Our response to a recent piece by ABCs 20/20 titled Is Your Veterinarian Being Honest With You abcnews.go/2020 To Whom it May Concern at ABC’s 20/20: On November 22nd you aired a piece titled “Is your veterinarian being honest with you?. We feel like the title should more accurately read “Is 20/20 being honest with you?”. As a news program, there should be an expected amount of journalistic integrity and research that goes into any story you do, which is why this most recent story about veterinary care was so difficult to view, as veterinarians and as pet owners. We commend you on being able to instill unnecessary fear and doubt into the minds of pet owners. This video focused on accusations made by a veterinarian, Dr. Andrew Jones, who was fined repeatedly by the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia for ethics violations (cvbc.ca/cfm/index.cfm?It=903). Ethics violations do not infer malpractice. They are simply rules that guide basic behavior and are common to many academic professions. Rather than behave ethically, Dr. Jones is fined repeated and eventually chose to voluntarily give up his ability to practice. So the question begs 20/20…why interview a man who admits to doing these practices AND who received a guilty verdict for professional misconduct from his province’s licensing board? Findings: Dr. Jones engaged in marketing practices in contravention of the bylaws and violated written undertakings he provided to the BCVMA regarding his marketing practices. Council found Dr. Jones guilty of unprofessional conduct. So should Dr. Jones really be judging the rest of the veterinary community? He is the veterinarian that he is trying to warn pet owners against. The most unfortunate part of the story is that there is definitely some truth to Dr. Jones’ statements, there are unfortunately a small number of veterinarians whose practice of veterinary medicine is money related and not related to the best care for their patients. In fact, Dr. Jones himself admits to being one of these veterinarians, not only while in the employ of another veterinarian, but when he himself owned his own business. The medical conditions that Dr. Jones accused veterinarians of using as upsells to pet owners, are NOT upsells in the hands of ethical veterinarians. Dr. Jones begins by suggesting the veterinary profession routinely upsells the pet owner by mentioning the “C” word (cancer) when encountering a mass/growth on a pet. He says that these are routinely fatty masses and implies they are inconsequential. Having seen far too many pets diagnosed with cancer, whose owners can only say “I pointed this lump out to my vet months ago, but he/she told me to just watch it”. Now this lump is diagnosed as cancer, and has had more time to grow making it more difficult to remove, and if aggressive, has also had more time to spread to other organs. Yes, benign fatty lumps (called lipomas) often feel a certain way, but many masses/growths of the skin (especially mast cell tumors) can look and feel EXACTLY the same. So to say “It’s nothing, just monitor it” is MALPRACTICE. We don’t know Dr. Jones, but WOW he must be better than all of the other medical professionals in this world (human and veterinary) because he can feel and therefore diagnose a condition that most medical professionals would have to use a microscope for. Now we are not saying that all fatty masses need to be removed, but any surgeon can tell you stories of fatty masses that were not removed and then became a problem for the patient down the road. Even a benign mass can be life threatening when it occurs in the wrong location. Cancer IS a scary word, and it should not be used to force owners into doing a test. If the recommendation is made to the pet owner and they decline that is their right, but to not mention the possibility is just wrong. The episode follows with a discussion of upselling dental procedures. When people have routine dental cleanings, they are performed the patient is awake. Unfortunately the veterinarian cannot tell his patient to open wide or lie still for the dental procedure. These procedures must be performed under heavy sedation or general anesthesia. Therefore, most veterinarians take very seriously their duty to make appropriate and safe recommendations for each patient. Yes 20/20! Tartar on the teeth is dental disease in its earliest stages. See the statement from the American Veterinary Dental College (avdc.org/ownersinfo.html). Some tartar may not warrant a teeth cleaning, but recommendations for preventative care may be appropriate at the time (avdc.org/carefordogs.html). Depending on the amount of tartar and other factors, teeth cleaning should be recommended. Many veterinarians recommend annual cleanings for appropriate patients. The same procedure (without the anesthesia) is recommended every 6 months for people! As an additional note, the “healthy” dog Honey in the segment had a clearly ABNORMAL gum proliferation/growth over her upper right molar/premolar. The vet/owner (not sure whom) actually touched it with their thumb- you should alert Honey’s owner to have this assessed! Last but definitely not least, lets clear up some confusion in the segment regarding vaccines, which is a hot topic even amongst the veterinary community. First, lets review the AVMA’s (American Veterinary Medical Association) recommendations regarding vaccinations: It is recommended to follow label indications/recommendations; however, veterinarians may legally exercise discretionary judgment in some instances if medically justified and when in compliance with all governmental restrictions that may apply. (copied from AVMA.org) If you actually look at the labels for most vaccines, they are labeled for 1 year. There are some that have been labeled for every 3 years, but the use of any other vaccines more or less often is considered “off label” use and is done by the veterinarian at their own risk. Some vaccines, to be truly effective, may have to be given every 6 months. The veterinarian portrayed in the segment as the “bad vet” was under the understanding Honey was there for her “annuals” which is generally when vaccines are given. While he should have been more aware of the reason for Honey’s visit, he didn’t proceed or force the owner into vaccinating against her will and his comment about the distemper vaccination is not untrue as several distemper vaccines are labeled only for 1 year use. Despite the fact that Dr. Jones says that the majority of veterinarians are ethical, and while it is commented that most of the veterinarians who assessed the first dog found her healthy, the overall tone that pet owners are going to have is that veterinarians are out to rip them off. Our sadness with this impression will only become worse the next time we see a client and make a valid and potentially life-improving recommendation and they decline because of your seriously biased reporting, based on a story from a former veterinarian charged with unprofessional conduct. Whenever strong accusations are made, we suggest looking behind the curtain to see if the accuser has an agenda. They may be honest whistle blowers. However, they may have an agenda of their own which in most cases are profit motivated. And yes, we did notice the still image of Dr. Jones appearing to perform surgery without a cap or mask. Certainly something we would not accept from our own personal surgeons! Being a veterinarian is a great honor and while there are those, such as Dr.Jones, who dishonor our profession, every day we do wonderful things for pets and their owners alike. Perhaps for your next story you should consider reporting the good that we do every day with heart and compassion. As a matter of fact....interview us, well set the record straight! Sincerely, THE PET DOCTORS Dr. Arvid Edward, DVM Dr. Jim Bogan, DVM, DABVP Dr. Lisa Langs, DVM, DACVIM Dr. Kevin Winkler, DVM, DACVS
Posted on: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 14:23:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015