Pet Forum / Miscellaneous / Animal Health / August 2008

Not really an answer. He's charging you for his time, and the benefit of his
knowledge/experience. Assuming you actually saw the vet, and there was some
transactional exchange of information, then there was some value to the
service. (even if they didn't tell you anything you didn't already know, as
now you have to confirmation of someone with years of medical experience
behind them).

So any vet who makes a mistake is overcharging?

*ALL* drugs carry dangers. As does anything you put in your body. That's
something every one should know, but possibly doesn't realize. Even water
could potentially be contaminated with something that could kill you
(bottled or tap).  Do you expect a big warning label from your utilities
that says "the water in your tap could potentially be contaminated with
something that could kill you. Here are all the statistics on water supply
in your area." No of course not. The risks, while serious are rare. You
don't need to be told about them.
Part the vet's job (or your family doctor's job) is to balance what is wrong
with the possibility of complications. Obviously if they had perfect
knowledge of which animals would develop complications, this would be much
easier. There is always a balance of how much information is appropriate.
Certainly *typical* reactions are important to go over with the owner, and
also long term side effects, but are extremely rare complications worth
going over?
When the vet tries to mitigate the risks by asking for extra tests, they are
often seen as 'money grabbing' (like insisting on regular blood panels
during long term NSAID usage, or heart worm test before prescribing heart
worm meds).

That really doesn't have anything to do with money.  This has more to do
with being a good vet or a bad vet. I suppose if the vet screws up (lets say
he leaves some gauze inside), and kills my dog, and charges me for it, this
isn't acceptable.

Can't speak to that, as I have no good frame of reference.

Can you give some concrete examples?

I ask you, because I want to know what evidence *you* are basing your
opinions on, not what evidence I can find to support your opinions.
A consumer complaining, and the vet not getting punished is *NOT* evidence
of corruption in the veterinary board (in fact how do you even know if the
vet is punished or not?). Think about it for a minute. Part of the board's
job is to filter spurious complaints from serious ones. Its very easy to
'blame the vet' when something goes wrong. "He should have known that xxxxx
was the case" (replace xxxxx for anything that has gone wrong, lets say its
'young dog dies under anesthetic during routing procedure'). xxxxx is
certainly unfortunate, but doesn't necessarily imply malpractice on the part
of the vet. The question is really 'was there reason to suspect problem x
prior to the procedure, and if so what was done to mitigate this risk'.  If
there was good reason to suspect 'x', but the vet didn't look for 'x' then
this is a problem.

Interesting that you compare vets to foxes. As though they are going around
trying to cause harm to animals....

Its kind of a catch-22 situation. The only people who have the
knowledge/experience to pass judgment on these cases are people with an
appropriate background in the field, which by necessity are people with a
background in the field.

Can you really expect people without medical training to pass judgment on
medical matters? (i.e. was there good reason to suspect 'x') That seems like
a recipe to make lawyers very happy (him with the fastest talking lawyer
wins). One would assume (at least I assume) that any profession would want
to purge the 'bad apples' as best they can, which would make those in the
profession *very* motivated to discipline those who aren't adhering to their
codes of conduct.

As far as lobbyists go, obviously there issues that threaten the ability of
veterinarians to practice medicine. It is part of the responsibility of the
state associations to make sure that laws which impede the practice of
veterinary medicine receive proper review. I can't comment on if I agree or
not with what these lobbyists are lobbying for without some specific
examples of things you find distasteful, but I can certainly imagine cases
where strong opposition would need to be applied to laws (for example I
recall a law which was going through in my former life as a physics student,
where the professional engineers wanted to redefine engineering in such a
manner which would encompass physics. It was a big problem because only
licensed engineers can practice engineering, which would make physicists
illegal. In the veterinary profession I can imagine laws being passed with
no scientific basis to them, which should really be opposed (BSL comes to
mind), or laws requiring behavior of veterinarians which would violate
ethical standards put forth by the profession.

This is, I admit a problem in some clinics. Hiring people to do veterinary
technician work who have no training in the area. Its difficult to know how
to properly define the problem in such a way that it could be mandated. I
haven't worked it out for myself, but some problems come to mind.

Does the receptionist need to be trained as an technician? (obviously not)
What work requires a licensed technician to be present? What doesn't? What
can *only* technicians do, and what training (specifically) makes them
qualified to do said work? Can that training be obtained in any other way?
What work can be done by anyone?
For example, for the last two years, I've spent a lot of time helping out at
a local vet clinic with various responsibilities. I've helped with all
manner of things while I've been there, and made a concerted effort to learn
everything I can. There are all kinds of things which I know perfectly well
how to do (and am allowed to do). Is me doing them a violation of
professional ethics? I wouldn't think so. I wouldn't do them if I didn't
feel comfortable doing them, and I've received training in performing them.
What about the receptionist? Surely she can pick up various skills over
years of working somewhere, and be able to perform certain tasks? (not all
tasks, but enough to help out when needed). Should she be allowed?

Dale