I detest corporate medicine in all forms, human or veterinary. Sure, there are fine people in the corporate setting, but they are liable to be seduced, corrupted, and co-opted. I don't have the space here to go into this in so much detail, but I choose to use a vet who has had an independent practice for years, and is well respected. I trust him. I am troubled by your post. I think you have been sold a bill of goods. If you think about this, and still feel the same in 2 - 3 months please let us all know.

Troubling indeed, my exact thoughts. Corporate anything is bottom line only at all costs. Talk is cheap and money is the root of ALL evil, for sure. Nothing good has been said about Banfield; they are in the PetSmart stores here in the tri-state Delaware Valley area of the east coast. They are also not too helpful with the pet adoption agencies for the dogs and cats in the PetSmart stores. If someone adopts a pet from PetSmart, Banfield would be the last place I'd recommend they go to.

I'm curious what profession you are. If you were in the medical field (human or veterinary) or insurance field, I can see where you have some experience in the matter. If you were sales for a medical device that couldn't get into a large corporation (or an accountant who lost clientele the corporations like H & R Block), I think it's important to disclose why you have a dislike towards corporate anything.

I actually wrote this blog piece in December (there are 3 symposiums: one in Dec, one in Jan, and one in February), and was still pretty wow'd in January; hence, me putting it on the World Wide Web forever. Hence, while I'm not the type to drink the company Kool-Aid, I suspect I'll still feel the same.

Remember, all medical practices - despite what you think - are for-profit (as is your veterinarian).... even the non-profits aim to be in the black. It's a business survival technique.

I appreciate all the comments, as that was how I previously felt, but think it's important to realize, maybe thinking outside of one's typically box IS good and one can learn from different avenues that we don't typically come from.

A fair question. My background is medical, a retired psychiatrist. I have worked in the corporate setting, in the public sector, and in private practice. I also have some experience with a corporate-run hospice. From the viewpoint of the practitioner all settings have their advantages and disadvantages. I have no quarrel with the practitioners, as I know very fine people in all of them. My problem with the corporate sector is this. We wish to be ethical and provide the best care but the people running things have all the ethics of a bunch of used car salesmen. They can do things we wouldn't, and all of us can reap the benefits. All we need to do is play along, have a nice salary and lifestyle, and it is easy to convince ourselves of the rightness of it all. The bottom line: we should ask ourselves if this is how we would like things to be we had no financial interest. I have come to the conclusion that Medicine is, ideally, not a business but a public service. Corporations, in human medicine, do their business with third-party payers and have developed sophisticated ways to milk the system. Patients are viewed as a commodity. "Managed care" all too often manages us into mediocrity. Something is terribly wrong with our healthcare system. If I need to be a patient myself, my choice is a university based teaching hospital, even if that is less comfortable. Sometimes I think that if I had it to do over again I would have been a vet. I do realize that the presence of huge insurance companies causes any analogy between human and veterinary practice to break down.

I could not have said this any better. I just heard the bioethicist Bernie Rollins speak at the NAVC in Orlando. He pointed out that pets are not aware of death and do not spend time thinking about it. He questioned the wisdom of expensive treatments that could prolong a pets' life months at most at great cost to the pet parent and pain to the patient. The profit motive selects for the treatment, but is not the right thing to do!

I disagree with this. I spent thousands of dollars on stereotatic radiation therapy on my own dog, and got 13 extra months as a result of a HIGH QUALITY life. I'd pay that again to get the same time with the next pet, provided they aren't suffering.

You said the magic words, without suffering. How about osteosarcoma treatment? Amputation followed by chemotherapy and possibly radiation, without a chance for a cure. How about oral melanoma and mandibulectomy or maxillectomy? The pet parent has the right to choose, and many pets are premature convenience euthanasias, but I would hope that all veterinarians would be honest about prognosis and treatment implications for the pet. I know that some encourage pet parents to treat and give a rose colored prognosis! Dr. Lee, I am seeing ever increasing pet parents who have spent thousands on unsuccessful treatments at referral hospitals who say that they would never do that to another pet. We have to be careful to not burn out those who want to help through treatments which have no chance for cure and involve suffering.

