Supervet....

9

{97702}

...
Joined
9 July 2012
Messages
14,849
Visit site
AAAARGH! First time I have ever watched this and I am screaming at the TV already, why oh why is this all about the owners and not about putting the poor dog first??!! Please reassure me that there are still owners out there who put their own feelings aside and think of their poor animals, and that this idiot Noel who is the supposed 'supervet' actually gives realistic advice sometimes and says that the poor animal should be PTS for the animal's sake?

Sorry, rant over now :(
 
Ah you missed the one where they put an 18 month gsd to sleep for awful hips and elbows- and the owner then went and got his half brother. I like some of what he does, some others not so much. I do think it also shows up some of the issues in some breeds but I'd like them to highlight it more.
 
I agree with that, so far we have had a very crocked GSD type police dog (not related to breed!) and a bulldog that has needed both front legs operated on - poor things :(

Oh and a greyhound with corns, I did wonder WTF sort of vet the owners went to originally who couldn't diagnose such an incredibly common problem in greyhoounds!
 
Having the same uneasy feeling that they're putting animals through extaordinarily tough ops and rehabs when my gut feeling is it's being done for the owner and not the animal. Also. How much do those procedures cost?! Would insurance cover them?
 
madmav said:
Having the same uneasy feeling that they're putting animals through extaordinarily tough ops and rehabs when my gut feeling is it's being done for the owner and not the animal. Also. How much do those procedures cost?! Would insurance cover them?
Click to expand...

The police dog particularly annoyed me - that is taxpayers money they are gambling on an uncertain outcome, on a dog that definitely cannot be re-homed if the prognosis is not good enough for the dog to go back to being a police dog :(

Glad it isn't just me madmav :)
 
Well sadly I shall never get the opportunity to form a more informed opinion as I am certainly not watching that rubbish again :(
 
To be brutally honest 90% of the dogs he treats, if they were mine, I would PTS rather than put them through the very lengthy rehab process but I also think he's a very innovative surgeon and isn't afraid to push boundaries.

One case in particular really bothered me (from another series). The owners had categorically said the dog should be PTS and they did not want want the surgery. They were eventually persuaded to have the dog operated on which probably resulted in them being left with a debt of thousands of pounds (money was a real issue for them). The owners decision should be final, end of.
 
A bitch I bred had surgery for the same thing the police dog had (not with Supervet, it was a few years ago). She made a full recovery, although her owner did retire her from working trials as she was 7 when she had the surgery. I would hope the police dog would be able to be back in work, if not I would think her handler would keep her in retirement which is what a lot of police handlers do. The bulldog I do think should probably have been pts. I am still undecided about Noel Fitzpatrick, I think some of his surgery is amazing but do feel that sometimes it goes too far.
 
deb_l222 said:
To be brutally honest 90% of the dogs he treats, if they were mine, I would PTS rather than put them through the very lengthy rehab process but I also think he's a very innovative surgeon and isn't afraid to push boundaries.

One case in particular really bothered me (from another series). The owners had categorically said the dog should be PTS and they did not want want the surgery. They were eventually persuaded to have the dog operated on which probably resulted in them being left with a debt of thousands of pounds (money was a real issue for them). The owners decision should be final, end of.
Click to expand...

Was that the grossly overweight Malamute? If so I agree with you, I felt sorry for the owners who I felt were rather bullied by their friends, and the knowledge that the tv cameras were there.
 
They specifically said that the police dog would be PTS if it could not return to life as a police dog, apparently it is/was very dog aggressive and had other behavioural issues which meant it could not be retired as they normally would.
 
He sorted my Lurcher Daisy, she went to him with this

DaisyBeck00030004.jpg
[/URL]
DaisyBeck00030003.jpg
[/URL]

and he did this, she runs like the wind now

DaisyBeck0001.jpg
[/URL]
DaisyBeck00030002.jpg
[/URL]
 
Really don't think you can call it rubbish, yes sometimes I would question if the animal would be better pts but often the results are amazing and the dog goes on to have a pain free life.
Also he is doing some really ground breaking surgery which in the long run will possibly help both people and animals.
 
