RCVS ‘Concerned’ About Portrayal of Vets in ITV Pets Uncovered

March 18, 2009 by K9 Magazine News Editor

I’d like to try and find some good in that horrific and
incredibly one-sided documentary ‘Pedigree Dogs Exposed’;
the shocking and distressing look into canine breeding in the UK.
~ Marc Abraham
The Kennel Club’s veterinary advisor, Marc Abraham, an outspoken critic of the BBC’s hard-hitting Pedigree Dogs Exposed
documentary - accusing it of being ‘one-sided’ - has been
caught on the other side of the fence after hitting out at fat-cat
behaviour in the animal health sector in an ITV programme which has,
ironically, been criticised by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
for the one sided portrayal of the veterinary profession.
The RCVS issued a statement in response to The Tonight With Trevor McDonald special: Pets Uncovered:
The main message that pet owners and veterinary surgeons should take
home from this evening’s Tonight programme is the importance of
communicating with each other.”
So says RCVS President Jill Nute after watching ITV Tonight
presenter Jonathan Maitland’s report - ‘Pets
undercover’ - on the types of treatment and level of veterinary
fees charged by some members of the veterinary profession.
“There is no National Health Service for animals. Veterinary
treatment, like private medical or non-NHS dental treatment, can
sometimes become expensive, especially in an emergency, so it is vital
that vets always tell their clients the likely cost of treatment as
soon as possible, and present a range of different treatment
options.”
This advice mirrors the guidance already set out in the RCVS Guide
to Professional Conduct, by which all veterinary surgeons are expected
to abide.
Jill continues, “Equally, clients should always be prepared to
ask their vet about the potential costs of treatment and medicines, and
about what other options there might be. If the client has any
concerns, they should either shop around for better value, or ask for a
second opinion.”
Inevitably, although Jill was interviewed by Mr Maitland for over an
hour, less than two minutes was used in the actual broadcast.
Elsewhere in her interview, Jill had agreed that most animal owners
were right to be concerned over whether there was sufficient regulation
of veterinary fees, but maintained that this was largely down to the
control of market forces, not the RCVS.
She had emphasised that the College could step in where high fees
might constitute serious professional misconduct, but cautioned that
the Office of Fair Trading would take a very dim view of a professional
regulator attempting to introduce price-fixing. “This was not in
the public’s interest,” she’d said.
However, Jill had some concern about the way in which the profession
had generally been portrayed in the programme. “In my 39 years of
practice, I seem to have seen a very different side to the
profession,” she said.
“In any profession, there will always be a few individuals who
give the rest a bad name, and we do a fair job in investigating the
complaints that we receive about these individuals. However, the vast
majority of veterinary surgeons are honest, caring, conscientious and
extremely hard-working professionals, with their patients’ and
clients’ best interests at heart.”
“Mr Abrahams did, however, make some important points about
financial incentives for veterinary surgeons, and this is something
that the College will look at.”
Turning to Tonight’s coverage of the RCVS inquiry into Mr
Ranes Sanyal and the accusation that he should not have been restored
to the Register, Jill emphasised that Mr Sanyal had been found guilty
of serious professional misconduct, and drew Mr Maitland’s
attention to the severity of the College’s original sanction
against him, including the acute stigma and severe financial penalty of
being struck off.
Referring to the extra training (particularly in pharmacy and
bandaging) that Mr Sanyal had received since being struck off, Jill
said: “He had paid his penalty, he had shown contrition, and he
had also undertaken further training.
“The DC would not reinstate any veterinary surgeon who they felt was still a threat to the public.”

I think shes talking rubbish. That vet should never have been allowed to work as a vet again after being convicted.

It wasnt one sided either, it just pointed out that some vets will do things that arent needed. It didnt say alll vets were like that. They did have vets they checked who said there was nothing wrong with the animal they took in along with ones who said there was somethng wrong.

its too early to get my head around that lol... i will agree with you paula lol...

i didnt watch the programme so not really able to comment :2431: