ITV's Tonight programme broadcast last night portrayed a veterinary profession in which overcharging is commonplace.
Researchers for the programme took three healthy animals (a cat, a dog and a rabbit) to a number of different vets, telling them that the animals were off their food. The advice they were given varied. In the case of the rabbit from no treatment necessary, to dental work under general anaesthetic.
TV vet Marc Abraham then looked at each animal and told viewers that the correct advice in each case would have been the least expensive.
The programme also highlighted the substantial savings that pet owners can make by buying drugs online, and questioned whether the penalty meted out to a vet that had committed malpractice was sufficient (the vet had been struck off for 14 months, where presenter Jonathan Maitland argued it should have been for life).
Veterinary business consultant Mark Moran said: "So often, vets rely to a large degree on what owners are telling them, and the degree to which they insist the animal is ill, or off its food, will affect the advice and treatment given. Marc Abraham had the luxury of being presented three animals that he knew to be perfectly fit and well."
However he agreed wholeheartedly with the response from RCVS President Jill Nute this morning, that the thing both vets and pet owners need to learn from the programme is "the importance of communicating with each other".
Mark said: "It's a question of managing people's expectations. There'll always be a variance in the advice being given, but being up-front and open will help mitigate the risk of being accused of overcharging".
Click here to watch the programme. Click here to read the reactions to Marc Abrahams' blog
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
Sadly, this programme gave the viewers just what the director wanted, a sensationalist view of a profession that, in the vast majority, performs a difficult task with honour, honesty and dignity. While we all know that to be true, it is regrettable that consumers do not, necessarily, know that and will inevitably be influenced to some extent by what was portrayed.
Yes, Marc Abraham had the luxury of knowing that each animal presented was healthy but the other responses were not always that clever, if we are to be honest. It was unfortunate that, one imagines, in the edit suite, some of what Marc said sounded critical of more than just the tiny minority of vets but he/we should have expected that. As in any cross section of society, there will always be some who push too hard and we all know that the reputation of many is, in real terms, being damaged by a few practitioners.
Pet insurance is the key to a robust and successful veterinary profession but so many practitioners fail to recognise that they need to support it too - regular year on year, double digit growth in veterinary charges to insurers is a reality and we will price premiums out of reach of everyday pet owners if we are not careful.
It seems to me that the veterinary profession has not, of late, managed its overall PR or external relationships in a particularly convincing way. These programmes are designed to catch out the unwary and, as a profession, there should be widespread awareness of these media traps. It doesn't seem that officers of veterinary associations have been properly media trained, and equipped to deal with this type of exposure. The need is paramount for the profession to present a single, confident front with proper training in communication skills and to mount a constructive offensive to address the reputation and standing of a still noble profession whose outward persona is being eroded in this manner.