The vets opinion

[Nanda & Nelson]

We took our dog to the same vet until he turned a year old. It is in our neighbourhood, not as crazy expensive as other vets and the people seem nice.

 

I am a first time dog owner, so everything is a learning experience and I try to use my common sense as well as advice from others (dog owners and vets).

 

Now my vet, for example, told me Nelson was too skinny and that is was a mistake to feed him raw food (we switched from kibble to raw at about 8/9 months). She basically told me that I was malnourishing him and that he could have serious bone problems. I felt really bad, went home, left behind all the research I had done into raw, and switched back to kibble. She tried to sell me on this Royal Canine diet, of which the waiting room is stuffed, telling me its high quality stuff etc etc. I knew Royal Canine wasn't what I wanted to feed him, as I've researched that before. Nelson quickly gained a bunch of weight (NOW kibble), but his energy level was substantially lower, he had bad gas and he shit piles 5 times a day.

 

Time came we had to go to a vet again, our vet was unavailable, so I went to the fancypantsy clinic in our neighbourhood. We had been there before, and I always liked their approach; holistic, raw food supporting and they don't stuff your dog with anti biotics as soon as it sneezes once - but they are double (!) of what the other vet costs. Anyway, at this clinic, they told me he looked great, that the food I gave him before (raw meat, mixture of veggies, joint supplement & multi-vitamin) was a great mix for him.

 

So we went back to raw, I just doubled the amount I was giving him, and he is now at a healthy weight, no ribs showing anymore but still very lean.

 

This is just one example of experience I've had where 2 vets told me opposite things (don't vaccinate for everything, you must vaccinate for everything). What really put me of at my old vet, was how much and how often she tried to sell me different dog foods etc. She also wanted to quickly put him on antibiotics if he had a little bit of a cold or anything like that. And everytime I came, she wanted a blood test or something like that done, for no real reason. I've often used my own guts and didn't do any of it - and he has always been fine.

 

Anyway; how much do you listen to your vet? Do you trust it's opinion? Or do you often have to use your own common sense?

[Debbie Meier]

We have a different relationship with our vet then most that would have one pet, but I can say that they are only human and only know what they know and that is not everything. I would be concerned about a vet who is pushing product on you, but on the other side of the coin, her selling that product may be what is allowing her to keep her prices down.

 

I would be careful though about declining suggested tests if your dog is showing any signs of illness, if we have a sick dog, even slightly sick we want to address it to determine the cause and administer support, often times when they go down hill they go down fast and hard, some things that can be picked up can be very quickly life threatening or very contagious to other dogs.

[mum24dog]

Just learn to ask Why and say No if you aren't convinced by the answer.

 

My vets know me better than to try and sell me anything. If I want something I will ask. If I'm not sure if I want it I will discuss it with them.

 

On the whole I trust their clinical judgement but not without question.

 

I would not trust them on any matters to do with nutrition or behaviour as I know how little they learn about those subjects when training and how much of a financial incentive there can be to push products your dog does not need. Fortunately my vets are pretty good on that score and don't stock dog food - they don't have the room anyway.

 

You are the client and you are paying their bill. You do not have to do as they say if it goes against your own inclination.

 

And i doubt very much if he was too skinny. Vets see more tubs of canine lard than they should and it colours their perception of what a dog should look like.

 

I would treat both the vets you describe with caution - the one for over use of medication and tests and the other for encouraging the use of supplements and vitamins your dog should not need if it has a balanced diet.

[Nanda & Nelson]

We have a different relationship with our vet then most that would have one pet, but I can say that they are only human and only know what they know and that is not everything. I would be concerned about a vet who is pushing product on you, but on the other side of the coin, her selling that product may be what is allowing her to keep her prices down.

 

I would be careful though about declining suggested tests if your dog is showing any signs of illness, if we have a sick dog, even slightly sick we want to address it to determine the cause and administer support, often times when they go down hill they go down fast and hard, some things that can be picked up can be very quickly life threatening or very contagious to other dogs.

