# Tonight ITV (channel 3)



## Ratdog

Did anyone else watch this programme? It is disgusting how some vets are charging pet owners through the roof because they know that loving owners will pay it. Makes me mad. :mad5: 
The online link is: itv.com/tonight


----------



## Guest

oh no i didnt see it!

Ive been told on here a few times i'm paying over the odds for vet fees. Trouble is having phoned around they are pretty much standard for the area. Not sure what the soloution to that is - well apart from moving home.


----------



## chestnut888

Hi,,
I am new to this forum but felt compelled to write a little note on here regarding the ITV programme last night. I have known for a long time that we all get over charged by our vets , I own horses as well as dogs and the first thing a vet askes when you call them out is ..Is your horse insured ? my mare had a small cut on her leg last year that she did in the field and by the time he vet had finished with her the bill came to over £1000 !, AND I had to tell them thats enough , the mare has had enough after weeks and weeks of cutting and proding it was a joke. I feel more confidant now and in control of the situation whether its my horses or my dogs , i know them and i know roughly what kind of treatment they require .The vets are working for me Not the other way around so i tend to moniter the situation and use my own judgement and common sense . I dont think we should be scared to say NO actually I think thats enough. I know we cant ALWAYS do that but just beacuse these are clever people we are dealing with to care for our pets WE know them best and dont be afraid to qustion their judgement somtimes .I am not saying they will always like it but so what its OUR pets that we put first NOT our feelings. 

For example how many of you out there are aware that when you take your puppy for its first inoculations that the doseage they get has nothing to do with how big they are , the vets give the same doseage to a chihuahua puupy as they do a bull mastive or a great dane. I was horrified when i discovered this , I always thought it would go on size/weight so when i took my baby chihuahua for her 1st jabs I asked ( just to check ) to make sure I had herd wrong but no the vet told me she would get the same as a great dane pup .Now there I was with this 1kg fragile baby girl as she had broken a leg earlier (long story ) and had been quite poorly she rejected the pain kilers , they made her ill as did the antibiotics (binned both ) she was on the mend through a lot of time and TLC on my behalf , and this woman vet was going to fill her with what i considered to be a hugh dose of parvo virus antibodies. Well i,M afraid I could not let that happen and I told the vet to give her half the dose ..I knew from other people their vets would do this but obviously my vet was very against this suggestion and said that was the way she had been taught and it was the right thing to do etc etc etc... after what seemed like a ten minute discussion / loud discussion !! I won and my baby got half a dose . Now I dont know if i did the right thing that day but my common sense told me it cant be right for something weighing just 1 kg to have the same dose as something that weights 30kg . She is now a fit and healthy 5 month old puppy running around and being VERY cheeky like all puppys . I hope this info has allowed you all out there to make your own choice as to what you do and dont accept for your pets in the future.I am no expert believe me but I know my animals and they are all fit and healthly and most of all loved and i make what i thnk is the right choices for them.


----------



## piggybaker

I hate Vets When my cats disappeared i found him in the garden 2 days later he could not walk, I was getting paid till the Tue and he did this on the Friday, I was so upset i called my vet and they said " no i will not see him thanless you pay" I said come on i have been with you since you opened you know me, they still said no, so I called the RSPCA they said they wouldn't help because i am not on any benifits at which i blew my stack saying that those people are better off than I am!!!! they still said no, Same at the PDSA I rang 5 other vets same answer, so i begged my vet who said they would see him on a First aid bases, £60 later (that i had to beg to get) The xray that was needed would have cost me £200 I couldn't afford that,, it made me so cross, 

There is loads more to this story but the cats well now and it iis jjust so sad:crying:


----------



## bunny-lover2

I found this program very one sided. And as a trainee veterinary nurse in practice for 2 years so far, i have seen the other side of things which this show did not talk about at all. The show was about vets costs,but not once did they go in to it further or explain why. 
Doesnt anyone actually think of the over heads of a business, there are phone, electricity bills, equipment to maintain etc etc to pay for as well as staff who work there. Therefore costs of treatment help go towards paying those. 
With regards to the cat with back pain and being given Metacam to help as a pain relief and anti inflammatory, this was perfectly adequate in this situation. When Marc Abrahams the vet said he would always do an xray first is just silly. This program is about vets costs, so would doing an unnessary xray and possible anaesthetic be the way forward to determine the problem with non specific back pain? Surely its more cost effective to try a course of medications first such as the Metacam to see if this helps the problem, if not THEN reasses and go through the options... hmmm...
Again to me seems one sided and not showing the true extent of things... In my own opinion i think the general public seem to think TV is gospel and believe everything...

