan.
Needless to say, the RCVS has since issued a statement saying it was concerned about the allegations and will investigate the claims made.
The programme was disturbing in parts, and on the issue of needless tests and procedures, well, that has been a hot topic for years, and not just in the MediVet arena.
I myself have been at the receiving end of an eager vet trying to suggest unnecessary procedures, and chances are if you talk to pet owners, it won’t be long before you’ll hear of similar tales. Let’s face it, vet’s fees are notoriously high in this country. More than 13 years ago when I was still living in the Far East, my local vet recommended I take out pet insurance the moment I arrived in the UK, warning me of the high prices being charged. It’s really nothing new, then.
However, it was interesting to hear in last night’s programme that the vets were working on commission. I wonder how wide a practice this is? I naively thought commission was the domain of sales staff…you live and learn, as they say.
It also turned out that one of the vets featured in the programme had been under RCVS investigation before Panorama started its investigations and, as revealed in the programme, was eventually struck off.
However, Medivet’s responses in each instance were cringeworthy of the highest order. Nothing short of total exoneration and exculpation. For instance, a number of animals in the programme had been sworn at and called rather derogatory names. I just stared in disbelief at Medivet’s statement: “Medivet disapproves of inappropriate comments about animal patients.”
The problem is obviously not that the animal will take offence, but it is certainly reflective of the attitude that person has towards animals, and really, should that person be working with distressed pets?
So what is the potential fall-out of this programme? Well, at the heart of this is an issue of trust. If a customer has a good relationship with his or her vet, and trusts in that judgment, then chances are it’s business as usual. If there have been niggling doubts, then chances are this will be the impetus to jump.
Needless to say, the RCVS has since issued a statement saying it was concerned about the allegations and will investigate the claims made.
The programme was disturbing in parts, and on the issue of needless tests and procedures, well, that has been a hot topic for years, and not just in the MediVet arena.
I myself have been at the receiving end of an eager vet trying to suggest unnecessary procedures, and chances are if you talk to pet owners, it won’t be long before you’ll hear of similar tales. Let’s face it, vet’s fees are notoriously high in this country. More than 13 years ago when I was still living in the Far East, my local vet recommended I take out pet insurance the moment I arrived in the UK, warning me of the high prices being charged. It’s really nothing new, then.
However, it was interesting to hear in last night’s programme that the vets were working on commission. I wonder how wide a practice this is? I naively thought commission was the domain of sales staff…you live and learn, as they say.
It also turned out that one of the vets featured in the programme had been under RCVS investigation before Panorama started its investigations and, as revealed in the programme, was eventually struck off.
However, Medivet’s responses in each instance were cringeworthy of the highest order. Nothing short of total exoneration and exculpation. For instance, a number of animals in the programme had been sworn at and called rather derogatory names. I just stared in disbelief at Medivet’s statement: “Medivet disapproves of inappropriate comments about animal patients.”
The problem is obviously not that the animal will take offence, but it is certainly reflective of the attitude that person has towards animals, and really, should that person be working with distressed pets?
So what is the potential fall-out of this programme? Well, at the heart of this is an issue of trust. If a customer has a good relationship with his or her vet, and trusts in that judgment, then chances are it’s business as usual. If there have been niggling doubts, then chances are this will be the impetus to jump.
By:
Sandra
Date/time :
23/07/2010
Replies to this topic...