 

Thats the thing, she suggests it when he really isn't showing any signs of being sick - she just thought he was skinny and maybe had a parasite? But he had full apatite, nothing in his stool, full of energy, no sratching etc.

[TEC]

I believe my place in the vet-owner equation is to be an accurate and complete observer and reporter. I want the vet to trust that I will go home with my dog and continue to monitor, observe and report back to him/her. Veterinarians who have that kind of confidence in the owner will, in my experience, provide reasonable treatment and advice, and send the animal home. I have found a DVM I trust, and leave veterinary opinions to the professional. I try to not second-guess him, nor do I seek multiple opinions from those untrained in veterinary medicine. It is important to have a good rapport with your vet, so that he adequately answers questions and explains the reasoning behind his opinions.

 

I believe when you develop a relationship of mutual trust, as described, the vet will not over-test, over-prescribe, over-treat the animal and/or push products in a manner more suited to an owner who is less attuned to animal behavior, or perhaps for many justifiable reasons is unable to fully monitor the animal. -- Kind regards, TEC

 

ETA: I think many franchises and vets are under heavy managerial pressure to treat dogs by means of a franchise/office-based standard of care, that may not be accepted industry-wide. In that circumstance, no amount of mutual trust will change the way the doctors manage an animal's health care.

[Debbie Meier]

well, I would venture a guess that the vast majority of pet/companion dogs are more on the overweight side, I can even tell that there are times where our vet is uncomfortable with the weight that our dogs are at, he comes out and says that he is used to dogs that are a lot heavier. It's not unusual for a dog to have a clean fecal but still have a parasite. Without seeing your dog myself at that time, I can't make a judgment call about the dogs weight, but it does sound like you have now increased his food so that he carries more weight then he did when the vet first suggested some diagnostics.

[waffles]

mum24dog and TEC--

Great posts. Exactly what I think but you wrote it better than I probably could have!

[mum24dog]

The vet who owns the practice I use prefers horse and farm work to small animals. She's very down to earth and used to dealing with people who won't spend money without a good reason and that transfers to her dealings with pets.

 

The other practice in town is a test for everything whether it is necessary or not sort of outfit - and much more expensive.

 

I don't want a good bedside manner or a vet who can charm the cash from my wallet; I want one who will tell me like it is and respect me as a competent and reasonably knowledgable and intelligent owner, as TEC says.

 

(I actually want one I can have a laugh with too.)

 

Some of the younger vets can get a bit carried away with doing things because they can without thinking to hard as to how necessary it may be but they can be trained..

[alligande]

I trust my vet and have been going to her for 15 years, she is practical and very down to earth, but when it comes to food we do differ, I use raw bones and chicken necks, she does not approve. I used a nutrionist for Brody because I did not want to keep him on canned kibble and she was not happy with me using home cooked food, with the nutrionist I was able to prove that he was getting a balanced diet. She does carry perscription food but has only once sold it to me which was when Brody has some real issues. She trusts us to take care of our dogs, and she is always happy to send them home to be monitored, once she knew my husband had been an EMT she has offered us the option to give fluids, enemas, etc. and no longer suggests that the dogs stay there for monitoring.

 

I found her because like you I had not had dogs as an adult and went to a local vet because well everyone I knew went there. My first dog was diagnosed with heartworm, and on the same visit they suggested she needed her teeth cleaning. I did not know what that involved so was talking to the reception to find out what was involved, just when we got to the part about a general anesthetic, which was phrased in a euphemistically way, I was getting uncomrtable, then a lady with a cat walked out and said she needed to book a teeth cleaning appointment. At that point I smiled paid my bill and left never to return. Jester finally had her teeth cleaned 10 years later at 13 and only because she had a cracked tooth that needed extracting.

 

Go with your gut, I live on an island and even though we are surrounded by bridges people think we are nuts to drive 25 minutes to the vet, but I like my vet and did not like my local choice so explore ask questions when you are out walking off other dog owners and you might find another vet who you have not thought of.