Think of it like this our Animals/pets dont have an NHS service so therefore rely on their owners (US!!) to look after them and provide the care and attention that they need and if this means going to the vets then so be it.
If i had a pound for every time i hear a client say "do what u need to do, money is not a problem/not an issue" then i'd be rich now, but the thing is when they get the bill they complain about the costs. We can never win either way.

The way they showed the cases was unrealistic as a correct account wasnt given, i.e, a vet can only go on what history is actually given to them by the owners, therefore if the owners dont tell everything the vet probably wont be able to make a full diagnosis but treat for what they already know about the situation.

Working in the veterinary profession or with animals in general is not the best paid jobs. So i dont agree when people say, we are all in it for the money cos that just isnt true.

And i really hope that this pets undercover program doesnt cause more animals to suffer all because their owners dont want to pay for the proper treatment of their beloved pets...


----------



## isadobe

Our vets are brilliant,
they are straight forward & to the point they will not rip you off :hand:
they will treat your pets even if you cant afford it by saying dont worry about the money we can sort something out :thumbsup: luckily we havn't needed help but alot of people do, so i think the payment scheme they have is brilliant :thumbup:


----------



## Diane_Lancs

I too am concerned about the cost of treatment. I took my female cat to the vets a couple of weeks ago (as she is pregnant) and all he did was feel her tummy and it cost me £25 . I was in there about 5 minutes.

Maybe there should be some government guidelines with regard to the cost of treatment - then people will know when they are being ripped off and they can look for another vet.

Due to the state of the economy I worry about people who are on low wages who simply can't afford to take their pets for a checkup. It is a sad thing that due to the rising cost of vet treatment many more pets that need attention are being abandoned.


----------



## sophieblue

I used to spend a fortune at my vets on my little westie. She has the usual eye and skin problems relating to the breed and also requires the usual frontline and drontal that any dog requires. She was costing me over £120 a month on malaseb shampoo and optimmune eye ointment from the vets and I was struggling to afford her. However I discovered a company called pet drugs online Pet Drugs Online and now I spend £65 a month. What a saving! I have to get prescriptions from my vet but they are legally required to give me one. Even though they charge me £7 for this prescription I am still saving a small fortune and can enjoy having a dog again. There is no reason why you should keep paying the vets costs for medication.


----------



## malcie5

Working in the veterinary profession or with animals in general is not the best paid jobs. So i dont agree when people say, we are all in it for the money cos that just isnt true....................................................
As a trainee maybe not very well paid , but what are the wages of the qualified vet with their own practice?


----------



## Saikou

bunny-lover said:


> I found this program very one sided. And as a trainee veterinary nurse in practice for 2 years so far, i have seen the other side of things which this show did not talk about at all. The show was about vets costs,but not once did they go in to it further or explain why.
> Doesnt anyone actually think of the over heads of a business, there are phone, electricity bills, equipment to maintain etc etc to pay for as well as staff who work there. Therefore costs of treatment help go towards paying those......
> 
> ........Working in the veterinary profession or with animals in general is not the best paid jobs. So i dont agree when people say, we are all in it for the money cos that just isnt true.
> 
> And i really hope that this pets undercover program doesnt cause more animals to suffer all because their owners dont want to pay for the proper treatment of their beloved pets...


I think most people watching these sorts of programs are intelligent enough to know that there is a slight biase to the message. That said most of them who have had pets for a number of years and placed their trust in a vet also know that there is no smoke without fire.

Vets are not gods, they are people with regular human foibles and weaknesses. There may have been an era in the past where, like Drs, whatever the vet said went without question, but in a far more enlightened age those days are gone. Vets whether they like it or not are accountable to their clients. Their clients pay them for a service, the vet is not doing them a favour.

