# Supervet....



## {97702} (16 April 2015)

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


----------



## ester (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## {97702} (16 April 2015)

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!


----------



## madmav (16 April 2015)

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?


----------



## {97702} (16 April 2015)

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


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 April 2015)

While I agree some of the ops are extreme, I would hardly describe him as a idiot!


----------



## {97702} (16 April 2015)

Well sadly I shall never get the opportunity to form a more informed opinion as I am certainly not watching that rubbish again


----------



## deb_l222 (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## MurphysMinder (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## MurphysMinder (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## {97702} (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## cremedemonthe (16 April 2015)

He sorted my Lurcher Daisy, she went to him with this 






[/URL]





[/URL]

and he did this, she runs like the wind now






[/URL]





[/URL]


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## MurphysMinder (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## {97702} (16 April 2015)

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  

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


----------



## deb_l222 (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## {97702} (16 April 2015)

MurphysMinder said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly so, which is why I loathe this sort of programme.....


----------



## fankino04 (16 April 2015)

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???


----------



## SpringArising (16 April 2015)

Completely agree. I've said this before when watching. Most of the dogs that we see should be PTS.


----------



## Laafet (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## {97702} (16 April 2015)

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


----------



## SusieT (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## {97702} (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## SusieT (16 April 2015)

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?


----------



## SusieT (16 April 2015)

Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## {97702} (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## risky business (16 April 2015)

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.


----------



## Aru (17 April 2015)

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.


----------



## Cinnamontoast (17 April 2015)

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.


----------



## PucciNPoni (17 April 2015)

I have avoided watching his programme for the most part and the snippets I've caught here and there have left me feeling uneasy.  Not because of what he does is groundbreaking and new - that part I think is great.  But he comes across to me as showboating a bit.  It reminds me of the early days of Caesar Milan.  

Aru, I read your post with a lot of interest  - and I appreciate your POV on this matter.  Our orthopaedic vet from our practice went to one of his seminars as well, and mean to ask him his thoughts.  

People are funny, and their reactions to this sort of thing are varied.  Some think that getting their dog's hair cut is an unnecessary expense and yet groomers do a lot to establish bond and routine within the pet/owner relationship and are front line in finding health related issues for vets to fix   and yet we still get grief for highlighting problems.  Sorry, I'm digressing a bit.  But my point was to say that some owners will never want to know about their dog's health problems and even something like a broken leg they're funny about getting fixed.  A man came in to our practice with a wee dog with a  broken leg, wanted to know if surgery would 100% be guaranteed to fix it.  How is anything medical ever 100%?  But parting with £1500 to £2k on an uninsured pup was a big deal for him.  So suggesting a £10k operation on a hip op for a malamute which will be bloody difficult to rest properly for recovery, hmmm, it seems unreasonable to me.


----------



## Thistle (17 April 2015)

You have to remember we only get to see what the TV producers choose. Ground breaking operations make good TV, especially if life hangs in balance. Dead dogs and cats do not make good TV.

A programme showing repeated owners advised to PTS would never work!


----------



## Amymay (17 April 2015)

I think the man's amazing.


----------



## Montyforever (17 April 2015)

The dog that had all 4 legs operated on made me cringe, totally unfair on the poor dog! Especially when the cancerous lump was found. 
Really like Noel, and his obvious dedication to the job is incredible. I would trust him 100% with any of my animals. But think he does need to learn to say no to over emotional owners sometimes! 
Makes you really question where the morally right/wrong line is!


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 April 2015)

There was a deerhound on the programe a couple of weeks ago, it had broken its neck. Noel Fitzpatrick was very blunt with the owners and I think he doubted the outcome himself.
However they went ahead with the op and the dog made a great recovery.
He was almost in tears at one point because he thought he was too tired to do the op and was not sure it was right to do it as he was not convinced it would work.
The dog now lives a normal life.
If you never try you will never know.
I'm not sure I agree with everything he does but he does do some amazing work.