[Alchemist]

It sounds as if the OP has a choice between two practices: one that charges more for services, but doesn't "push" unnecessary tests, and one that charges less for common services, but pushes everything on earth. Two very different ways to run a business without going bankrupt.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a vet tell me, "well, you COULD do this, but we don't think it's necessary..." Even if it means they charge more for routine procedures. You can't run a business very long in the red, after all...

 

Case in point: last year Duncan suddenly started limping. I was worried it might be a tick-borne disease, so had a blood panel done, even though my vet told me he didn't think he had the characteristic symptoms (in part because one day he was lame on one leg, the next day the other - nor did he show any signs of pain when his wrists were bent, which they said was a good sign of Lyme). The initial blood test result was in the "gray area"; the vet said he didn't think it was necessary to do a full panel, but it was my call. I went ahead and did it. Results? Negative. The lameness? It went away after a day or two. Hasn't resurfaced in more than a year.

 

I feel very fortunate in having a vet (practice) I trust; the vets will listen to my concerns, even research them, we'll discuss their findings, and jointly progress from there. None of the "well, you can tell her if she doesn't like my advice that she can find another vet" that my last vet passed along to the vet tech to convey to me (when I had a legitimate concern that I'd fully researched). They tell me their recommendations (and even give me tips on where I can purchase certain items elsewhere at a lower cost). They never fail to follow up. Puppy or dog gets a shot? I get a call the next day to find out how it's doing. Whereas the last vet would return a call a week later, or pooh-pooh my concerns (to the point where I once almost lost a pup).

 

For what it's worth, I'm not sure I'd feed Royal Canin to my dog. Check this out: http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2013/05/29/dog-food-made-from-feathers-a-win-win-for-royal-canin/

[Sue R]

I find that vets that I can talk to, honestly, and who will talk to me, honestly, are worth every penny. The vets that I usually see at the practice I go to are always willing to discuss their opinions/diagnoses; treatment options; costs; and alternatives. They know I prefer to avoid antibiotics where it is reasonable to do so; minimize vaccinations; give my own lepto shots (they don't carry the 4-way lepto); and have my own opinions - but that I want to listen to theirs and make my decision.

 

I trust them, and I think they trust me.

[MrSnappy]

I use multiple vets for different things - and I don't mean different animals, I mean different diagnoses / procedures. I have a nearby vet whom I do not consider particularly progressive, and with whom I have difficulty communicating (English is not his first language) but he is very competitive when it comes to price, and is also kind hearted. He gave me his cell phone number for emergencies and will meet me any time of the night for said emergencies, and does not charge emergency prices. He has saved Piper's life twice, once when she punctured the lingual artery in her tongue and was bleeding to death down her throat, and once when she ate something toxic (I still have no idea how she did either thing). I bring rescues to him, and my own dogs when they need something straightforward, like stitching up. He is not very good with the dogs though, and none of them like him.

 

I have another, further away vet, who is much more expensive (even with my frequent flier miles discount!!), but who is easy to communicate with, and whom I trust much more when it comes to complicated diagnostics, or more complicated procedures. I elected to have him neuter Dexter, who was cryptorchid, rather than the local vet who neuters my fosters, because I felt more comfortable being able to discuss that particular surgery with my vet beforehand. He is the same man who diagnosed (and fixed!) Tweed's sesamoid problems where many other vets had failed. He is more cautious in terms of wanting extensive bloodwork and radiographs before any procedure, which on the one hand annoys me as it adds to the already considerable cost, but on the other hand I appreciate as it means he wants to make sure my dog is healthy enough and increase the odds of my pet surviving and thriving after surgery. All of my dogs are excited to visit him, even though he does mean, terrible things to them under anasthetic! ;-)

 

However, when Piper tore her ACL, while I had my expensive vet diagnose it, I went elsewhere for surgery - mostly because the surgical options he offered were too expensive. He wanted to a TPLO and my bank account wanted me to do an old skool fishing line repair. I went to still another vet who has neutered my pediatric rescue pups for the last 10 years and has tons of experience doing the fishing line repair, and while he too was difficult to communicate with (again, a language barrier), I felt confident that the sheer volume of ACL repairs he has done meant he we would do a thorough job (and he did). I did, however, have to request bloodwork (she is 10 years old) before the surgery, as he did not offer to do it.

