ITV’s Tonight, Pets Undercover has created quite a stir. It has shown the profession in a bad light; vets recommending unnecessary treatment and in some cases overcharging for that treatment into the bargain. “Oh woe is me,” I cry. How can we possibly recover from this slight on our integrity?
In my view, any member of the public with a modicum of common sense will see through the charade, for charade it really was, and anyone who can’t will have forgotten it as soon as the next unlikely heroine or hero emerges from the Big Brother house into the glare of press camera flashlights. Pets Undercover was nothing more than the latest in a long line of cheap, trashy TV programmes designed to create sensationalism where none exists. It cannot be considered by any thinking person to be serious investigative journalism.
There are, though, some serious issues raised by the programme.
The first is: why would any self-respecting vet voluntarily agree to take part in such an underhand and biased programme, the sole purpose of which appeared to be to bash the veterinary profession. The “mystery shopping” presentations of healthy animals to various vets with spurious but perfectly believable histories of ill health were nothing more than the actions of a con-artist and proved absolutely nothing.
If the programme was genuinely trying to test out if vets were guilty of over-treatment, then a more appropriate approach would have been for the “owner” to present the animal with the story that it appeared perfectly healthy but that he (the owner) wanted reassurance of that fact from the vet.
If in that scenario the vets had recommended some tests or treatments, then the programme makers might have had a case (although even that would depend on the context in which any treatments or tests were recommended).
It is very likely, however, that the consulting vets would, after a clinical examination, have declared the animals to be fit and well and reassured the owner that he had no cause for concern. Which would rather have left the programme presenter with little, if anything, to moan on about, and the programme’s tame “expert” vet with not a lot to add on the matter. So it is fairly obvious why they did what they did: a half-hour programme devoted to reasonable professional people behaving in a reasonable professional manner wouldn’t sell many newspapers, if you’ll excuse me mixing my metaphors.
One of the most damaging things that the programme and its vet have done in my view is to send out the message to the petowning public that the history of an animal’s illness is worthless and meaningless; whereas all of us know that the history is the starting point for any serious veterinary investigation.
Only by asking the right questions and by listening to the owner’s responses can you elicit the clues that help point you to a diagnosis. You ignore the history at your peril, whereas the programme implies that clinical examination is all that is required.
The second question the programme begs me to ask is: where is the preoccupation with veterinary fees and the accusation of overcharging coming from? Is it from owners or is it from vets like Mr Abraham?
‘Rogue’ element
Of course there will be a “rogue” element in any group of people who do not behave within the bounds of what would be considered an acceptable norm. As such there is bound to be a small number of vets who will prescribe and carry out unnecessary treatments in order to increase the overall charge.
But that is downright professional misconduct and bordering on criminal activity. But what of the actual fees that vets charge for legitimate treatment? In a service industry (and that is what veterinary practice is, albeit a caring one governed by a strict code of ethics and morals), the fees charged are purely a matter of agreement between the customer and the service provider.
Providing there is transparency, the various treatment options are explained, and the likely fees for each option are discussed, then the concept of overcharging (or undercharging) doesn’t exist. The customer can choose to accept the treatment offered, decline the treatment, or in some cases go elsewhere. Probably, owners will ultimately take a view as to whether the fees charged represent value for money, and their future action, i.e. whether they return to that practice or transfer their custom to another, will no doubt be influenced by that view.
The customer’s perception of value will be influenced by a whole range of things. The outcome of their pet’s treatment will undoubtedly be a big deciding factor but other considerations like the appearance of the waiting room, their own treatment by all members of the practice staff, even the smell of the place may have an effect.
Was it enjoyable?
Was their visit to the vet an enjoyable experience under the circumstances, leaving them feeling better in themselves, or did they come out feeling patronised or let-down? As an example, the same people could be quoted significantly different amounts for the same treatment for their animal at different practices.
It is not unfeasible that the cheaper practice could be perceived by the client to be the one that overcharged them if they did not feel that they’d received value for money. It is not necessarily a straightforward matter of the actual monetary cost.
I have looked at Mr Abraham’s website and he makes a pretty good fist of defending what I anticipate many of us would consider the indefensible. His concerns about “rogue” vets giving the whole profession a bad name may well be genuine. The fact that many of the profession may now consider him as one such rogue seems somehow to have escaped him.