----------



## Cyrus (17 April 2015)

A friend of mine had a double hip replacement on her malamute boy done by Noel (before the TV stuff came about) and he recovered exceptionally well and has a great quality of life doing all the things her other malamutes do which he didn't get to do before


----------



## Clodagh (17 April 2015)

I haven't watched last nights yet but generally I enjoy the program. I think he is incredible - and oh boy that voice! - and this series has been more balanced, the GSD was PTS and then the poor bulldog. I felt he didn't encourage the bulldogs owners at all to have the op.
Some things make me uncomfortable and are further than I would go. The lurcher/wolfhound with the broken neck was in agony, how far had the owners driven with it like that for him to operate? I would have got my OH to shoot it where it lay. Then it was amazing that it went on to make such a good recovery. How long before arthritis set in though?


----------



## Penny Less (17 April 2015)

The bull dog this week and the one last week were incredibly overweight, which wouldn't help with a dog with leg problems.
I do find sometimes that Noel comes across as a bit of a "how wonderful I am" type, but that may be due to editing etc.  He does try to tell the owners that they should Put the dog etc to sleep  but sometimes they wont be told. When the ops work it is wonderful, but like with the bulldog all the ops it was put through I don't feel was right


----------



## ester (17 April 2015)

He did strongly encourage the GSD owners to PTS too, there are a few more of the animals that I would just chop the legs off of than he does, there was a terrier with an amputated foot with a  new implant the other week and you could barely tell. I was surprised they didn't PTS the deerhound that was paralysed from an accident with a broken neck but I think she came out of it really well in the end but agree clodagh I would have wanted to PTS her asap. I do think he sort of says well this is what we can try, it will mean xyz but the decision is up to you, and it is difficult when you are not sure that very emotionally involved owners are in the right place/have enough knowledge to make it. 

I wanted to chop some of Frank's willy off (cancer issue) but the vet wouldn't :eek3: .


----------



## 0310Star (17 April 2015)

amymay said:



			I think the man's amazing.
		
Click to expand...

This.


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 April 2015)

I think a lot of what he does is amazing. Yes maybe at times the animal would be better pts, but as said before if you don't try you don't know. If the end result is a animal that has a normal happy pain free life surely it's worth it?
I think to call him an idiot and say what he does is rubbish is very unfair.
I doubt the owners of animals he's helped would agree.
However every one is entitled to their own opinion.


----------



## {97702} (17 April 2015)

PucciNPoni said:



			I have avoided watching his programme for the most part and the snippets I've caught here and there have left me feeling uneasy.  Not because of what he does is groundbreaking and new - that part I think is great.  But he comes across to me as showboating a bit.  It reminds me of the early days of Caesar Milan.  
.
		
Click to expand...




Thistle said:



			You have to remember we only get to see what the TV producers choose. Ground breaking operations make good TV, especially if life hangs in balance. Dead dogs and cats do not make good TV.

A programme showing repeated owners advised to PTS would never work!
		
Click to expand...

Some good points here - and in Aru's and other posts which would have made my reply a bit long if I'd quoted them all   - however I stand by my thoughts that if he was a good vet with the interests of the animals at heart he would not find it necessary to have a programme made showing what a star he is.  Showboating is a really good way of putting it - just get on and do the job mate, quit all the histrionics that you seem to find necessary  

And whilst I will repeat again that I recognise there is no progress without pushing the boundaries, some of the things I saw on the one episode last night made me feel very uncomfortable.  I thought they did not put the welfare of the animal concerned first, which is totally unacceptable.


----------



## {97702} (17 April 2015)

selinas spirit said:



			I think a lot of what he does is amazing. Yes maybe at times the animal would be better pts, but as said before if you don't try you don't know. If the end result is a animal that has a normal happy pain free life surely it's worth it?
I think to call him an idiot and say what he does is rubbish is very unfair.
I doubt the owners of animals he's helped would agree.
However every one is entitled to their own opinion.
		
Click to expand...

To be pedantic, I said the programme was rubbish not what he does....perhaps I didn't make that clear enough though


----------



## ester (17 April 2015)

Lévrier;12886700 said:
			
		


			And whilst I will repeat again that I recognise there is no progress without pushing the boundaries, some of the things I saw on the one episode last night made me feel very uncomfortable.  I thought they did not put the welfare of the animal concerned first, which is totally unacceptable.
		
Click to expand...

But very subjective.


----------



## Dobiegirl (17 April 2015)

Im on the fence with this one Levrier, in his defence He would have been approached to do the programme not the other way round I feel.

