I have been looking at the topic of vets, and pet insurance quite a bit lately. (latest article Your Vet ) Whilst researching the subject I uncovered this article Sad but interesting
Re: Your Vet sad but not at all surprising. The problem with such an emotive subject that as soon as someone speaks out as he has so many people deny it by pointing to good experiences they've had. That's not the point. The point is commercial realities impact decision making. In many professions - the practices described mirror stories heard from human private medicine -see the quote from a health bulletin i receive below. I have no idea what the answer is but at least we can get debate going over what "welfare" really means. University of Chicago (UC) researchers, in the US, recently examined medical records for more than 1,000 patients with metastatic colon cancer. They found that about one in every eight patients (approximately 130 patients in total) received chemotherapy that was either shown to be ineffective, or its use was not supported by evidence, or there was no compelling rationale for the use of the drug. One of those drugs — Avastin — can cost an arm and a leg... A few months ago, I told you about potential side effects linked to Avastin. Here's just a partial list... * Gastrointestinal perforation — sometimes fatal * Incomplete wound healing — sometimes fatal * Serious bleeding in the stomach or brain — sometimes fatal * Kidney problems — sometimes fatal * Vision disturbances — including blindness So I have to ask: What kind of a monster do you have to be to administer a drug like that to a patient who you know will receive scant or possibly no benefit at all? I guess you have to be a financially desperate monster. But that's obviously no excuse. It's robbery, pure and simple. The UC team reports that the patients in the study who were put at significant and unnecessary risk paid out more than $2 million for the cancer drugs. It's beyond despicable! What's worse, this study confirms a long, on-going problem... In 2003, an oncologist examined the medical records of almost 8,000 cancer patients. He found that in cases where chemo was given in the final six months of life, ONE-THIRD of the patients had cancers that are known to be unresponsive to chemotherapy. In a 2008 review of about 600 cases in which cancer patients died within 30 days of receiving chemo, 40 per cent experienced "significant poisoning" from their treatment, and about one-in-four deaths were accelerated or actually caused by the treatment. And in 2005, medical insurance companies, in the US, reduced payments to oncologists who administer outpatient chemo. In response, some doctors simply began treating more patients with chemo and began using more expensive drugs to offset their lost revenue. A late-stage cancer is a desperate time for a patient. He and his family are vulnerable and scared, and they're likely to cling to any bit of hope. But hard as it is, that's when they have to be most diligent in challenging doctors with tough questions through every step of their therapy.
Re: Your Vet That is truly shocking, hopefully there are other explanations to the increase in drug use, rather than pure greed...
Re: Your Vet Any system where Doctors are amongst the richest in society and the poorest die for want of effective healthcare is criminally flawed in my opinion. I hear a lot of negative stories about the NHS and have had my fair share of problems with them over the years but I have never been refused treatment that has been shown to be effective.
Re: Your Vet I think this is sad but, again, not a big surprise. It is a business after all and in every industry some people are using sharp practice. It's a bit like taking your car to a 'dodgy' garage for a service - extra unnecessary jobs get added to the bill. I think all we can do is be sensible, and get recommendations before choosing a vet (and a mechanic!). It would be nice to have an independant body 'vetting' the vets, though
Re: Your Vet I guess I am very lucky with my Vet and dont face these problems . He is a farm/equine Vet with a very small pet clinic, we have known him for 25 years and trust him 100% , he calls a spade a spade but at least you know where you are with him . When my dear Lab Tess was diagnosed with liver cancer last year , he was totally opposed to any type of treatment for her and was kindness itself , similarly with my JRT who we had to euthanise two months ago due to a brain tumour . We do have our young Lab Sam insured but the others werent , and never ever once did our Vet ask us if they were insured either , his charges are affordable , no frills but kind and honest advice and treatment . It saddens me that the Veterinary world is now such big business , not the vocation it used to be .
Re: Your Vet Hi Kate, your vet sounds like he is worth hanging on to! I am fairly hopeful though, that greedy vets (and doctors) are still in the minority, and that most are genuinely passionate about what they do.
Re: Your Vet I truly hope so too Pippa , our David is a star , dosent even charge us a consultation fee , we dread him retiring though which will most likely be in about five years or maybe less which is why we had Sam insured .
