Would you?

Aru said:
and several of his pushing the boundaries surgeries when it comes to dogs were human surgeries that were initially practiced on dogs as test subjects
Click to expand...

Is that not still happening? Is that not what he has said publicly? That the work he has done on people's pets has helped inform research/surgery in humans. As long as people/owners are fully aware of that, whether we agree or disagree on ethics. If we take the emotion and sentiment out of it, whether we think it is good or bad or we have no opinion at all, he is, essentially, practising on people's pets to further his, and others', knowledge, whether in veterinary or human medicine.
 
good post aru, i think a lot depends on the dogs capability of coping with the after effects of surgery and the necessary confinement to ensure healing. i would never have put my lurcher through anything major as she was a very sensitive soul and petrified when she had to go to the vets, even for routine jabs..my current dogs would cope but i wouldnt put my 13 yer old collie cross through anything invasive because of her age.... i dont dislike fitzpatrick but do not watch any more , i particularly remember a 9 year old great dane being put through back surgery and this didnt sit comfortably with me..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aru
It's still happening. The bone cancer replacement prosthetics, in particular, are being modified for use in children with bone tumors. So they get to keep limbs and be bionic instead of being amputees. obviously it's not allowed to build and trial non-clinically tested prosthetics in humans children-as it won't pass an ethics committee...but an owner can choose it for their pet..with informed consent and knowing the risks....and the things we learn from the pets adds to what we can do in human med in the future...as well as the later generations of pets who get better prosthetics.

I just figured Id rambled on enough in my full of question marks post lol

I'm also bias I've been at conferences where Noel was speaking. He's absolutely mad and completely married to the job...stayed talking for hours at the conference sharing knowledge, incredibly interesting person..and up to his eyes in debt given the hospitals, he owns and will never pay it back in his lifetime. The program, however, is the greatest advertising any referral hospital could ever ask for.
 
Last edited:
My biggest ethical issue with Fitzpatrick's goes back to a point I made earlier. They are doing surgery for the owner not the animal. We have no real way of knowing quality of life for an animal, not really. We can't explain to them the risks or gain informed consent for procedures. They don't fear death the way that we do, they are or they are not and they cannot rationalise a long recovery process or getting through the days when they are in pain because they "still have more good days than bad days" (whatever that really means). All an animal knows is the here and now.
We know dogs especially are pretty stoic about pain, we know a wagging tail is not always indicative of happiness, and yet we still talk about having more good than bad as if it is ok to measure happiness in that way.
So Noel with his surgery (and I rarely watch but I know someone who uses him) performs some surgery on a dog in massive amounts of pain. This dog without Noel would have a short life full of pain - the one I know frequently says without the practise her dogs would not be here. The dog is then subjected to a long arduous recovery - hopefully mainly pain free thanks to medication. Then the dogs I know (who are pampered and adored) have a longer life with a lower level of pain, but they are not pain free. For me, it's not about the money but just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. For an animal that lives in a world of only now and yesterday it doesn't matter to me that tomorrow they may be comfortable or that more of their days are comfortable than not. They don't know hope and we cannot tell them the whys and wherefores too often we are prolonging their life for our sake not theirs.
I do understand his point of view, and I believe he sees a problem and simply wants to fix it (as best he can). I don't think as some do that he does it for money or prestige or even that he does surgery for the sake of it. I truly believe he thinks he is improving the life of the animals he treats; and he is in so many ways but my idea of good enough life quality and his are I think not the same.
 
Splashgirl- age makes things very interesting and much more controversial.

Personally I look on it as...does this animal have a good QoL of life to look forward to? how long is the recovery likely to be and what's the chances of a return to full function?..oh and can they tolerate it?

A healthy 9-year-old Dane with no other issues could live 2 more years....or die in 3 to 6 months.
If there's other issues then definitely looking shady....but I've met healthy 9-year-old Danes...and ones on their last legs at the same age. I haven't seen that episode as it happens....what was the eventual outcome for the dog?

On the same line though. I get told almost daily...oh I don't want to put my pet through a dental because they are old.
or I'm worried about the anesthetic and they will die because they are old- usually as the animal has a trench mouth full of disease inflamed gums and mobile painful teeth. Eventually some get malar abscessation and owners have to decide between death and dental and many chose dental.
I **touches wood frantically** have yet to lose an old animal while doing a dental. Even in the ones(multiple's done see post above about common ethical dilemmas) coming in with pus pouring out of their faces and refusing to eat drink or be touched. Most post-dental act significantly happier and many act puppyish after..as they are no longer in chronic pain-albeit they have to gum on things instead of chew.

Anaesthetic are inherently risky, there's always a percentage of animals who cannot process or handle the drugs used...regardless of age.. but old age isn't a disease it just predisposes you to having more other issues going on.

Should I be euthanising the old animals rather than fixing their dental disease? It is painful to have teeth removed and they have to recover from an anesthetic. they will have annoying stitches in their mouth for weeks in some cases.
Many of the older dogs actually do have other issues to manage as well as dental. many are already being treated for osteoarthritis for example. Cats, in particular, tend to already be in kidney failure when I'm doing these big multi extraction dentals....but the vast majority have a significantly improved life post-surgery...