Like in any profession there are good vets and there are bad ones, and the general public has the right to be informed that the latter exist in sufficient quantities for the "buyer to beware". In the past the veterinary profession, policing itself, has been able to cover up that these problems exist. Surely any decent profession would welcome a little scrutiny. If the paying public are more wary and more open to question the conduct and practice of their vet, that will help weed out the bad vets and enhance the practices and the reputations of the good ones. Those in the "veterinary profession" can bury their heads in the sand and deny it all but to what end.

Why in most practices when you register an animal is their first question - is he/she insured ?? None of the practices I have been to reclaim the money for you, so what difference does it make whether the animal is insured or not.

A friend of mine at a works christmas lunch was sat next to a guy from a different dept. They got chatting and it turned out his girlfriend was a new vet at the practice my friend went to. He went on to explain how she was unhappy there as she didn't agree with the vets instructions that even if an animal looked OK and they could find nothing wrong with him/her, to administer and anti inflam and antib course anyway as the client likes to be assured that their animal has been treated!! Thats just one example.

Some vets do charge more for insured animals AND suggest tests that could be deemed unnecessary under the guise of "just to make sure". If questioned they back down quickly and have no real answer why. They prey on people wanting to do the best for their animal, at an emotional time. If your pet is ill, then you need and want to be able to trust the person giving you advice 100%. Unscrupulous less professional vets prey on that.

If some vets are not on the make, how come a basic vaccine course can vary by as much as £20 in the same area ? I know I have researched. Surely they have pretty much the same overheads. Again FeLV and FIV snap test - £75 from one vet - £35 from the vet 5 mins down the road.

They make huge profits pushing dried food from a certain manufacturer - pronouncing it the best for cats health, yet failing to disclose the large kick backs they get for recommending it.

The claim that vets do not earn alot of money well any client only has to look at the cars the practice owner drives to know that thats not the case.

All these are little things, but they add up to a general feeling of suspicion that the veterinary industry should be addressing rather than adopting, what is very apparent from the representatives of that industry on here, a very arrogant and dissmissive stance. As individuals you may well work for one of the good, responsible and professional vets who put animal welfare above profit, but as "just" a member of the paying public, I have found those to be few and far between.


----------



## candysmum

bunny-lover said:


> I found this program very one sided. And as a trainee veterinary nurse in practice for 2 years so far, i have seen the other side of things which this show did not talk about at all. The show was about vets costs,but not once did they go in to it further or explain why.
> Doesnt anyone actually think of the over heads of a business, there are phone, electricity bills, equipment to maintain etc etc to pay for as well as staff who work there. Therefore costs of treatment help go towards paying those.
> With regards to the cat with back pain and being given Metacam to help as a pain relief and anti inflammatory, this was perfectly adequate in this situation. When Marc Abrahams the vet said he would always do an xray first is just silly. This program is about vets costs, so would doing an unnessary xray and possible anaesthetic be the way forward to determine the problem with non specific back pain? Surely its more cost effective to try a course of medications first such as the Metacam to see if this helps the problem, if not THEN reasses and go through the options... hmmm...
> Again to me seems one sided and not showing the true extent of things... In my own opinion i think the general public seem to think TV is gospel and believe everything...
> 
> Think of it like this our Animals/pets dont have an NHS service so therefore rely on their owners (US!!) to look after them and provide the care and attention that they need and if this means going to the vets then so be it.
> If i had a pound for every time i hear a client say "do what u need to do, money is not a problem/not an issue" then i'd be rich now, but the thing is when they get the bill they complain about the costs. We can never win either way.
> 
> The way they showed the cases was unrealistic as a correct account wasnt given, i.e, a vet can only go on what history is actually given to them by the owners, therefore if the owners dont tell everything the vet probably wont be able to make a full diagnosis but treat for what they already know about the situation.
> 
> Working in the veterinary profession or with animals in general is not the best paid jobs. So i dont agree when people say, we are all in it for the money cos that just isnt true.
> 
> And i really hope that this pets undercover program doesnt cause more animals to suffer all because their owners dont want to pay for the proper treatment of their beloved pets...


that cat didn't go in for back pain it went in for not eating its food. the VET said it had a back problem not the owner!


