Episode 040

Hello John

Just a quick note to say how much I’ve enjoyed listening and watching to this latest episode…and thanks for the Vetpol mention at the end!

Regarding choice, I think that choice as a consumer is a very good thing. 70% of Tesco Customers buy both Value and Premium ranges, demonstrating that the majority of us will choose to spend more on some things and less on others.

In a veterinary context I would like to have the choice to pay less for standard preventative’s (vaccines, wormers, etc) but at the same time would always do what was best for my animals when it comes to any kind of surgical procedure (regardless of price); I am not the same as everyone else but I’m sure I my views do represent a good proportion of pet owners/clients.

When it comes to choice around treatment options for a sick animal specifically, I would value being given the pro’s and con’s of various options, as talked about in the video clip shown here, but I would also want that information supported by a clear recommendation, i.e., what that vet would do if it were their animal. No question.

All the best, John …and keep up the good work!

Caroline Johnson

Interesting comment about the marketing of prescription medicines….’so much being aimed at consumers yet we cannot buy them’ I think the presenter said. In America the marketing of POMs to consumers has been permitted. In Europe it’s supposed to be illegal.

From this spring adverts on websites will be controlled by the Advertising Standards Authority. I wonder what the effect will be if advertising of POMs is banned here but permitted in the US.

Hello, John
I enjoyed your title “article” regarding choice. In the thirty years I have been practicing small animal medicine in the United States, my communication style has changed considerably. Now I give clients more options and “choices” and feel that clients feel respected when this is done. However, I limit these options to those that will not make the patient endure suffering or worsen the patients condition. Limiting choices can be a source of conflict in the hospital where I am employed because veterinarians and staff within the practice feel differently about when euthanasia is acceptable, when steroids should be offered, how much palliative care should be offered. As the years go by I see how the pendulum swings. For instance, surgery to correct ununited coronoid process was previously thought to be the only option to preserve joint function. Now studies show that operated elbows develop the same degree of degenerative joint disease than those treated more conservatively. Thirty years ago we thought pain in dogs limited exercise and prevented patients from injuring themselves postop. Now we know that analgesia before and after surgery is an essential part of humane care. Giving clients a palette of limited humane options is necessary. We are fallible practitioners…playing God is dangerous!

Thank you Caroline, Jeremy and Madelyn for your comments and feedback. Madelyn said “Limiting choices can be a source of conflict in the hospital where I am employed because veterinarians and staff within the practice feel differently about when euthanasia is acceptable, when steroids should be offered, how much palliative care should be offered”

It seems to me understandable that vets, nurses and other clinical staff may have differing opinions about such matters BUT in my view they should be debated and discussed as a basis for developing firm documented clinical protocols to be accepted and implemented by the whole team and subject to regular review.

Nothing destroys client trust in the practice more than ‘mixed messages’ from the staff – it’s very bad for business, client satisfaction and patient welfare