The Bulldog who was grossly fat and already had arthritis having all his legs operated on and cancer in the mix as well, even if I was a lottery winner there is no way I would put my dog through this. All the ops were a success but how long before arthritis sets in again.


----------



## melbiswas (17 April 2015)

He operated on my Mother's Springer over 10 years ago when she broke her neck after being run-over.
I remember my Mother saying he seemed very big headed but he didn't push her into having the op done, just presented the facts. It was very complex and we all had doubts, esp as she was uninsured and struggling financially.
The outcome was impressive I have to say and the dog has led a happy, active life but she had very early onset and severe arthritis. He had warned this would probably be the case.
At the time he was really pleased that she could turn her neck to some degree at a follow up appointment and I thought then,  should you operate if you think a dog will be that impaired still ?


----------



## Yellow_Ducky (17 April 2015)

deb_l222 said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure in this case the owners chose PTS as they didn't have the funds - Noel then offered to do the surgery for free and the owners agreed. Or was it a different case? I know of one that he did do for free as the dog had a really good prognosis and he didn't want money to be the sole reason that the dog didn't get a good chance at life. 
I think he seems totally dedicated to his patients and I really enjoy the show.


----------



## misst (17 April 2015)

I am in two minds sometimes but the guy is amazing. He saved my JRT when I was going to PTS because my vet could not find the problem. He did not operate and was brutally honest about the fact that as a short legged little thing who was quite timid she would not cope with 3 legs. She is fab now! My sons JRT (parsons type) also went there and had 3 discs which were causing her horrible pain. Again no op but given steroid injections and physio and rehab - she is also fab now.

Noel phoned me at 10.30 at night to give me results from my dogs MRI as he had promised to call that day. He goes above and beyond for owners and I never felt that he was there just for me or just for my dog. He treated us as a unit! Both times we have used the practice I have never felt pressured to have excessive treatment or that I was being ripped off at an time.

My bugbear with the program is that I wish they would show more failures - there are plenty in the waiting room who are back because things are not great. I also agree they need to show more euthanasia cases and show him encouraging people to put the dog first more often - but I think while this does happen it does not make good TV.....

Overall I think he is amazing and he is a very interesting and brilliant character. I will always be grateful to him.


----------



## Aru (17 April 2015)

Ethics are a funny business as they are incredibly subjective and personal.Everyone has a different stage at where they will draw the line....and at the end of the day its the owners choice.vets are expected to offer all the option but the final call is the dogs owners.
but if the boundaries of what is possible are never pushed medicine will never advance...in humans we practice and make our mistakes on lab animals first and althought their are strict ethical standards now it is a fact of life that we use animals for our own medical advancments..so why shouldnt animals see the benifits of aome of the reaserch that has been done if they have dedicated owners willing to give it a chance...To get to the stage of advancement we are at risks were taken.The first peron left to stew in a plaster of paris cast in the spainish war never had an idea of the advancement that it would bring to orthopedics in the long run...but a risk was taken and it worked out..

The tv show is just that.A show.its a business in itself and only the most exciting surgerys or particularly fun charactors/personalities are displayed. It has to be taken with a pinch of salt as it will have been heavily edited.however the shows existance is helping in its own way.It is also both a very good educational tool that gives owners a broader idea of what sort of treatments are now availiable to their pets and a very obvious marketing tool for noel.of course it increases his profit margins ot reaches a wide audience and he owns a referral hospital where bills have to be paid....why should that be considered a negative thing.veterinary is a business.

Has anyone mentioned the fact hes about to open a new cancer referral hospital yet?thats probably going to be a lot more controversial than his orthopedics.......


----------



## ester (17 April 2015)

I don't always understand why he seems to end up doing planned ops in the middle of the night quite so much .


----------



## Dobiegirl (17 April 2015)

ester said:



			I don't always understand why he seems to end up doing planned ops in the middle of the night quite so much .
		
Click to expand...

I thought that too ester, he is driven and dedicated, but he isnt the only one doing the ops, if it had been an emergency rta I could understand operating at 10.30pm at night.


----------



## gunnergundog (17 April 2015)

Dobiegirl said:



			I thought that too ester, he is driven and dedicated, but he isnt the only one doing the ops, if it had been an emergency rta I could understand operating at 10.30pm at night.
		
Click to expand...

