No expense spared: a dachshund gets ear acupuncture at a Japanese vet's: Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Should you shell out for a dog’s MRI scan when there are queues at the local food bank?

Money determines which procedures and treatments are carried out. I tend to discourage clients from spending ridiculous sums on their animals.

“I don’t care how much it costs!” The refrain is heard every day in veterinary practice. I have no idea who has some money, who has none, who has less than none, who has won the Lottery. The fluent and well spoken often have nothing to spend on their animals; the incoherent and almost incomprehensible sometimes have thousands in their back pocket.

Money determines which procedures and treatments are carried out. I tend to discourage clients from spending ridiculous sums on their animals. The increasing availability of MRI scans, for example, has certainly enlightened many conditions in the dark backward and abysm of the brain; but it seems that many in the profession are falling back on such diagnostics in cases where it is obvious that something is untreatable. The cost of an MRI scan for a dog? Over £1,000. The cost of the apparatus? Over £1m.

I do care what it costs. The food banks here in the north-east are thriving. When clients tell me that they “don’t care how much it costs”, it is a cause for anxiety.

There was recently a letter in the Veterinary Times by a clinician still traumatised by the abuse from a client who insisted that his puppy should have a CT scan – but would not pay for it. Vets do receive abuse and threats: I reckon on about one tirade every six months. It’s a professional millstone that we cannot respond in kind. Worse, we then receive a letter of complaint through the Royal College. More paperwork. More diplomacy. Surely it’s easier in the Foreign Office.

Some people have their animals insured. Great. Early in my career, I was called out to see a lame horse. On examining it, I found it needed a more extensive work-up than I had the equipment and the experience for. The owner, tab smouldering in the corner of her mouth, agreed that referral was appropriate, especially given the excellence of the insurance policy she had. I suggested an equine practice that might help her. She recoiled, drew hard on her cigarette, shook her head and told me she’d had to sue it for the death of her last horse. So I referred her to a different practice. Her horse went along and was treated appropriately. She left an insurance claim at the practice – for a cat belonging to someone else. There’s bravado for you.

Sometimes, “I don’t care how much it costs!” means, “How dare you mention money! That’s all you vets think about! None of you care!” I think we do care but in a way they’re right – each consultation, I go through all the treatment options and their expenses in detail. Some people are embarrassed that they do not have enough money for the treatment. I praise them wholeheartedly – out of relief that they can spend their money more appropriately. I was once appalled to hear that a client had needed to move house, having spent £5,000 on futile colic surgery for her horse. It is a weakness that must not be exploited by vets.

Besides, there are usually cheaper ways of doing things. Try another practice, for example, as the prices are arbitrary and differ vastly. I have removed a cat’s thyroid (thyroidectomy) in three different practices for £200, £500 and £800. Same surgeon, same procedure, same equipment. I find it extraordinary that clients rarely compare prices on surgery.

Is it a rich man’s world? Most vets who have been qualified for more than ten years earn between £35,000 and £50,000 a year. The farm vets get paid the least, then the equine; the small animal vets are the richest of us all. Where I live, that is often considerably richer than most of our clients.

Then again, compared to the other middle-class professions (accountants, lawyers, medics), we are a poor relation. However, I’d rather squeeze the purulent anal glands of a basset hound than inspect the haemorrhoids of an obese Yorkshireman or advise a crook under which floorboards to hide his or her money. “I don’t care how much it costs . . .”

This article first appeared in the 28 May 2014 issue of the New Statesman, The elites vs the people

@Simon_Cullen via Twitter
Show Hide image

All 27 things wrong with today’s Daily Mail front cover

Where do I even start?

Hello. Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong. Very wrong. So wrong that if you have seen today’s Daily Mail cover, you no doubt immediately turned to the person nearest to you to ask: “Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong.”

But just how wrong is the wrong Mail cover? Let me count the ways.

  1. Why does it say “web” and not “the web”?
  2. Perhaps they were looking on a spider’s web and to be honest that makes more sense because
  3. How does it take TWO MINUTES to use a search engine to find out that cars can kill people?
  4. Are the Mail team like your Year 8 Geography teacher, stuck in an infinite loop of typing G o o g l e . c o m into the Google search bar, the search bar that they could’ve just used to search for the thing they want?
  5. And then when they finally typed G o o g l e . c o m, did they laboriously fill in their search term and drag the cursor to click “Search” instead of just pressing Enter?
  6. The Daily Mail just won Newspaper of the Year at the Press Awards
  7. Are the Daily Mail – Newspaper of the Year – saying that Google should be banned?
  8. If so, do they think we should ban libraries, primary education, and the written word?
  9. Sadly, we know the answer to this
  10. Google – the greatest source of information in the history of human civilisation – is not a friend to terrorists; it is a friend to teachers, doctors, students, journalists, and teenage girls who aren’t quite sure how to put a tampon in for the first time
  11. Upon first look, this cover seemed so obviously, very clearly fake
  12. Yet it’s not fake
  13. It’s real
  14. More than Google, the Mail are aiding terrorists by pointing out how to find “manuals” online
  15. While subsets of Google (most notably AdSense) can be legitimately criticised for profiting from terrorism, the Mail is specifically going at Google dot com
  16. Again, do they want to ban Google dot com?
  17. Do they want to ban cars?
  18. Do they want to ban search results about cars?
  19. Because if so, where will that one guy from primary school get his latest profile picture from?
  20. Are they suggesting we use Bing?
  21. Why are they, once again, focusing on the perpetrator instead of the victims?
  22. The Mail is 65p
  23. It is hard to believe that there is a single person alive, Mail reader or not, that can agree with this headline
  24. Three people wrote this article
  25. Three people took two minutes to find out cars can drive into people
  26. Trees had to die for this to be printed
  27. It is the front cover of the Mail

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.