----------



## jeanie

Im not sure about my vets any more, my cat has allergys which flare up about every three mths, i have always taken her to my vet hospital, they have been giving her steroid injections plus an antibiotic for four years, when i took her last time i saw a new vet who checked her all over and said she had a heart murmer and should never have been given steroids injections as she is 7 yr old , she now only has an antibiotic injection and some fungal cream , now i have to tell them when i take her she cant have the steriods so im not sure i trust vets that much really, but what choice do we , have all this was iin the same vet hospital just a new vet i saw. they also have a big notice up no animal will be seen without payment at time of exam , so i can see when some people have come across hard times and want to keep there pets why they dont take them to vets , the PDSA only will help with pets in there catchment areas , and the RSPCA dont help either most of time,


----------



## chris s

I joined this site just to make this reply.

Owing a pet is a luxury, no one has an innate right to own a pet. With owning a pet comes a large emotional and also financial burden, but we also get alot back from them. Before getting a pet this has to be taken into consideration. 

Vets go to university for 5 years, during which there is very limited opportunity to get a part time job to subsidise fees as there is alot of work experience that has to be done out of term time, more so than medical or dentistry students. On top of this, medical and dentistry students have their final year student fees paid for by the NHS, unlike student vets. SO bascially, vets come out with greater debt.

Upon starting work, the average income of a vet is roughly a third to a half that of the other medical professions.

So.... to make sure running a veterinary practice is a viable financial option, there MUST be a suitably priced fees to cover not only overheads of the running of the building but also of the vets. Without proper pricing, there would be fewer veterinary practices which would in the long run compromise animal welfare, especially in out of hours emergency situations when a nearby vet is needed.

If you are unhappy with the service you recieve, do shop around. But be aware all veterinary practices are private, are not subsidised in any way and have alot of overheads. 

One last point, do you know how much a 10 minute appointment with a GP costs the NHS? It's roughly £100. How much do you pay at your vets? Probably less than a 1/3 of this. Think about this next time you visit the vets.


----------



## Lucy252

To "chestnut 888" who says they are horrified to discover that vets give the same vaccination dose to a chihuahua as to a great dane- why is this horrifying??? Do you understand how vaccinations work??? Presumably you are concerned because you know that you wouldn't give the same dose of medication to these diffferent breeds (which is true) Vaccinations don't work like this! I'm telling you this for one reason only-and hopefully this will never happen- but if your dog encounters any of the diseases that we vaccinate against (and they ARE on the increase)- ie distemper, hepatitis, parvovirus, parainfluenza or leptospirosis- he/she WILL NOT BE PROTECTED AGAINST IT having only had a "half" dose. So by mistrusting your vet, all you are doing is putting your puppies life in danger. The vast majority of vets ARE NOT LYING TO YOU WHEN GIVING YOU ADVICE ABOUT YOUR ANIMALS!!! As a vet, animal welfare is my number one priority. I get paid the same whether I charge you £20 or £200. If you dont' trust an individual vet then go and find another one who you DO trust. To the person who hates vets because they wouldn't treat their animal for free- all vets will carry out emergency treatment on any animal at any time- but this doesn't mean we can afford to run up 100's of pounds worth of bills just with your "word" that you will pay-don't be so unreasonable. If my car breaks down I don't take it to the garage and say- can you fix it- I can't pay til next month though. And yes I know an animal can't wait until you DO have the money- but to be honest- this puts us in an impossible position because althought YOU are thinking- well it's only a few 100 to them- if we had to do this for all clients we wouldn't have a business. So really stop blaming US for this- and start taking some responsibility for your own pet. I LOVE my job, and for the most part see lovely clients who I have a great relationship with, and we work together to do the best for each individual animal- the clients who are mistrustful and complain and don't pay their bills are in the minority- but to those clients I'd say-the only one that suffers from your refusal to take veterinary advice- is your pet.