 

NONE of the vets I have opted to use have appreciated my choice to feed a raw diet, but they have all agreed to disagree with my decision.

 

My previous vet when I lived in Vancouver was lovely, and kept Red Dog mobile for longer than doG expected him to. When he was dying, she gave me his file, including radiographs, as she was going out of town and if I had to take him in the E Vet she didn't want them recharging for diagnostics she had already done. When his time came to die, her partner vet was kind enough to tell me this, rather than try to extend his life and comfort beyond reasonable limits, even though I'd have paid anything to keep him alive at that point. While these vets both failed to diagnose Tweed's (admittedly rather rare problem), I will always treasure them for what they did for Briggs.

 

This is really a long winded way of saying I am an informed owner and CONSUMER, and I choose my services based on my needs and the needs of my dogs. Vets are invaluable, but being smart about your pet is the best way to advocate for him.

 

RDM

[juliepoudrier]

The vet who owns the practice I use prefers horse and farm work to small animals. She's very down to earth and used to dealing with people who won't spend money without a good reason and that transfers to her dealings with pets.

 

One of the best, most practical vets I ever had was also a large animal vet. I think it does make a difference in their approach to companion animals, and I really appreciated his advice and our relationship. I never felt like he recommended anything unnecessary, and I could ask him or discuss with him just about anything. I was sorry when I moved away. Such vets are priceless.

 

 

I find that vets that I can talk to, honestly, and who will talk to me, honestly, are worth every penny. The vets that I usually see at the practice I go to are always willing to discuss their opinions/diagnoses; treatment options; costs; and alternatives.

 

And this. I would also add that I prefer a vet who isn't so territorial that he/she won't work with additional vets to deal with a problem. For example, when my Jill dislocated her hip, I said to my regular vet that I wanted him to work in conjunction with the rehab/holistic vet and he had no problem with that.

 

As TEC said, a good relationship is most important. I can't abide a vet who patronizes me or who tries to push products/serrvices on me without a well reasoned argument for those products/services and without listening to or acknowleding my reasons for NOT wanting such services.

 

Being able to talk to a vet and have a vet listen to what I have to say is important to me. I don't think I can replace my vet for diagnostics, but I know my pets best and my vet needs to listen to what *I* think might be going on, because in the end I am my pet's only advocate and I am an educated and observant person who can add a great deal to the process of caring for my animals.

 

 

This is really a long winded way of saying I am an informed owner and CONSUMER, and I choose my services based on my needs and the needs of my dogs. Vets are invaluable, but being smart about your pet is the best way to advocate for him.

 

And this too.

 

J.

[mum24dog]

I'm probably going to ask a dumb question here but my only experience of US vets is via TV and shows such as Emergency Vets where the vets are treated with (to me) excessive deference by the clients and called "Doctor".

 

I know there are vets here who hide behind a cloak of professional authority but most people I know are on first name terms with their vet.

 

Is it normal to call a vet "Doctor" where you are? Do you feel it puts you at a disadvantage in your dealings with them if it is?

[Smalahundur]

Is it normal to call a vet "Doctor" where you are? Do you feel it puts you at a disadvantage in your dealings with them if it is?

Here in Iceland? No way. On the other hand one would adress the prime minister with his first name in this country so maybe that doesn´t count.

[juliepoudrier]

I think here it is more normal to refer to the vet by his/her title. It's really just a title of respect (just like addressing a university professor as "Dr." or even a physician). I personally don't find it intimidating and it wouldn't change my working relatiionship with the vet. Vets I've worked for I addressed by first name, but not to clients. Again, it's a matter of respect for their profession and nothing more, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I know people who have the attitude that the vet is the expert and they should never question anything the vet says/does, and that drives me crazy, but I think those sorts of folks would be the same no matter how they addressed their vet.

 

J.

[alligande]

The vets I have experience with have all been refereed to as Dr by their staff. I have known my vet for 15 years and I do call her by her name, but only because it seemed silly not to after awhile.