That's the responsibility of the veterinarian to appropriate communicate pros and cons of these big life choices. I have some friends who amputated post-osteosarcoma and were really happy to get 4 months of pain-free time. I agree about suffering and quality of life. It's up to the pet owner AND veterinarian to weigh this together.

I often see the opposite: veterinarians euthanizing quickly when there is often a treatment. It's a fine balance.

Do you think that the dog was happy? Do you believe in your heart that the dog cared whether his or her life was extended by 4 months? I also have seen dogs put to sleep because of flea allergy, diabetes mellitus, Addison's disease, etc because the owner was not willing to do simple treatments or pay for treatment. That is why every caring vet should support the effort to move pets out of the legal status of property. The current thinking in our profession is your pet is family and you should spend ever increasing sums for his or her care, until we mess up and your pet child was just a piece of property, hence the appeal by the AVMA to the Texas Appelate Court decision that pets have intrinsic value. We can no longer have it both ways. When pets have a recognized value above replacement value as property, then we can begin a discussion on the responsibility of being a pet parent and the care that should be required.

How dare you judge if that "dog is happy?" You aren't physically seeing the dog, talking to the pet owners, so really have no right to judge. Just yesterday I saw a dog hoping down the road with a rear leg amputation secondary to osteosarcoma, and he was happily trotting with his parents for a walk.

I can't think of a worse example of "veterinary medicine" than Banfield. If you've ever seen a dog's records from that doc 'n dollar place and I've seen plenty -- no matter how sick a dog is or how old they're given 6 or 7 vaccines at a time and a shot of Benedryl for the road.

Any other problems can be cured with a bag of corn and pork fat "prescription" food that they sell.

I can't imagine what their presentation was like to make you think Big VetMed is beneficial to pets.

Thankfully, the movement for ALL veterinary medicine should be directed towards LESS vaccination - especially for those well vaccinated animals that are at low risk. With new AVMA, AAHA, and AAFP vaccine recommendations, I think this will be the trend of the future, and completely agree with you. Be your animal's advocate and discuss with your veterinarian whether or not those vaccines are really necessary. I only treat other pets the way I would treat my own, and I'm pretty conservative (when it comes to "allergens" or drugs) with my own.

While I'm sure it helps to have the coffers of big business (allowing clients to space out payments), the fear is that big business will mandate care as has been done in human medicine.

When I was young, before the days of HMOs and PPOs and all the other acronyms, going to the human doctor gave you time with the doctor. The doctor got to know the patient and practiced medicine accordingly.

Today, it's rare to have a doctor visit when the doctor has time to even truly look at the whole patient. Many times the managing corporation mandates treatment accordingly to x and y symptoms. Humans are subjected to many unnecessary tests to "cover all the bases" because if a diagnosis is incorrect or the patient doesn't improve, the doctor fears being sued.

I think the fear of corporate ownership is that care will eventually become assembly line and our critters will become a client number as opposed to being able to have a real relationship with the vet.

Totally agree. Interestingly enough, last year an MD wrote a great article (I couldn't google it, but it was in NY Times or Washington Post, I believe) about how human medicine should move towards what we do in veterinary medicine. I think we all need to be good watch dogs to make sure OUR pets are being taken care of well. IT's personally preference, honestly. I know some people who are very happy with their veterinarians in corporate medicine, and some who aren't.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Human doctors used to practice medicine much like vets do now (at least in my experience). They took time to talk to the patient and get the whole picture. They took the time to explain things if the patient wanted to know. They took the time to allay any fears the patient might have.

Now it seems as if the patient has to stop the doctor from backing out of the room after a minute or two. The one or two symptoms have already been noted on the chart and the doctor has already made a diagnosis and written a script before s/he enters the exam room. The patient almost has to force the doctor to listen to them.

We humans are on an assembly line. I blame managed care.

On the other hand, I have the best vet in the world who makes me feel as if there's no more special patient than the one on the table at that moment. He listens. We share thoughts and ideas when a critter is ill. He takes the time to answer any question I might have, regardless of how silly it might be. He's completely honest with me about diagnosis, treatment and prognosis.