It's likely that the true emergencies that come in unscheduled take priority and that the scheduled work gets pushed back.  I know with my vets that due to a RTA the other week a dog of mine admitted for a routine procedure was pushed back to late evening.


----------



## ester (17 April 2015)

I know that does happen quite a lot, but I am surprised that the scheduled work isn't pushed back until the next day rather than operating at 3 am.


----------



## PucciNPoni (17 April 2015)

ester said:



			I know that does happen quite a lot, but I am surprised that the scheduled work isn't pushed back until the next day rather than operating at 3 am.
		
Click to expand...

Because its not as exciting for TV?  Sorry, that's the cynic in me.  

Our e-vets do surgery in the middle of the night, generally ex-laps  - sometimes C-sections but I think most of the ortho stuff is done the next day.  However I will concede that the ortho stuff we do won't be nearly as in depth as the stuff the supervet does.


----------



## dingle12 (17 April 2015)

Aru said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...


Agree


----------



## dingle12 (17 April 2015)

I last week sadly had to put one of my dogs to sleep because she had lost feeling in her back end. I sadly didn't have the funds to do an MRI scan and if she had been insured I would of gone to Noel.


----------



## ester (17 April 2015)

I did feel it was quite likely that he finds he works better at those sort of times too, not sure about the rest of the staff though .


----------



## Winters100 (18 April 2015)

I so agree - he is an amazing vet who gave my 50kg mix breed dog years of happy pain free life by replacing both of his hips.  They were done in 2011 and today you would never know that he had any problem at all.  It is amazing to me that so many people here comment on the cost. Why do they care what I spend my money on?  Would they prefer that I upgraded my car rather than give my dog a pain free life? Buy a few designer handbags perhaps?  I simply cannot take seriously the accusation that owners were bullied into surgery and influenced by the presence of the cameras.  One of our check ups was during filming and there was a clear sign at the reception asking you to mention if you did not want to be filmed. I asked not to be on camera and at no time was it mentioned further.  I would also say that although many surgeries have a long recovery period this is not necessarily a terrible time for the dogs.  It took about a year to get my boy totally over the 2 surgeries but apart from a few days immediately post op he was able to walk fine and within a few weeks was totally pain free and walking very well. Of course we had to be careful for a long time to avoid any damage, but not being able to race around is not torture for the dog - just meant we should keep him calm and walk on the leash. Personally I was so happy to have the option to see someone of this standard and with such good facilities. I don't live in the UK and my vet did a lot of research to find the very best place in Europe. It was well worth the 2000 km round trip (which we did many times) to give my dog the life he has now.


----------



## Winters100 (18 April 2015)

cinnamontoast said:



			"Double hip replacement on a malamute cost 10 grand"

What does the cost have to do with it? My dog had double hip replacement and given the standard of care that he received it was amazingly good value for money.  Is there something else that you would prefer me to spend my money on? Some new handbags perhaps?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## PucciNPoni (18 April 2015)

Winters100 said:





cinnamontoast said:



			"Double hip replacement on a malamute cost 10 grand"

What does the cost have to do with it? My dog had double hip replacement and given the standard of care that he received it was amazingly good value for money.  Is there something else that you would prefer me to spend my money on? Some new handbags perhaps?
		
Click to expand...

Brilliant that you HAVE 10k to spend on your dog.  

Personally I would have no option but to PTS at that cost, it simply would not be an option.  It's not that I can't afford care for my animals.  We have a good standard of living and spend a rather lot on our animals.  

I'm not sure why you think that it might be more preferable to others to spend it on a frivolous purchase such as handbags.  But for some people that 10k might be food/rent/utilities for a year or more.  It's half a year's salary for a reasonably well paid person.  It's a hell of a lot of money.  I think that's the shock of it for some of us.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## misst (18 April 2015)

I think the cost is just the cost. I cannot afford a new car at the moment - it doesn't mean that no one should manufacture rolls royces.
I totally get the problem that it is heartbreaking to have treatment available that someone cannot afford. If my dog gets ill again then I will have to find the money as she has an exclusion now on her insurance. If it comes to 10K then we will have to PTS but that does not mean someone elses dog should not have the treatment. I do not believe Noel Fitzpatrick works entirely for money. He seems to have a fairly austere life and he runs a very expensive set up. It is not a charity and it needs to make a profit. 