 

I don't have a problem with it, I think they are comparable to human doctors in terms of training and knowledge. Also I have never felt that it was a disadvantage in my dealings with them.

[mum24dog]

I think here it is more normal to refer to the vet by his/her title. It's really just a title of respect (just like addressing a university professor as "Dr." or even a physician). I personally don't find it intimidating and it wouldn't change my working relatiionship with the vet. Vets I've worked for I addressed by first name, but not to clients. Again, it's a matter of respect for their profession and nothing more, as far as I'm concerned.

J.

 

When I was at uni too many years ago than I care to remember some lecturers were addressed by their title, some by their first name. Same at school - one of my German teachers was Mr Leeming, the other Ian. It depended on how well we knew them and how much they stood on their own dignity.

 

In practice "Doctor" here is reserved for physicians and middle ranking academics or theologians. Even the top orthopaedic consultant we use is Simon to everybody. He has earned our respect and not using a title doesn't detract from that.

 

I found this on Wikipaedia (not always wrong) on UK Vet medicine which may go some way to explaining the difference in our naming conventions -

 

Veterinary surgeons without postgraduate doctorate degrees are titled Mr, Ms or Mrs, which is different to many other countries such as the United States where the qualifying degree is a doctorate (hence the title used is Dr). The origins of veterinary surgeons parallel to human surgery are reflected in human medicine where qualified surgeons also drop their Dr designation and revert to their original title. The naming convention for veterinary surgeons has been debated, with some favouring the use of the Dr title for all vets.

[Jumpin Boots]

I have noticed a difference with small animal vets being referred with dr. while large animals vets tend to just go by their first or last name.

[Mark Billadeau]

We have a good working relationship with the owner of the vet clinic we use and a couple of the other vets at this clinic. The owner has participated in an ABCA study. We have discussed cutting edge veterinary research and treatments, which he keeps up with. He knows and accepts we use livestock meds for monthly heartworm preventative; he has told us he would not be supportive if we didn't show him the level of medical/veterinary understanding that he sees in us. Everyone at the clinic remarks that we have athletic dogs (in other words not fat); and he'll remark about their heart rates. I greatly appreciate the working relationship we have with this vet in dealing with the health of our dogs.

 

We use Dr. with our vet as a sign of respect.

[mum24dog]

We use Dr. with our vet as a sign of respect.

 

I guess we are less formal here.

 

I rarely go to the doctor myself and don't get to develop a personal relationship so would call any of the medics Doctor. I do go the dentist regularly and the dentists in the practice are referred to by their first name by staff and patients alike.

[Mark Billadeau]

Every region or group has their own traditions.

My family (midwest) always has the kids use titles: Uncle, Aunt, etc in front of the first name.

My wife's family (south) never did this.

In school we always used titles for the teachers (Mr, Mrs, or Dr); these same teachers did not expect (or want) their titles used outside of school.

No one at my work uses titles (lots of PhDs and occasionally a PhD MD).

[Tommy Coyote]

We call our vets Dr unless we know them well personally.

 

Some people just refer to the vet as Doc. It's familiar and friendly.

[katenjim]

My Veterinarian moved to New Zealand from the states and she said everyone calls her by her first name, as well as her co- worker vets. She said it's the same in schools too, first name basis. She really likes it, doesn't make anyone feel inferior, and much more personal.

k

[alligande]

Pam as you know the British are weird when it comes to titles especially for doctors. Regular doctors are called Dr, yet specialists revert to Mr.

In Germany everyone wants to be a Dr. and there have been scandals this year of politicians who faked their phd so they could use the title.

Titles are weird things, I have always taken them with a grain of salt, at my my boarding school in England I called most (but not everyone) by their christian name, at uni I also used a christian name, at most a Mr. at grad school in the states many proffessors wanted to be called by their titles, either Dr. Or Profesor. It was weird to me a Brit but what the heck I wanted a good grade so if it made them happy I used the correct name... Ironically I called the director of the program by his name.