If only human doctors could get back to that.

Most people cannot judge the knowedge that their vet possesses or the appropriateness of treatment recommendations, because most are not trained in medicine. In my 33 years of practice, it has been common for people to judge their vet by whether the vet seemed to care, and recently by what the vet looks like. I go to Dr X because he or she is hot. Many years ago I watched a vet who was very good at schmoozing put his arm around a concerned pet mom whose pet child was dying during heartworm treatment. She had questioned whether or not the treatment should continue. He put his arm around her shoulder, asked how long they had known each other, and said that you know that I would never do anything to hurt your puppy dog. She left crying because she had doubted the vet, who turned to me and said, That is a dead dog!

drken,
Most people choose a vet the way that they choose a medical doctor...blindly. That is why it is so important for veterinary boards to cull those who are not fit to practice, like the vet who got his license in spite of the fact that while a student, he was caught ON TAPE, having sex with a horse.
Most people do not check the school that their vet graduated from, most people do not do medical research online, and most people don't have the luxury of having a vet in their family whom they can ask for help or really trust.

Isn't this Mars Company the same one that makes candy and does extensive animal testing?

Here is why I will never use Banfield: they vaccinate no matter the health or history of the dog and they give unnecessary vaccinations.

Twice I had fosters bring dogs to Banfield only to hand me a bill for $256. Upon review of the bill I saw that they gave the dogs every vaccination under the sun even though the dogs were underweight, one had mange and both were in less than ideal health to physically be able to handle a barrage of vaccinations.

When I questioned Banfield I was told that the dogs had to get the "package" or they wouldn't be treated at all. When I asked if the vet considered the health of the animals I was given the same answer. "If you want us to see the dogs they must receive the Package". When I asked the vet why he gave a Lyme vax when Lyme is not a problem in our region and has not been scientifically proven to be effective I received the same answer - "the dogs must have the package if you want us to see them".

Well guess what? I don't want my dogs, personal or rescue to ever see a Banfield vet again. I want my dogs to see a vet that will treat the dog holistically (meaning taking the dog's whole health picture into account) and use his/her brain and common sense when treating the dogs. I don't want some conveyor belt pet hospital mindlessly treating my animals because Corporate said they had to do X, Y and Z. That is not good medicine.

PS - they provided the foster homes with Sentinal without doing a heartworm test on either dog.

Same experience here (north Texas) - the rescue I work with has had several bad experiences with Banfield insisting on over-vaccination of EVERY animal, no matter the vaccination history (they said if their doctors hadn't done the vaccinations they wouldn't "count") and - more importantly - the animal's state of health. Old, thin, stressed, skin problems etc. None of it mattered, they wanted to load them up with every available vaccination. Even non-recommended ones like Corona.
The other problem I have with them is the STRONG push to spay/neuter as early as possible. If this were a shelter sterilizing every animal before it left the premises that would be different... but with individual pets I strongly believe this should be addressed case by case. A giant breed dog who belongs to a responsible person does not - in fact should not - be neutered that young. But I know of 3 different people going to 3 different Banfield clinics who were pushed very, very aggressively to neuter their young Danes before they were 5 months old.
My impression of Banfield is that they are lagging far, far behind the times. I don't recommend them.

Corporate veterinary medicine thrives because of heavy advertising, yellow pages, and presence in high traffic Petsmart stores which have the public trust and great locations. Any business with the name Mart must be cheap, ie K Mart and Wal Mart. They attract new pet owners who are not very knowledgable about their alternatives. They sell insurance plans and offer the public value that is sorely lacking. I remember one man who had just moved from New Jersey who owned a cat with an ear hematoma. A Banfield hospital gave an estimate to repair the ear of $1500, and told him that it would be reduced to $1100 if he purchased their insurance plan. The cat had a hematoma of the other ear that was treated in New Jersey for $250, so the man knew that he was being taken for a ride. I did the hematoma for $275. They are very profitable though, and attract new graduates with high student loan debt who work on a commission basis. Corporate veterinary medicine is destroying the good will that veterinarians built over the last 30 years. Sadly, we are falling to the level of attorneys in the eyes of the pet owning public. MBA's and insurance companies have destroyed human medicine, and are making great strides to destroy my profession.