Most of us on here spend more than we can afford on our dogs and horses. I consider myself lucky to have had enough to enjoy both and a wonderful life with them. Not everyone can afford horses either and might wince at the cost. It doesn't mean I shouldn't have one.

Money honestly earned should be disposed of entirely as the owner wishes. It is no ones business but their own.


----------



## Winters100 (18 April 2015)

My point was that I don't get how one can criticize a vet for offering procedures that are not be affordable to everyone, after all vet practices are all privately funded.  Also the vets study for many years and SHOULD be able to earn a good living from their profession, if not how will they attract bright youngsters to the profession in the future?  It always shocks me that there is so much discussion based around cost when if that amount was spent on other items no one would bat an eyelid.  Plus I know many people that have funded surgeries for their dogs via loans, taking on extra jobs etc.  Its not that it is easy for everyone but even if they struggle to pay it is their choice and they at least have the option if they want to save their pet.


----------



## Winters100 (18 April 2015)

misst said:



			I think the cost is just the cost. I cannot afford a new car at the moment - it doesn't mean that no one should manufacture rolls royces.


Money honestly earned should be disposed of entirely as the owner wishes. It is no ones business but their own.
		
Click to expand...

Agree!  You would be amazed how many people tell me that I am absurd for spending this money on my dog even though for me it was the best money I ever spent!


----------



## PucciNPoni (18 April 2015)

Winters100 said:



			My point was that I don't get how one can criticize a vet for offering procedures that are not be affordable to everyone, after all vet practices are all privately funded.  Also the vets study for many years and SHOULD be able to earn a good living from their profession, if not how will they attract bright youngsters to the profession in the future?  It always shocks me that there is so much discussion based around cost when if that amount was spent on other items no one would bat an eyelid.  Plus I know many people that have funded surgeries for their dogs via loans, taking on extra jobs etc.  Its not that it is easy for everyone but even if they struggle to pay it is their choice and they at least have the option if they want to save their pet.
		
Click to expand...

oh, I agree wholeheartedly that vets work bloody hard to get their education and that their work comes at a high cost.  

I think many people find spending that kind of money on a dog for surgery is a hard one to swallow.  I sometimes find myself rather intrigued to hear that we have clients who will spend a few hundred on a guinea pig  have a tumour removed which will have a very iffy outcome at best.  I suppose it matters not the species or the size at the end of the day.   But there are people who question this type of expenditure because it's well outside the current norm.  Twelve years ago when I first started grooming, people seemed completely dumfounded that I could get paying customers to wash and trim a dog at a much higher price than what a man spends at a barber.  In most cases I charge(d) more than the AVERAGE ladies wash and hair cut.  And yet, I've made a decent living but worked very hard.  I sometimes would get people slamming down the phone on my shouting abuse because I must not be a dog lover for the prices I charged.  And now it's more the norm - lots of groomers everywhere, most of them charging more than pin money. 

So I reckon this chatter about the money is much the same.


----------



## Slightlyconfused (18 April 2015)

To me it's not about money, if it needs doing you will find the money.

For me it's the personality of the dog. My three year old collie has HD and now we have found spondylitis in his spine through X-ray. 
If he isn't settled on pain meds then he will get an MRI at the local vet hospital. My vet warned me they might try to push for surgery if they think they can fix it. If it came to surgery my dog would be put to sleep.

The reason?

He would not cope with any rehab, keeping still etc and most of all when he is in pain or feels vulnerable he resource guards to the point he picks fights with the  other dogs. I do not think it us fair for him to be put through all that and I honesty think it would change us personality from fun loving to protecting and guarding him self.


----------



## MurphysMinder (19 April 2015)

There is an interesting report in the Veterinary Record on a discussion at the BSAVA congress entitled "We can - but should we?" .  Included within it was a section on the impact of television.  Hopefully at some point the link will be available on line, but I thought this bit was interesting:

" The stories selected for tv tend to be the "feel good" ones, but the fact was that many cases undergoing pioneering procedures did not have successful outcomes.
'We present these things on tv as "giant leaps for mankind" but actually the reality of research is incremental progress over decades' he said 'We have got to be careful as a profession that we don't keep presenting "giant leaps for mankind" '


----------



## {97702} (19 April 2015)

MurphysMinder said:



			There is an interesting report in the Veterinary Record on a discussion at the BSAVA congress entitled "We can - but should we?" .  Included within it was a section on the impact of television.  Hopefully at some point the link will be available on line, but I thought this bit was interesting:

" The stories selected for tv tend to be the "feel good" ones, but the fact was that many cases undergoing pioneering procedures did not have successful outcomes.
'We present these things on tv as "giant leaps for mankind" but actually the reality of research is incremental progress over decades' he said 'We have got to be careful as a profession that we don't keep presenting "giant leaps for mankind" '
		
Click to expand...

