Now It All Makes Sense

[Lucy & AnnaBelle's Mom]

As I've discussed on here previously one of the reasons it took me so long to get another dog when we lost our little Poodle was the experience that we had encountered with Vet Hospitals running up the bills for no reason.  While I can appreciate that all business owners need to make money and are entitled to do so, I just personally feel that Doctors fall into a slightly different category.  That running up a bill, taking advantage of people who are already in a bad situation is just unscrupulous!  I want a Vet who #1 is a Vet because they love animals.  A Vet whose best interest is in the pet and not necessarily their pocketbook first and foremost.  Just like I don't want unnecessary tests or surgerys on myself, I don't want them on my pet either.  I would do anything that I had to to make sure my dogs had every opportunity for a wonderful life, but that doesn't include being taken advantage of.  So, here is my point.  I was doing a little research this afternoon on sebaceous cysts.  Here is a quote that I came across on one Vet's site:

"In vet school I was advised to remove sebaceous cysts because I could make money with the procedure and dog owners are generally happy to have the things gone.  However, as I discussed in parts 1 and 2 of this series, I don't recommend removal of any benign cyst 'just because.' Removal is only necessary if the cyst recurs and is prone to infection and/or if your dog's quality of life is impaired by the presence of a cyst."

They are taught in Vet school to do all of these unnecessary things ... my blood boils over!  However, that being said, this is the type Vet that I want taking care of my girls!  Maybe I'm naive, but I never dreamed they were teaching that you should do unnecessary procedures just to make money.  That to me is taking advantage of people in the worst way! 

[Joanna, Zoe & Bender]

I suppose everyone is trying to run their business the best they can and if able to charge more they will. My vet is pretty hefty with office visits, meds, etc. I guess everything. Their staff is super friendly and you can tell that your animals are handled with care. I always told myself that I am also paying for the "service". I think the great experience that my pups are getting is essential to building their personalities. I have been in a small dilema lately about neutering ben. Most places don't run the blood and uring test unless the dog is 6 yrs or older, but its mandatory here. And the surgery costs an arm and a leg. Been thinking about doing this at the spcla for abt 1/3 of the cost but my vet said its "county" and advised against it. Bender is pretty sensitive and clingy so I don't want him to have a bad experience but I also think my vet is too expensive. So I'm torn...

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

In pricing the "low cost" spay/ neuter clinics for rescues I was fostering, I found that the prices were not that much lower once you factored in the "extras". The low-cost clinics do not include anything in their advertised prices. If you want IV fluids (you do), it's extra. Pain meds are extra. Pre-surgery exam and bloodwork is extra. By the time you're done, the difference is negligible. My feeling is that a surgical procedure under anesthetic is not the best time to cut corners, lol.

[Joanna, Zoe & Bender]

Oh wow ok thanks Karen I will definitely look into that

[Nicky, Riley & Boris]

Karen are you saying that you can request a dog to be operated on without IV fluids?  If it is best practice to use IV then why add it as an extra?  Are you also saying that you can request your dog NOT to be given pain meds?  This all sounds like codswallop to me.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

Yes. I did not know this until I had to have a foster spayed and was talking to the low-cost spay neuter clinics. Everything is extra. You have to request IV fluids and pain meds, they are not included nor automatically given. It makes me feel so sad for JD, because I know he was neutered by the shelter, and I think this must have been the way it was done, to keep costs down.

I ended up having my foster spayed at my vet. He gave the rescue a discount and I paid the difference myself. I couldn't do that to her.

[AndySharon BoomerShaynaMariner]

This is a common story.  Remember in many practices where the vets are employees, they are paid on a percentage of the bill.  In my opinion it is usually better to go to an "owner operator" vet.  This person is more likely to want to build a long term relationship and not try to "hit a homerun" on every visit.

[Christine & Camus]

I've had experiences on both sides of the fence.  I had one vet for years and that I thought was wonderful, but the services were expensive.  My pets were well cared for, so I was not willing to change to save a few dollars.  Everything changed when I adopted Nietzsche, or so it seemed.  The first time I took him in the vet walked into the exam room and made a comment (I'm paraphrasing here) "do you know what you are in for with this dog?" - I was stunned.  Rapport between the vet and Nietzsche was never established and the medical advice and meds were all wrong.  I researched online for vet reviews in my area and found a vet that IS wonderful, charges reasonable prices, is conservative in his approach, related well with Nietzsche and now Camus, and I think he is brilliant.

There are always the good and the bad in any profession, as in life in general.  I agree with Joanne's philosophy - "Glass half-full"  

[Sue & Lily Grace]

I think that the small owner operated is a good way to go also. I have experience with some of the franchises, big practices but with locally owned offices. I ran, after a few visits.

[cheryl & oliver]

Lucy, I have used the same vet for the past 29 yrs.  He is not an alarmist, he goes with the side of caution, but if he tells me that something needs to be done, I do it.  He doesn't do unecessary tests, he beleives in one test at a time, and I trust him with all my heart.  I guess everyone needs to feel good about their vet, the same as they do for their own physicians..

[Cyndi, The Boys & Callie]

Our vet owns her own clinic and I haven't had this happen. At times, I have to tell her that I want to spend the money for the tests.  For example, when the boys had their poop issues several months ago, she wanted to do the metro/panacur thing and see what happened which was fine.  However, when I got to the second dose of same, I was wanting answers.  We talked about possible causes and although I did not think they had Addison's disease or anything else, I did have to tell her that I wanted the initial blood test.  All the blood work was fine and the boys recovered.  As you can likely tell, I am not a patient person when it comes to the boys.  However, she pushed nothing and was clearly trying all the initial "rule out" causes before moving to the high dollar ones.  Personally, I think of this like my own health care.  I do research and would never not approach a medical condition just trusting the "doctor knows best".  They are human and humans make mistakes (and get greedy at times). 

[Lucy & AnnaBelle's Mom]

The whole point of my post was that I was so shocked that they were actually teaching them in vet school to do something unnecessary to make money.  After all of the experiences I had had previously to actually see that in writing just really hit me.  I was so happy to see the vet that said that say that she doesn't actually do it.  My Mom worked in a Vet's office for awhile and a new Vet came into the practice and her philosophy was money money money.   Yes, I know that not all Vets are that way, just as all doctors aren't and that I have to find what works for me and I have done that.  I am certain that if I had not moved back to Ohio and knew that I had a Vet that would meet my needs I would not currently have Lucy and Sophie.   I just personally feel that people in professions that deal with people in emotional situations have an ethical obligation not to take advantage of people.  Making a living is one thing, taking advantage is another. 

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

When it comes to "people in professions that deal with people in emotional situations" having "an ethical obligation not to take advantage of people", I'd say the lawyers are the biggest culprits on that one, at least from my personal experience. JD excepted of course.