I have taken my cat to Banfield. I was quite happy. I, however, don't have the "package", they will let you pay by visit, just like at a regular vet. I have never been pushed for vaccinations, they have always just treated what I have taken her in for.

My friend takes her animals to the same one. She has always been happy as well.

I think it may come down to the Vet who is in charge. I have talked to people who have gone to other Banfield locations, and have not been as pleased.

Dr. Lee, I think that Dr. Ken brought up a very good point regarding our current laws. On the one hand, with the advent of veterinary specialists and ever increasing vet bills, we are at the mercy of those whose bottom line may be "what's in it for ME", NOT what's in it for this patient?
If a dog or cat's life can only be extended by four months, is that a long enough time to put that precious being through countless prodecures, stressful vet visits, when the "time" gained is so short? Some might say that in the bigger picture, a non human animal's lifespan is so much shorter that four months is a long time. But if that time is not spent in making the pet happy, in doing the things that she or he normally does, why put the pet through that?
I believe that the advent of "corporate" vet medicine will result in nothing good for the patient, who , after all, is what this should be all about.
There are many who would do anything to save or help their pets...I am one, and have been doing sub-q fluids for our eldest pet. But when the time comes that she has no interest in food, or is no longer "herself", I know that in my heart I must do the right thing and let her go. Just as I would want that for myself, my pet is no different. She is a part of my family and deserves the same consideration that any human family member would get. She also deserve to be considered as more than "property" under the law.

The veterinarian's oath is about alleviating patient suffering, and I agree, one has to be sure to preserve your pet's quality of life. I generally ask myself (or tell my clients to ask themselves) about these three points:

1) Does he or she act like she's in pain (whining, not getting up, hiding)? This obviously differs between cats and dogs and individual pets.
2) Is he still eating - this is a HUGE factor for me. Once you stop eating (encouragement is OK - like feeding tasty food, but force feeding is a huge no-no), it's time
3) Does he act like he used to when he was a puppy or kitten? For me, I decided to put JP to sleep when he didn't want to walk around the park anymore - huge factor for me.

I've had some colleagues who are "euthanasia-happy" because they don't want to deal with the pet, the client, the case load etc. Be aware.

I agree that pets should be valued WAY more than property and that is the movement - it will take legislation a longer time to implement that, however. Thankfully, it's happening though. It used to be (and still is, in some areas), that you are pet is the value of 1) what you paid for him and 2) the vet bill. Being that I adopt and rescue all my pets, my "free" pit bull meant a whole lot more than that!

Dr Lee. Pets are still chattel property in all 50 states. I became involved in the movement to establish an intrinsic value for our pets the day that a Geico attorney looked me in the eye at a deposition and told me that my Labrador Retriever Gracie, who was crushed between the rear of our car and a lady's car who backed up 25 yards without looking was property. I was also injured, but Gracie was killed. I have tried unsuccessfully to pass Gracie's Law in Florida allowing for a capped award when pets are killed through negligence or malice. The stated position of the AVMA remains that pets are best served as property. The FVMA, PCVMS, HCVMS, and every veterinarian that I have spoken to are against admitting that pets are legally more than property. I invited America's Vet, Dr Marty Becker, Dr Nancy Kay, the recipient of the Leo Bustad award, Dr Alan Beck, director of the Center for the Advancement of the Human Animal Bond and creator of the Human Animal Bond concept, and Dr Patty Khuly to join the fight. There were no takers. All could have used their status to gain publicity for this injustice, but veterinarians remain self serving and hypocritical in using the human animal bond to encourage pet parents to spend ever increasing sums for care, yet resolute in their belief that the pet parent whose pet child is killed through negligence or malice should only receive replacement value. So I now invite you to join the movement to elevate our pets out of the legal status as property. Pets are Family!