Lévrier;12886229 said:
They specifically said that the police dog would be PTS if it could not return to life as a police dog, apparently it is/was very dog aggressive and had other behavioural issues which meant it could not be retired as they normally would.
Click to expand...

Ah missed that bit. It didn't look to have too many issues from what we saw, maybe that was just said for dramatic effect. I think they do hype things up a bit.
 
Sorry SS but we will have to politely disagree on this one, I detest sensationalist TV programmes that put the ego and "fame" of the individual(s) involved at the forefront of the issue.... which is probably why I don't watch TV generally :D

Ground breaking surgery is not always a good thing, I have seen some appalling photographs of animals being given multiple prosthetic limbs or similar, yes it is ground breaking but there is no way that it gives an adequate quality of life to the animal involved :(

Pain free does not equate to quality of life in my opinion :(
 
Yes it was the Malamute. I can't even remember what the poor dog had done now but I think the owners were away (or something like that).

When they spoke to the owners, they said at least half a dozen times we don't want / can't afford the surgery and to put the dog to sleep. They were effectively bullied into surgery for that dog and that is just so wrong.
 
I am genuinely confused by how I feel on this one, there are cases where if it was my pet i would feel that they were suffering too much and it would be fairer to pts, but if a painful 6 month rehab gives them 6 more happy pain free years then was 6 months not worth it in the long run? Obviously with a human we would take that trade off but they can understand that the pain is not forever but we can't communicate that to our pet, but still 6 months for 6 years for example???
 
While I think that he is a fantastic surgeon, I do find myself questioning whether it is morally right to do some of the stuff they do. That bulldog had problems with all four legs that would require surgery, is that fair? I don't know, I guess it depends on how you feel. I thought that episode last season where the owners were on holiday when the dog was injured and they wanted to PTS the poor thing but were persuaded quite strongly to go through with a very expensive operation was wrong. If you notice, he often gets in the weaker member of the family, the children or females (sorry but I am not being sexist but he definitely does turn on the charm) and gets them really involved with what can be done so then they are onside to go ahead regardless of how hopeless the situation seems. Two years ago my dog was kicking in the head by a horse and knocked out, I thought he was dead, when he came round he couldn't walk. It was a Bank Holiday (obviously) and I had the choice of going to Dick White Referrals (like Fitzpatricks but near Newmarket) or our local out of hours Vet24. I had just £200 spare in the bank and no savings, so I went to the out of hours practice, told them my situation and they were very sympathetic. The vet did ask if she could do an MRI but said it would just tell us how bad the head injury was not fix it, so I declined and said that I really couldn't afford it and would rather spend what money I did having on getting him right and giving him time. Thankfully he was fine and apart from not being able to swim for a year and a funny bark as he lost his gag reflec for a week after the accident. It's a bit like people not putting down their horses that are clearly in pain and just buting them up for a long time so they don't have to make the decision.
 
Laafet said:
It's a bit like people not putting down their horses that are clearly in pain and just buting them up for a long time so they don't have to make the decision.
Click to expand...

Exactly that for me Laafet - even my other half disagrees with me, but I have had animals all my life and he has not. I am very glad your dog was OK :)

Morally I could not put an animal through the things I have seen even on one episode of this programme :(
 
What is too far? Is a spay too far? You can't explain to a dog that it's for its own good.
I think from this series he appears to have a good sense of what is too much - everyone has dirffernet morals and ethics and who are you to say your view is right rather than owner a who wants to try or owner b who wants to pts as soon as a leg is broken etc. etc.
 
Who am I? I am someone who has had animals all of my life, and always puts the interests of those animals at the forefront of what I do. I am not someone who wants to do everything I can for little Fluffy because I cannot bear to be without them. Or someone who wants to take on an interesting, complex or challenging case to give me the chance to do pioneering surgery or other veterinary work. Or someone who wants an ego-boost from having a sensationalist TV programme made about them.

And if it were as simple as a broken leg I would have no problem with 'trying' - the cases I saw tonight are far more complex, with a far greater chance of potential failure.
 
But who are you to say person x who has also had animals all their life and also believes they are putting the animals interest first is wrong?
 