----------



## lainee

Diane_Lancs said:


> I too am concerned about the cost of treatment. I took my female cat to the vets a couple of weeks ago (as she is pregnant) and all he did was feel her tummy and it cost me £25 . I was in there about 5 minutes.
> 
> Maybe there should be some government guidelines with regard to the cost of treatment - then people will know when they are being ripped off and they can look for another vet.
> 
> Due to the state of the economy I worry about people who are on low wages who simply can't afford to take their pets for a checkup. It is a sad thing that due to the rising cost of vet treatment many more pets that need attention are being abandoned.


i am also concerned about people who have pets that are on low wages due to the economy and hours being cut they do not get any help like people on benefit, and it is going to be tough for them and i think more animals are going to be put into rescues etc for rehoming just due to financial reasons


----------



## bunny-lover2

candysmum said:


> that cat didn't go in for back pain it went in for not eating its food. the VET said it had a back problem not the owner!


Yes that is true, BUT they only went in with a cat, dog and a rabbit and said all of them were 'off their food'... Now this can mean a number of things.

Vets arent psychics, they have to go by what information the owner gives them. So back pain could potentially be an indicator of going off food, because they could be in pain! 
If no more info is given on the animal situation, as the owner is the only one who can really know their pets, then i suppose the vets wont be able to get a full diagnosis and can only go by the info given.


----------



## bunny-lover2

chris s said:


> I joined this site just to make this reply.
> 
> Owing a pet is a luxury, no one has an innate right to own a pet. With owning a pet comes a large emotional and also financial burden, but we also get alot back from them. Before getting a pet this has to be taken into consideration.
> .


I say this sometimes and i get moaned at for saying it. but its true, pets are a luxuary not a neccessity. If u cant afford a pet, dont get one.

BUT if you already own a pet and are struggling then their are many charity vets out there such as PDSA/RSPCA that can help with costs of treatment.


----------



## bunny-lover2

TO CHESTNUT888

When we book in new clients, we obviously collect as many details as we can, asking whether insured or not doesnt mean anything but it just shows us on our records, it does NOT mean that we charge insured animals more. It is merely for our clients/pet records, that is all.

Why were you horrified to hear vaccine dosages are the same regardless of what size the animal is?? Your animal could potentially be 'at risk' from the diseases it it 'vaccinated' agaist because it had only half the dose it should. Are you worried because if given another medication it would be at a dose for the weight of the animal. Vaccines dont work like that, one dose is fine for all breeds. You may have 'won', but its silly cos your pet isnt fully vaccinated now.


----------



## Saikou

To all the persons who are trawling the net joining this and other boards from the veterinary profession

Are you saying there are no bad vets out there ?

Surely all the tonight program did was highlight that those kinds exist. Of the small sample of vets they visited with their perfectly healthy undercover pets, at least one of each sample was a good vet who did put the animal above potential income for treatment but there was also another in the sample that suggested completely unnecessary treatment. By highlighting that those kinds of vets exist, its not saying all vets are like that because it clearly showed that they weren't. Don't you think the paying public should be aware of that they do exist ? People put their trust in their vets at a very emotional time and they have the right to know that everything has been done to ensure that that person deserves their trust. If programmes like the tonight program make people think about their relationship with their vet and maybe question them more about the treatment being recommended - why is that a bad thing. It is supposed to be a partnership and a good vet should have the time and understanding to be able to explain to that pet owner - to their satisfaction - why that treatment is necessary. If they can not do that then the pet owner has the right to go elsewhere and get a second opinion.

To Lucy252


> Do you understand how vaccinations work???


 clearly the poor pet owner here had not been given a proper explanation by her vet as to how vaccines worked. The failure here is with that vet imo - looking down your nose at someone and berating them for not understanding just highlights exactly what is wrong with some of the individuals in your profession. Trust is earned and built up over time, its not just a given because you are a vet. The vet is not there as a favour to the pet owner, he/she is being paid for a service and the pet owner has the right to expect that that service is good and they are not being ripped off.