I do agree with you re: this topic. I do believe pets are much more than "property" and dismayed that AVMA doesn't take a more aggressive stance on this:

http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/non-econo_damages.asp

That said, I think the tides are turning, and - please correct me if I'm wrong, I thought California and a few handful of other states allowed for you to sue up to $25,000 for "non-property value."

Example: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/11/13/court-couple-can-sue-over-dogs-sentimental-value/

I do not believe that California legislatively or judiciously recognizes intrinsic value, nor does any other state. It is a real catch 22. To pass a law requires a senator and a congressman to sponsor the legislation. Good luck with that. It is a state issue, not federal. Organized vet med has a very powerful lobbying organization, as does the insurance industry. It will require precedent setting court cases which to date have been overturned at the appellate level. That is why the Texas case is so important, and The AVMA has already contested the decision. Chris Green did a scholarly law review article refuting every argument presented by organized vet medicine. You may want to look it up. How about an article about this subject?

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus10animall163.htm


Here is the link to the article on vet malpractice that every vet should read!

Dr. Lee, I think it will take more than legislation, unfortunately, to change things. Were vets to get behind this movement, and a reasonable cap were put on pain and suffering awards, that would go a long way to restoring the high esteem that most people used to feel for your profession.
As far as corporate...remember, bigger, in this case, does not equal better. Lefty, the psychiatrist who posted said it all when he said."

"We wish to be ethical and provide the best care but the people running things have all the ethics of a bunch of used car salesmen. They can do things we wouldn't, and all of us can reap the benefits. All we need to do is play along, have a nice salary and lifestyle, and it is easy to convince ourselves of the rightness of it all. The bottom line: we should ask ourselves if this is how we would like things to be we had no financial interest.

I agree with you. I am curious as to the rationale for the opposition of professional organizations to this. Might it be liability, e.g. malpractice? If so, attorneys should love it, but it could become a growing nightmare for vets to face skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums, and cause more escalating fees, making veterinary care unaffordable for many. Or are there other reasons?

Christopher Green in The Future of Veterinary Malpractice presents vet insurance company data that estimates that if awards are capped at $25,000, that vet malpractice insurance will escalate from the current $200 to $400. That amounts to 12 cents per office visit! The reason vets fight against this is based on fear. We should not be afraid of capped legislative awards, but precedent setting judicial decisions could be a problem as the awards could be open ended. He eloquently states that then train has left the station. People believe that their pets are family! The cost to board the train is an admission that pets are more than property. They can be a part of the legislation, but closed minded, antiquated individuals are making a result that could be problematic more likely, and veterinarians will reap what they sow. The chickens will come home to roost.

Thank you for suggesting this most enlightening paper, which I read this evening. $25,000 is not really very much. Litigation is expensive and few attorneys will want to take such a case if that is the maximum settlement, unless there is a serious anticipation of punitive damages. I know of a personal injury case in which the plaintiff and her attorney turned down an $80,000 settlement offer and went to court only to receive a $25,000 award. The attorney told me he lost money on that one. A good solution might be to take such cases before a professional arbitration board.

About the "defensive medicine argument", I think this is a red herring and there are some good studies to support this. Many unnecessary tests are done because insurance companies will pay for them and it generates more income for the clinic, for example a radiologist's fee for an unnecessary x-ray, plus another co-pay for the patient. If doctors actually bothered to a good physical and use their brains much of this would not be necessary. I was once scheduled for an echo-cardiogram, but consulted informally with an academic cardiologist friend who told me I really didn't need one, so I chose not to go that route. Defensive medicine is more a creature born of a union between the profit motive, and risk management on the part of insurance companies. Some of this is consumer driven.

After reading this paper, and thinking about this issue, I agree with you even more strenuously.