But if we never take a chance on doing something because it might fail we will never progress.
I'm not saying what he does is always right but in a lot of these cases they do make a full recovery.
I'm also someone who's always had animals, and I'm not a fluffy bunny type either. I have respect for my animals.
I'm afraid that the breeding in a lot of these dogs is too blame for many of the problems that need to rectified. That's the big disgrace.
 
I agree with you about the breeding SS, although perhaps that is a whole other debate/thread :) :) I can also see and understand the argument about no progress without taking a chance - I think I object to the way that is presented in programmes like Supervet far more than the concept itself.
 
Hmm I agree with you in some sense.

But often (not always) the animals do go on to live happy healthly lives after their treatment, seemingly none the wiser about their ordeal.
 
Noel Fitzpatrick is one of the groundbreaking surgeons of this era and is pushing veterinary medicine into a new a new level of progress.

I was at a conference lately where he was the main speaker.He is one of the most inspirational people I have ever met.
He went above and beyond his time allocated in order to try and fit in as much teaching as he could.He started lectures early on sunday and worked overtime both days as he had an interested audience and had so much he wanted to cover and teach.
Most of the surgerys he was discussing will not be done as standard practice Ireland for another 10 years(at best) but he still wanted to explain them and show the options and raise the bar in the standard of care that can be provided and is possible within vet med. His developments and standards of care make the options and standards I work in daily seem third world....and my practice is relatively progressive for my location.
He is doing groundbreaking operations, a hugh amount of research project's and developing new inovations and techniques.....and he does it at great cost to himself.He is married to that practice and obsessed about work.If it was all about the money he could make plenty without pushing for progress.

He can justify the surgeries he does to himself and has quite strict ethical standards.If the dog will face no good quality of life post recovery from surgery he will not recommend it.Yes he does recommend PTS in cases where there is no hope. It took him a very long time to convince the tv programmers to film a euthanasia and show the other side of the coin.He's been fighting to have one in there for a long time but it likely wouldn't make popular tv so was out until this season.

The real question is how long are people willing to see an animal in recovery for?Dogs cannot consent their owners must do so for them. Is a few weeks of confinement and physio while on strong pain meds completely wrong if the dog goes on to live a healthy and happy life for years after?
where so you draw the line? I would undergo surgery if I knew it would save me from paralysis/remove pain/improve quality of life ....why shouldnt my dog be offered the same chance when the knowledge and the skill required to perform it is there.

Yes the ops we are seeing on the show are somewhat overhyped but the work he is doing is groundbreaking and deserves a chance to be shown to the world. He had a spinal dog standing and able to walk within 48 hours of surgery!thats mind-blowing compared to the norm!The show helps to illustrate the options that are out there.It lets people know there are possibilities in what may seem like hopeless cases.

Why is an animals life less worthy of treatment then a humans? no one would bat an eyelid at the idea of humans having joint replacements for a better quality of life...dogs were used as research guinea pigs for joint replacements 30 years ago in order to advance human medicine.Noel is one of the few people offering dogs this option of surgery and of pain free life in canines now,30 years later.

Complications are a risk with every surgery....but if you look at the stats and success rates that he is having in some of his complex surgerys and compare it to routine similar lower cost surgeries done in run of the mill vet practices you would be shocked.His standard's of care are exceptional,his pain management excellent and rates of complications are NOT statistically high considering the type of surgeries he is doing.

Would I do everything he has done.No I wouldnt. But I would like the option to be available to my pet if she could benefit from it. Yes I would. Advancement doesn't happen easily. There are casualties in ever new advancement as techniques are refined....but without trying we will never get progress and improvement in standards.

We need more noel fitzpatricks!The tv show is showing only the very tip of the iceberg of what he is doing. If I lived in England and had a serious orthopaedic or neuro issue with my own dog I would not hesitate in using his services. Hell if my dog went off her back legs tomorrow but could be transported I would seriously consider making the trip to the UK.
 
Last edited:
Double hip replacement on a malamute cost 10 grand, I spoke to the woman who had this done on her HD dog. Fitzpatrick goes far too far sometimes, imo. Some of the animals should be pts.

Not Fitzpatrick but a recent pic of a husky on spring like 3d printed legs looked horrific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top