I would say at this point that I don't agree with people who think that they can get away without paying for treatment and I don't think anyone on here is saying that they should. Expensive emergencies do happen and with the best will in the world financially not everyone is prepared for that. If you have been going to a vet for a number of years and have always paid for treatment and wanted a few days grace to settle the bill as a one off in an emergency, I do not think that is an unreasonable request. I am sure that my vet would be accomodating to those clients he knows and respects. Its not the same as someone walking in off the street and demanding their pet receive treatment on a promise to pay sometime in the future.

I don't think anyone would disagree that a veterinary practice has to be a viable business and that all overheads need to be met, and the vet, nurses and other supporting staff adequately paid for the service they provide, and no pet owner would mind paying for that. But when you get quoted wildly different costs for the same procedure from two practices of equal size in nearly the same location, you start to wonder about of the size of profit being made by the one charging the greater amount. I think most pet owners naively believe that everyone who becomes a vet does so because it is a vocation and they love animals and want to be able to ease their suffering. The concept of profit, and in some cases clearly substantial profit, in all that is almost immoral. IMO the tonight program highlighted the fact that there are vets out there who do put profit above the animals they are treating and there is nothing in the profession to stop them doing that.

I would like to think that those kinds of individuals are in the minority, as would any pet owner. Those kinds of individuals bring the reputation of an honourable profession into disrepute. Why wouldn't the profession and those good vets within that profession welcome a bit of scrutiny, if it serves to weadle out the bad and enhance the reputation of good?

The issues highlighted by the tonight program do knock a pet owners faith in the veterinary profession, as is evident from the sentiments posted on this thread and others on various other boards. I do think it is sad that the vast majority of the responses I have read from supposed veterinary professionals rather than taking an ideal opportunity to reassure people imo have come across as condescending and arrogant showing just how little respect they really have for pet owners who keep them in business.


----------



## red_dwarf15

having a pet is like having a kid. if you cant afford them then dont have them!! if someone cant afford to take care of their animal, then they shouldnt have them.


----------



## red_dwarf15

i agree with you there otterwhiskers. at the end of the day a vets is a business. i agree that any vets that tries to provide uneeded treatment, is as bad as a cowboy builder or other people of that ilk. they should be named and shamed.
what i didnt agree with was a few posts from people saying that a vets should provide treatment because the animal was sick whether they could afford it or not. if your roof caved in and you were not insured, you couldnt go to a builders and say fix my roof for free or for less mony because i cant afford your prices. i dont see how a vets is any different.


----------



## chris s

i'd like to reply to this:

"Surely all the tonight program did was highlight that those kinds exist. Of the small sample of vets they visited with their perfectly healthy undercover pets, at least one of each sample was a good vet who did put the animal above potential income for treatment but there was also another in the sample that suggested completely unnecessary treatment"


It's difficult to say whether a treatment is unncessary when the vets were presented with a healthy animal but were told the animal had been anorexic for the previous 24hrs. In my opinion, any rabbit that has been anorexic for 24hrs is likely to have a problem. You cannot examine a rabbit's mouth fully using an otoscope as shown in the programme. There is too much soft tissue in the mouth. So, the vet who suggested giving the rabbit a GA to examine the mouth better, in my opinion was justified. For the anorexic cat, this can quickly become a problem. Any cat that doesn't eat for 4 days is at risk of developing a liver problem due to a release of fat stores. Trying different food can work, but does not always. The suggestion of further work-up can be justified, but I do agree that saying the cat had back pain is unjustified unless that is what the vet truely believed. By trialing an anti-inflammatory, I personally do not think this is ripping people off.

In the situation when a vet says they have done a procedure on an animal which they have not performed is disgraceful. That vet would deserve to be publically disgraced. I would hope the other ancillary people working alongside such a vet would make an example of this behaviour and report it. I think the nurse who did not report the vet who acted in such a manner on the programme was almost as to blame as the vet, and should also be held accountable, which from next year they will be.