May I also suggest that you become familiar with Wendell Potter, an insurance company spin doctor who lost the will to continue working for the insurance industry when a girl died in California because a needed transplant was denied. He has written a book about the abuses of the insurance industry , has testified before congress, and writes for the Huffington Post. Insurance will neither make vet care more affordable nor more available, but it will make some MBA's richer. I now practice in a state of the art one man practice and prefer to treat pets at fees their parents can afford than give quotes that are so high that the only choice is euthanasia. The bigger the facility and the more employees, the higher the overhead. I always consider the fact that it is the pet that suffers if the parent cannot or will not pay for care, so I try to make it affordable.

You state "I now practice in a state of the art one man practice and prefer to treat pets at fees their parents can afford than give quotes that are so high that the only choice is euthanasia." That's also likely because you bought the pratice 20 years ago, when practices were < $100,000 to purchase. Now, veterinarians have to buy a practice at > $750,000 and aren't able to offer the same "cheap" services, as you may have paid off your clinic due to lower costs years ago. The costs are exhorbitant to offer a high-quality practice nowadays: fluid pumps to regulate your IV fluids, syringe pumps, blood pressure monitors (I'm often shocked how clinics still don't have one! This is a standard of care!), pulse oximeters (to make sure your pet doesn't die under anesthesia), digital radiography, etc. Hence, the higher, growing cost of veterinary medicine. When you gradated veterinary school 25+ years ago, you didn't have the $100-250,000 student debt that is currently seen. You can likely offer cheaper services as you are debt-free.

While I don't feel that pet ownership should be a luxury of the rich at all, I've seen enough practices where I do believe in life that "you get what you pay for." Me, I want a state-of-the-art, HIGH quality practice and don't mind paying for it to ensure the highest quality care to my pets.

I question how you slam money-making (e.g., corporate medicine or veterinarians making a profit), yet sue to get money for your deceased dog or promote suing veterinarians. While I'm sure it's more complicated than that, that's what it looks like.

Back in the late 80s, Time magazine about being ecofriendly. Their article stated that if everyone recycled one aluminum can, it doesn't make a difference at all compared to getting one corporation (they listed Boeing) to change from traditional incandescent light bulbs to more energy-efficient options. How does this relate to this blog?

Might I suggest that if you stop slamming corporations or for-profit organizations (veterinary clinics), one might have a better chance of promoting your efforts. We are ALL for promoting the human-animal bond, relieving pet suffering, and practicing high quality medicine as veterinarians; if one doesn't, one should get out of the field.

Signing off to go save animals instead of euthanizing them,

Dr. Justine Lee

Opened a new clinic in January 2011. We are growing tremendously through word of mouth. I will continue to be a voice of reason to try and stop the decline in the reputation of my profession. Lawsuits are sometimes necessary because if you are ever injured in an auto accident, my leg was broken in 3 places and ACL torn, the corporate brains who run human medicine have now made it so you cannot see a doctor until you find an attorney. I was lying on a sofa on Monday morning being told that four orthopedic groups that I called did not see auto accident patients. I was not in an auto accident. I was hit by a car driven by a negligent lady. Your attitude has certainly chilled overnight. Anyway, many of the veterinarians who have a public persona are not speaking for me, nor are the representatives of organized vet medicine. I invite all of your colleagues at Vetstreet, Daily Vet, Pet Connection, etc. to really consider what we have to lose as a profession if the change in pet valuation comes as a result of a rogue jury, rather than capped legislation. When somebody is wronged, forgiveness is possible if the guilty party admits guilt, offers an apology, and makes adequate restitution. The current classification of pets as property does not allow for this. I have practiced veterinary medicine for 33 years and will continue until my health no longer allows me to practice. I advise all young veterinarians that life is short. We are influenced by the company we keep, so make sure that they are worthy of your presence and support. You never want to look back on your life one day and say that I made a mistake and I was corrupted.

"I do agree with you re: this topic. I do believe pets are much more than "property" and dismayed that AVMA doesn't take a more aggressive stance on this:"

Dr. Lee, regarding your written words above...may I express my sincere happiness and gratitude that at least there is ONE veterinarian, other than Dr. Newman, who PUBLICLY acknowledges that our companion animals are more than property, are family members, to be loved and cherished, protected and nutured.

I agree that it would be great if the AVMA took a more aggressively SUPPORTIVE stance on the issue that pets are family, not property.

