It shouldn't happen at a vets.

hayley11

pinkshoes wrote: »

Like I said, I don't watch biassed one sided garbage on the BBC made to hype up the viewers.

Obviously if this was made about a small family run vet who supposedly treated animals in the same way, then it wouldn't have attracted viewers either, as this only worked by picking on a large brand.

And no I'm not a vet, nor have any connection with the vet industry, and I think anyone who mis-treats an animal is sick (I have a dog and would punch the lights out of anyone who dared to do anything inhumane to him!!!), and I know enough to know that this was a "play on viewers heart strings" than a truthful documentary.

Obviously it's a free country and you are perfectly entitled to watch and make what you want of it. I probably would have thought the same as you until I stumbled across some inside info which ruined all credibility.

But unless you're saying the reporters somehow staged all those things we saw, how can you dispute what was happening? We saw with our own eyes, animals being treated badly. I don't understand how that could be biased?

I understand these cases probably were isolated and mostly they do a good job but things like that shouldn't be happening at all.

aliasojo

hayley11 wrote: »

But unless you're saying the reporters somehow staged all those things we saw, how can you dispute what was happening? We saw with our own eyes, animals being treated badly. I don't understand how that could be biased?

I understand these cases probably were isolated and mostly they do a good job but things like that shouldn't be happening at all.

I don't understand that either. Its' all very well decrying credibility but how can you dismiss the scenes that were shown?

devildog

I watched it and it wasn't pleasant viewing but is it any worse than what goes on anywhere else? The simple answer is we don't know. Anywhere can have a pleasant approach to the owner of an animal and even if we are allowed 'back of shop' at any time that does still not guarantee that our pets are treated as we would wish. This doesn't just apply to vets, factor in home sitters, groomers, boarding kennels etc. I have worked in a local boarding kennels and would I leave my dog there-not a chance and yet I have heard no end of people saying how wonderful it is!!

Unfortunately there are very good and very bad places out there who are supposed to care for our pets, but as a comparison, the elderly are supposed to be cared for too and time and time again we hear of them starving in hospital/care homes or developing severe bed sores because no-one has bothered to turn them.
All any of us can do is hope that we have judged well and our trust is not misplaced.

Lil_Me_2

ninky wrote: »

out of interest, what are the rules on who can take human blood samples? how much training is needed and what qualifications?

I did my nurse training for 3 years and I was never allowed to take blood. Once you qualified as a nurse you could attend training in it, but even then there is a period of supervision where someone who is fully trained watches over you and signs you off as competent.

There are HCAs that have had training to take bloods, and phlebotomists (they aren't all registered nurses) but again lots of training needed. I certainly wouldn't expect a new member of staff equivalent HCA to take bloods!

Short of performing the actual surgery there isn't much that medivets vets are doing that the trainees aren't!

UKTigerlily

hayley11 wrote: »

But unless you're saying the reporters somehow staged all those things we saw, how can you dispute what was happening? We saw with our own eyes, animals being treated badly. I don't understand how that could be biased?

I understand these cases probably were isolated and mostly they do a good job but things like that shouldn't be happening at all.

Spot on, besides even if my Pets went there & I knew for a fact - which how can you? - that they'd never done a thing out of line to my Pets, knowing they have to others would be enough for me to take my animals elsewhere, I wouldn't risk it or want them to be looked after my people who can treat animals in that way, the way they used anaesthetic worried me too

hayley11

UKTigerlily wrote: »

Spot on, besides even if my Pets went there & I knew for a fact - which how can you? - that they'd never done a thing out of line to my Pets, knowing they have to others would be enough for me to take my animals elsewhere, I wouldn't risk it or want them to be looked after my people who can treat animals in that way, the way they used anaesthetic worried me too

I know, that was really scary. And they way they treated that poor cat, so degrading. The fact that she said if somebody did that to her cat, she'd go mad made it worse, she knew she was doing something wrong yet still laughed. :mad:

Loopy_Girl

pinkshoes wrote: »

and I know enough to know that this was a "play on viewers heart strings" than a truthful documentary.

Well are you going to share with the rest of us then?

Of course the docu was hyped up but how can you explain away the less than truthfulness of a dog getting a smack on the head (which the staff member did admit to when he gave his watery 'apology') or the vet spinning a cat round and round? Or the vet nurse 'playing' with a cat that was half conscious?

Seriously, the proof was there? Or are you saying that Medivet are getting a slice from the BBC and done these things for the camera?

If you are going to say statements like that then you need to back them up with facts. The discussion going on is based on facts - the facts that people saw with their own eyes.

I'd honestly be interested if you can back up what you are saying.

Mrs_pbradley936

I was more shocked by the way they hyped up the bills, giving three bills to Tesco insurance saying it was for different conditions. Then claiming they used a blood pressure monitor when they did no such thing. Finally the bagging up of the used blood after they had already charged for it. I get the feeling "how to fleece the clients" is the number one lesson they have to learn.

The staff being "unkind" I think is due to ignorance, quite simply two trainees should not have been put into a position where they had to attempt to put a catheter into the front leg of an elderly distressed dog. I think they were lucky not to have been bitten.

Hintza

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

I was more shocked by the way they hyped up the bills,

I agree, I think this is where the story should have been aimed.

All the comments on here as "too harrowing to watch" just makes me wonder what sort of sheltered existences some people live.

foreign_correspondent

Hintza wrote: »

I agree, I think this is where the story should have been aimed.

All the comments on here as "too harrowing to watch" just makes me wonder what sort of sheltered existences some people live.

I didn't think it was harrowing - however, I thought there was plenty of behaviour that was entirely unprofessional and inappropriate.

I also thought the fella hitting the dog had a very short fuse if he resorted to slapping so quickly, I would hate to see him with a really trying customer.

We don't pay for an amateur, crappy service for our pets, that is for sure - and I expect a vet and their staff to act in a professional and ethical manner, not like idiotic amateurs.