It shouldn't happen at a vets.

MrsE_2

jackieglasgow wrote: »

The story that really upset me was the poor man with the greyhound/lurcher cross who had cancer and the idiot vet was too busy trying to con money out of him, to notice. Just as well he got his backside well and truly kicked! Disgraceful behaviour.

Apart from trying to con/steal/extort money from the man, the poor dog in advanced cancer didn't need to be messed about with & mauled with under going needless tests:(

cyberbob

jackieglasgow wrote: »

The story that really upset me was the poor man with the greyhound/lurcher cross who had cancer and the idiot vet was too busy trying to con money out of him, to notice. Just as well he got his backside well and truly kicked! Disgraceful behaviour.

Although I was a little confused by this. His dog had had cancer previously and been treated well by another vet practice. When he got ill again he went to medivet. After he had problems he went back to the original vet who diagnosed cancer again and told him further treatment was not really suitable.

I'm just confused about if this original vet did such a good job why did he not go back to him in the first place and not to Medivet?
Just thought that was a little weird as I know if I find a vet i'm happy with I would always use them,

It was good the vet was struck off for this behaviour

Silveralice

cyberbob wrote: »

One other thing that the program did highlight is how toothless the Royal Veterinary College is (As they can only deal with the Vet not the business).

The Royal Veterinary College is one of the universities that train vets. The body that does the regulation is actually the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which has been campaigning for years and years and years to have a new Veterinary Surgeons Act put through Parliament, as the current legislation dates from about the time I was born (1965) and is thus way out of date for the modern world in every aspect of veterinary work. But no government regards it as high enough priority to get the airtime, so the RCVS is stuck doing the best it can with outdated legislation and limited regulatory powers.

walwin

cyberbob wrote: »

Although I was a little confused by this. His dog had had cancer previously and been treated well by another vet practice. When he got ill again he went to medivet. After he had problems he went back to the original vet who diagnosed cancer again and told him further treatment was not really suitable.

I'm just confused about if this original vet did such a good job why did he not go back to him in the first place and not to Medivet?
Just thought that was a little weird as I know if I find a vet i'm happy with I would always use them,

It was good the vet was struck off for this behaviour

This may make things clearer as to why he went to Medivet.

It did take me a few days to read it as I found it very harrowing

http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Shared_ASP_Files/UploadedFiles/rcvs/6D0E23EF-57FA-4A2C-A411-C2FF701008A4_Segev-Findingsoffact.pdf

victoriaplus4

i found the programme very upsetting and yes while i don't believe all vets are the same i would not use medivet for my cats i think what made the company look worse was the load of rubbish they came back with in answer to the way the animals had been treated i cant understand why anyone would go into a job working with animals if they could treat them that way,very sad,the staff appeared heartless,and as for the lad that got promotion i would be very surprised if that was the first time he had hurt an animal,just the first time he was caught on camera,how can they find an animal in pain funny also the vet that had just graduated should have been supervised if she was that nervous/incapable of doing a routine procedure.

vicki

Rev

pinkshoes wrote: »

I certainly won't be watching this biassed BBC rubbish tonight!

I have a little inside information on this, and the BBCs tactics in getting footage was far from professional (downright dirty to be precise)! It's amazing what lengths they go to to make good TV at the expense of others, and yet there will be gullible people who will watch this and believe everything they're seeing.

By all means watch, but don't believe everything the media brainwash you with.

If you didn't watch, you have no idea how biased it was or wasn't. All you can do is make an assumption.

So the BBC employed dirty tactics to get footage, as opposed to medivet who were beyond reproach? They may have gotten the footage questionably, but there would have been no documentary had the medivet practises filmed not acted despicably would there? If they'd acted as vets should act the BBC could have filmed till they were blue in the face and gotten no damning footage to show.

Please ask your insider to post on the thread and help us understand medivets side of the story. Because medivet did nothing but damn themselves further with the stupid lie filled replies.

Especially the dog with the hurt paw, it was VERY clear it was done by the nurse, she admired it, yet they called owner, lied about it and charged them for the treatment. Medivet responded by saying it was the skin condition, when the footage CLEARLY showed the nurse admitting it was her. Seriously?

So we watched, we don't believe everything we see in the media, but you seem to be believing this 'inside information' without actually watching the documentary.

Loopy_Girl

Well that's twice that I have asked pinkshoes to eloborate on her 'inside info' and she has been online several times since the last time as I see her light on when I check this thread.

I guess she doesn't want to/can't share her info *shrugs shoulders*

I know my feelings on it