Since you do travel and speak at conferences, if you feel as strongly as you seem to feel about this issue, and you are indeed, in favor of the concept of "Gracie's Law", just think of the influence that you might have when speaking if you were to bring up this issue and try to dispell the irrational fears that the profession as a whole harbors regarding this issue, an issue which should be a no brainer if one really loves animals.As with veterinary medicine, there the focus here is on the "benefits" or more accurately, the lack thereof, for companion animals remaining as property , legally. Just as veterinary medicine, at its best, is patient focused, so should thinking on this issue be.
Again, thank you for not being afraid to speak out publicly for what you believe in, even if it is not a "popular" viewpoint among the majority of those in your profession. Doing right is never wrong. Nor is speaking out for those who have no voice and who depend upon us for their every need.

Dr. Lee,
I am curious as to your attack on DrKen, and your lack of a reply to my lauding you for doing the right thing, and the complete reversal of your opinion posted only last night.
Could it be the obvious...could it be that you were told by the powers that be to cease and desist, as you are supporting the "enemy." That is how I see it, and how it appears to anyone who applies common sense to the marked difference in your tone and in your comments, and in the cessation of even responding to my positive comment to you.
Where did Drken ever advocate suing a veterinarian who does not DESERVE to be sued? Please point me to that passage, as if it was there, I certainly missed it.
You automatically and erroneously assumed that Drken bought/opened his clinic years ago. Why the sudden animosity and vitriole directed at someone with whom you had a point of agreement only hours ago?
Only you know in your heart if Corporate ordered you to shut your mouth and be a good little girl. To those who have only the purest motive...love of animals, that's certainly what it appears like to us.
Just remember...you have to look yourself in the mirror, and if you can do that, more power to you.

Please, cut me a break. My opinion hasn't changed at all, but DrKen hasn't had success at getting support b/c of the manner in which is it presented. If you attack, no one is going to support you. I still believe pets are more than "property," (see my previous Daily Vet blog where I spent more than you spend on a car on my dog) but the underlying theme is the attack on veterinarians making money.

There are great vets out there who are threatened with lawsuit when they weren't wrong at all (see AVMA PLT case examples). There are also very bad vets out there who have great bedside manner who never get sued b/c their clients love them.

My focus on life: educating both pet owners and veterinarians to be advocates for themselves and their patients. No opinion change. Just believe that the underlying attack is inappropriate.

BTW, believe it or not, but I hold 3 other jobs, and don't have time to reply to EVERY comment. Hence, the lack of response. If you're not happy with entry, don't read my blog!

Dr. Lee,
Do you HONESTLY think that no matter how much Dr. Ken kissed proverbial posterior to present and attempt to gain support for this issue, he would be successful? How would you have him present it? Is he not entitled to his opinion, as a colleague, who has seen far more in his thirty plus years of practice than you have seen? What ever happened to respecting an elder colleague, who has been at it far longer than you have?
I am curious as to what you think would gain the "support" of the AVMA on this issue? I can think of nothing that would...unless it were lots of cash. Sad.

I started out 2 years ago believing that the truth of the injustice was so apparent that convincing my colleagues to support the move to elevate the legal status of pets would be a piece of cake. I never anticipated the resistance from organized vet med and the representatives who possess a media presence. My initial approach was an invitation to join a movement which is a moral imperative in my mind. I know that pets suffer daily from legalized neglect and abuse because they are legally property. Slaves, women, and children were all chattel property in the not too distant past and would be today had right minded individuals not become involved to help them. They did not do it because it was easy. They did it because it was right. Dr Lee, 100 years ago you would not have had the opportunity to become a veterinarian because you were a woman. So if I offend a few people along the way so be it. People only are offended if there is truth in the accusation. In my mind the truth is the truth and since I have been unable to date to take on the insurance lobby and the lobbyists of my profession, and there are some very powerful, well funded groups who oppose this for the wrong reason, I will work through the courts and hope for the jury that will establish a legal intrinsic value for our pets. I still invite you to support the concept of non economic damages when a pet is killed through negligence or malice by introducing legislation in your home state. Dr Becker could introduce a bill in Idaho. Dr Khuly could introduce a bill in Colorado. Dr Nancy Kay in North Carolina. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Dr. Lee, your colleague, Dr. Coates, has written a blog stating what a bargain veterinary care is, and bemoaning the very high cost of human healthcare. Yet, you have the audacity to criticize Drken for suing to help pay for serious injuries and the ensuing and no doubt, very expensive medical care that was necessary through no fault of his own? Interesting logic.