PS My Practice does full ga. local anesthetic blocks for extractions. everyone older gets blood taken prior to anesthetic as standard-and we modify drugs and plans depending on what underlying conditions we find,fluids throughout and multimodal pain control including opioids for premed. fentanyl patches for longterm pain relief 3-5 days after and anti-inflammatories if needed after surgical extraction level dental procedures as that's what we consider to be our standard of care, waiting for the dental x-ray machine that should be here by the end of the year.... we can provide human-level medical care when it's wanted and valued. I don't believe in leaving animals in pain I'm also lucky enough to work in an area where this is an expected standard of care and people will pay for it.

Incidentally we used to have a higher death rate in older animals when vets were still using drugs like thiopentone-it kills dogs with liver issues and several breeds are very sensitive to it-greyhounds being the big one,now that we use pretty similar meds to humans medicine and check bloods prior to procedures its very unusal to see anaesthetic deaths regardless of age. Medicine advanced and some vet got brave enough to start intubating like in humans medicine...and the expected standards rose
 
Last edited:
I am in France and my son’s little dog was operated on for ruptured disc in his neck, he recovered 100% and has had no problems since. The price was much lower than those being quoted in the UK. Can any other French pet owning residents here confirm that in general costs in the UK seem much higher. I am living north west of Paris.
 
UK surgery costs seem to be much higher then Australian- IVDD surgery would be between 5000 to 9000 here in AUD so 2500 to 4500 sterling. We do have a lot of specialists available in urban areas. Away from a city and the likes of spinal surgery often just wouldn't be possible. Those prices are are working off ct, not MRI. Our nearest animal MRI is 2 hours away. The specialist with ct is 20 minutes. Mri is better for actual diganostic images, easier to see if more then one issue etc,ct just shows bone not soft tissue...buts MRI much more expensive,to buy to maintain and to use. Less ppl are trained in using and reading it so its a specilsit only tool. Full ga for the taking of images etc are required.
Consult prices seem to be cheaper in UK but also are shorter-ours are 20 mins long not 10 to 15 which sounds common in the UK.
Dentals sound like they vary depending on parts of the country -Similar in Oz.
Overheads decide the pricing and level of possible diagnostics available and what's actually included decide the end price.
larger urban hospitals that have all the diagnostics in house tend to be more expensive then small rural practices without much tech.

Ireland generally was cheaper than the Uk as well. But also fewer options available unless in an urban centre. There isn't an MRI in Ireland permanently for example. There's multiple available in the UK.

Litigations and vet board complaints have become a common thing in the UK similar to America from what I've heard. Less of an issue in Oz and Ireland. Not sure about France.
ATM though the UK also got a vet shortage-burnout suicide and retention rate among the UK vets is a bit scary. It's not great in Oz either but yer stats are worse. Most of the Irish vets I know left the UK in the last few years since Brexit was coming. That's also likely to be forcing prices in an upwards rise.
 
Last edited:
My elderly neighbour had a JRT x who was suddenly paralysed. I took him to Fitzpatricks with her about 3 or 4 years ago - she had early dementia and couldn't drive etc.
When he got there they were cautious about prognosis and offered PTS but she could not bear the idea. He took 2 weeks to gain use of his bladder and back legs but made a full recovery. Because of her dementia and insistence on doing things "her way" (she was fiercely independent and not really able to hold onto information) they realised she would struggle with having him on cage rest and rehab. They kept him free of charge and did intensive physio for 2 more weeks. He came home and the next day I looked out of my kitchen window to see him running off lead on the common outside my house! She refused to keep him on a lead and continued to walk him an hour twice daily!
He is still walking running and jumping beautifully and appears pain free. The total cost was 6K which was a very manageable sum for her - she is very comfortable. She has no memory of any of it but Charlie is what keeps her independent and happy. Fitzpatricks were nothing but sympathetic and understanding and gave her 2 weeks of free care even though she could have paid easily.
 
Errin Paddywack said:
I watch Supervet and am always torn between admiring what can be done and wondering if it should be done. Most of the dogs shown go on to make very good recoveries but I wish more was shown as to how long it takes to get there and how much aftercare is needed, also what the final cost is. My husband and I are both agreed that we would not subject our girls to loads of surgical intervention just as I would not put a horse through colic surgery.
Hard to know just where to draw the line though.
Click to expand...
I stopped watching supervet for that reason- just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. It’s a tricky one isn’t it- they can’t tell you how they feel about something. Then again I’ve always said I’d never have colic surgery on a horse of mine, a friends horse had the surgery and was back eventing 18 months later and still going strong to this day. Each to their own I guess.
 
Aru said:
I'm also bias I've been at conferences where Noel was speaking. He's absolutely mad and completely married to the job...stayed talking for hours at the conference sharing knowledge, incredibly interesting person..and up to his eyes in debt given the hospitals, he owns and will never pay it back in his lifetime. The program, however, is the greatest advertising any referral hospital could ever ask for.
Click to expand...

When he talked to us he told us candidly that 10 million in debt is the point where it is of more benefit for the banks to keep your business open than to shut it down.........!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top