I agree, poor veterinary practice if it occurs needs to be weeded out as public confidence in their vet is key. If it takes all veterinary practioners to be salary paid to make this happen then so be it


----------



## Saikou

I can not comment on the treatment suggested for rabbits as I know nothing about them. As you are getting into semantics about the treatment suggested for the cat which I do know a little bit about. I don't remember them saying the cat hadn't eaten for 4 days, but if they did fair enough. That said, any lay person, watching a vet being presented with what appears visually to be a very healthy, bright, undepressed, non lethargic, normal weight cat with no masses, abdominal tendernes, bad teeth, discharges, sickness, diarrhoea, tongue ulcers, lumps, bumps, lessions or temperature (ascertainable from a basic exam by each vet) whose only symptom was inappetance for a short period of time would consider it an unnecessary and over the top to instantly have a battery of expensive tests suggested. From what I have read, hepatic lipidosis - which is what I think you are referring to ? - is not common and if it occurs is more likely to do so in a cat that is initially overweight with some underlying liver issue and that hadn't eaten for a greater length of time the cat in the program was supposed to have not eaten. Thats the information I have read anyway. Mother Natures main aim is survival after all, and would not have made cats that delicate. Cats would be dying all over the place having missed a couple of meals at that rate.

There is a definite line between expensive overkill and a safe pragmatic approach to the situation. The former being obviously more financially beneficial to the vet in question. Surely a safe pragmatic approach, fairer on both cat and owner, would have been to offer suggestions for tempting the cat to eat. To explain any possible issue if the inappetance continued for x amount of time, advise of a list of different things to look out for, and suggest that the cat is seen back the next or in a couple of days time if the cat does not eat or before if the situation changes and the cat showed one or more of the things to look out for.

I do agree about the Canterbury vet that was singled out and the vet nurse who witnessed it and did nothing about it. She was as guilty as he was and I am glad to hear things are being put in place to deal with both parties in the future.


----------



## chris s

In the programme they said that the cat had only been anorexic for 24hrs. Yes I agree an initial conservative approach is often a good idea, I don't remember any of the vets suggesting particularly expensive investigations / treatment for the cat. Hepatic lipidosis does occur frequently but is not always clinically evident. 

The approach mother nature would not produce fragile animals is probably true. We are, however, dealing with domesticated, often pedigree animals where mother nature has been pushed aside.


----------



## Saikou

Domesticated - and cats although living as a domestic animal have not evolved much from their wild ancestors, unlike dogs - or pedigree you can never push Mother Nature aside - she always has the upper hand.

I read about Hepatic Lipidosis, it has never, in 20yrs of cat owning, been mentioned to me by a vet in connection with a cat being off its food for any period of time.


----------



## chris s

An extract from Feline Hepatic Lipidosis (V161)
Western Veterinary Conference 2005
P. Jane Armstrong
Dept. of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN, USA




Prevalence and Pathogenesis

Feline hepatic lipidosis is now a well-recognized syndrome characterized by intracellular accumulation of lipid with clinicopathologic findings consistent with intrahepatic cholestasis. In a 10-year retrospective study of all feline liver biopsies at the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine, hepatic lipidosis was the most common form of liver disease diagnosed in cats, accounting for 50% of all cases. This figure may even under-represent the true prevalence in this hospital population as the study did not include cats undergoing fine needle aspiration, but not biopsy. The clinical prevalence of the syndrome remains unknown but pathology surveys have revealed 5% of cats affected with this lesion. The triglyceride content in the liver of cats with lipidosis averages 43% compared to 1% in the liver of healthy cats. While some cases of hepatic lipidosis result from diabetes mellitus, the majority of cases are attributed to the nutritional and biochemical peculiarities of the cat. The cat does not appear very capable of regulating intermediary metabolism during starvation. Histologic evidence of hepatic lipidosis was found to develop within two weeks of the onset of fasting in a feline experimental model. While many cats develop lipidosis during periods of anorexia related to another underlying disease, otherwise healthy cats can also develop the syndrome due to inadequate intake during periods of enforced weight loss, unintentional food deprivation, or stress (e.g., boarding). This understanding has emphasized the importance of maintaining food intake in cats that become hyporexic/anorexic for any reason for periods of longer than a few days. 

hope this helps your understanding


----------



## Saikou

My understanding is fine thank you, having read more than one article on the subject and discussed it with my own vet who I trust.


----------