And that, for me, sums it all up exactly..... thanks MM


----------



## PucciNPoni (19 April 2015)

MurphysMinder said:



			There is an interesting report in the Veterinary Record on a discussion at the BSAVA congress entitled "We can - but should we?" .  Included within it was a section on the impact of television.  Hopefully at some point the link will be available on line, but I thought this bit was interesting:

" The stories selected for tv tend to be the "feel good" ones, but the fact was that many cases undergoing pioneering procedures did not have successful outcomes.
'We present these things on tv as "giant leaps for mankind" but actually the reality of research is incremental progress over decades' he said 'We have got to be careful as a profession that we don't keep presenting "giant leaps for mankind" '
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for that!

we all want to believe that they will all have miracle outcomes.  But it doesn't always work that way.


----------



## Fellewell (19 April 2015)

Yellow_Ducky said:



			I am pretty sure in this case the owners chose PTS as they didn't have the funds - Noel then offered to do the surgery for free and the owners agreed. Or was it a different case? I know of one that he did do for free as the dog had a really good prognosis and he didn't want money to be the sole reason that the dog didn't get a good chance at life. 
I think he seems totally dedicated to his patients and I really enjoy the show.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you Ducky. The episode where he fell in love with the Golden Retriever owned by the older couple was lovely to see. 
I've known some truly dreadful small animal vets who couldn't/wouldn't do what he does and just maintain the status quo. I'm afraid with regards to medical science, you still can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
I'm glad people want to point the finger at breeders. The one who bred that GSD pup should have been named and shamed.


----------



## Amymay (19 April 2015)

Fellewell said:



			I'm glad people want to point the finger at breeders. The one who bred that GSD pup should have been named and shamed.
		
Click to expand...

I'd love to see more (anything) made of this in the programme. I'd like for Noel to make a point of saying 'the reason this has happened is because of bad genetics' or such like. And then tell viewers how to avoid it.

As for the GSD pup, poor bloomin animal. Interesting that the woman went out and purchased a half sibling though.  To say I was surprised is an understatement.


----------



## MurphysMinder (19 April 2015)

It has been widely reported amongst GSD folk that the breeder of that pup had in fact done everything right.  Parents were hip scored and she had offered a replacement pup when that one first started showing problems, so maybe it was just one of those awful things that can happen.


----------



## Fellewell (19 April 2015)

amymay said:



			I'd love to see more (anything) made of this in the programme. I'd like for Noel to make a point of saying 'the reason this has happened is because of bad genetics' or such like. And then tell viewers how to avoid it.

As for the GSD pup, poor bloomin animal. Interesting that the woman went out and purchased a half sibling though.  To say I was surprised is an understatement.
		
Click to expand...


There was an interesting expose on dog breeding on the BBC in 2008. Most notably on SM in Cavaliers. It aptly demonstrated the ability of supposedly 'knowledgable' breeders to willingly inflict untold pain and suffering on dogs they bred. It also demonstrated that the powers that be can do nothing about it.
Sadly Noel probably realises along with other caring vets that the most they can do is try and pick up the pieces.


----------



## Amymay (19 April 2015)

MurphysMinder said:



			It has been widely reported amongst GSD folk that the breeder of that pup had in fact done everything right.  Parents were hip scored and she had offered a replacement pup when that one first started showing problems, so maybe it was just one of those awful things that can happen.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info MM.


----------



## {97702} (19 April 2015)

Fellewell said:



			There was an interesting expose on dog breeding on the BBC in 2008. Most notably on SM in Cavaliers. It aptly demonstrated the ability of supposedly 'knowledgable' breeders to willingly inflict untold pain and suffering on dogs they bred. It also demonstrated that the powers that be can do nothing about it.
Sadly Noel probably realises along with other caring vets that the most they can do is try and pick up the pieces.
		
Click to expand...

It was actually a "cleverly" edited programme that did not show the truth of what the CKCS breeders who were depicted had actually said.  How do I know?  Because I know the people involved...


----------



## Fellewell (19 April 2015)

Lévrier;12889039 said:
			
		


			It was actually a "cleverly" edited programme that did not show the truth of what the CKCS breeders who were depicted had actually said.  How do I know?  Because I know the people involved...
		
Click to expand...

Regardless of what they said, irrefutable evidence has come to light since the programme was made.


----------



## Fellewell (19 April 2015)

MurphysMinder said:



			It has been widely reported amongst GSD folk that the breeder of that pup had in fact done everything right.  Parents were hip scored and she had offered a replacement pup when that one first started showing problems, so maybe it was just one of those awful things that can happen.
		
Click to expand...

As I'm sure you know it's not just parents but grandparents, great-grandparents and any other litters from dam or sire. Even then it's not an exact science and big-boned pups need careful handling and feeding. But the biggest thing is genetic predisposition. I've owned/shown/worked this breed since 1963 before hip scoring. Knowing the lines is key IMO.


----------



## {97702} (19 April 2015)

Fellewell said:



			Regardless of what they said, irrefutable evidence has come to light since the programme was made.
		
Click to expand...

I was merely correcting your assumptions about the supposed attitudes of those depicted on the programme....


----------



## MurphysMinder (20 April 2015)

Fellewell said:



			As I'm sure you know it's not just parents but grandparents, great-grandparents and any other litters from dam or sire. Even then it's not an exact science and big-boned pups need careful handling and feeding. But the biggest thing is genetic predisposition. I've owned/shown/worked this breed since 1963 before hip scoring. Knowing the lines is key IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I am of course aware that it is more than just parents being scored. I was just making the point that this pup was not from a classic byb although  I do not know how many generations were score.,  I too was involved with GSDs way before hip scoring (Certificates and Breeders letter came in mid 60s so there was some check although the fails could be anything from a score of 8).  Knowing the lines is key,  but there can still be anomalies from generations of good hips, as i know only too well.


----------



## ester (20 April 2015)

I thought it a shame that more wasn't said about that GSD pup, even if just to highlight it as a breed issue, or have him say do you know what the parents scores were/ensure you report this back to the breeder so they can avoid that cross again etc. They don't really seem to mention some issues being congenital at all. 

At the end of the day it is tv program showing what can be done and some feel is right to do. I didn't watch the first series as I thought it was going to be a bit too extreme but have found this one interesting even if I don't always agree with the decisions.


----------



## sam-b (20 April 2015)

Personally, I couldn't put a price on my dogs life - thats why I have insurance, because if I had to have them pts as I couldn't spend the money, I would never sleep at night. For me, if there is a chance the animal will come right, why would you not take that chance - it's like telling a person with cancer that there are drugs that could cure them, but as the chance is small, we will let you die instead - is that right? A life is a life.


----------



## ester (20 April 2015)

It's not life at any price though, you cannot explain the concept of a long, potentially painful recovery to an animal like you can to a human.


----------



## s4sugar (20 April 2015)

ester said:



			It's not life at any price though, you cannot explain the concept of a long, potentially painful recovery to an animal like you can to a human.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree.


----------



## ace33 (20 April 2015)

ester said:



			It's not life at any price though, you cannot explain the concept of a long, potentially painful recovery to an animal like you can to a human.
		
Click to expand...

This. We spent near on £20k on one of our dogs only to have to make the decision to PTS at 6yo, she didn't understand the reason she was in near on constant pain, neither did our others dogs when they tried to play or bumped into her. Unfortunately throwing money at a problem doesn't always fix it.


----------



## Winters100 (20 April 2015)

ace33 said:



			This. We spent near on £20k on one of our dogs only to have to make the decision to PTS at 6yo, she didn't understand the reason she was in near on constant pain, neither did our others dogs when they tried to play or bumped into her. Unfortunately throwing money at a problem doesn't always fix it.
		
Click to expand...

That is so sad that the treatment was not successful, but at least you tried.  Sadly with many treatments some will be a huge life changing success and others not.  If the risks and benefits were properly explained to you I am sure you would not resent giving your dog the chance.


----------