I am upset by what I see as increasingly personal attacks on this blog. Dr. Lee did do a post which I thought was a tad over the edge. It was obviously written in haste and not reviewed prior to posting.
Who among us has not ever sent an email which we later regretted? I expect she was stressed out. It is a stressful profession. Our lives are often personally stressful as well. When I read it I kind of raised my eyebrows and thought she was having a bad day. This happens. I respectfully disagree with her on this issue, but that would not preclude my entrusting her with the care of my animals. I do not think that she wrote anything at corporate bidding. If so, it would have been bland and stilted; her post was not consistent with that. Working as an emergency specialist, the possible settings are pretty much corporate or academic. I have some experience in human emergency care and I can hardly begin to imagine what it would be like if we had to present patients with a bill after saving their lives. Talking to families is bad enough. If you want even more, try working in a burn unit. I've done that too. I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but I feel I have been there and paid my dues. Whether or not I agree with Dr. Lee, I feel I have a certain bond with her although we have never met

As a former employee of Banfield, I'd like to point out the following:

-Since being taken over by Mars a few years ago, the company's vaccine protocols (which USED to be ridiculous) have been entirely overhauled; the practice standard now closely aligns with AAHA recommendations (3-year DAPP, 3-year rabies as allowed, even extended feline schedules despite lack of product labeling). The clinic I worked at only administered "core" vaccines routinely but did stock Lyme and feline leukemia, based on the individual pet's exposure (outdoor cat, dog that traveled to endemic Lyme areas, etc.). Compare this with a private practice down the street from my house, where the old-school vet still pushes annual vaccines because her clientele doesn't know any better. There's something to be said for company policy and oversight.

-Banfield does not sell insurance, and anybody who is under that impression must be ignoring the practice's marketing materials - both the website and in-clinic brochures very plainly state that their wellness packages are NOT insurance. The package contract, which clients read and sign prior to purchasing, also plainly states the same, multiple times.

-Anesthesia at Banfield includes: pre-anesthetic blood screening, IV catheter and fluids, ECG, pulse ox, blood pressure monitoring, temperature monitoring w/supplemental heat, appropriate premedications, induction with propofol, and sevoflurane anesthetic...for every patient! I have worked at several other private practices (some very good ones, too), but have only seen this standard of care at Banfield and at a university teaching hospital. Even little things, like fecal exams (sugar centrifugation instead of the less sensitive standing float), have consistently been of a higher quality at Banfield that at other private practices.

The sad thing? Most clients will never know the shortcomings of most private practices, because they're not behind the scenes. I never thought I'd say it (I had my own reasons for leaving), but I truly think Banfield now offers some of the highest quality veterinary medicine available, and I hope pet owners give it a chance.

@descendingdaphne, thanks for pointing this out. You're right - the standards of care found with SOPs are often BETTER, and I really appreciate your feedback on your experience.

The origin of the blog was totally misconstrued based on the (many) comments. The blog's intent was to focus on the progressive nature of Banfield to promote leadership and communication, along with strong, improving standards of care in preventative medicine. I wonder if any of the people commenting even have stepped into a Banfield clinic to experience this...

@lefty, I also appreciate your thoughts. The blog was actually well thought out (as I originally wrote this in December but was hesitant to publish it due to controversy... I said "heck with it! I'm standing by it" in January). :)

I reflect back on the previous Daily Vet blogger who quit because she couldn't deal with the negative comments. As a veterinarian, one needs the "skin of a rhino, the heart of a lamb."

Thought Dr VC did a nice job and miss her posts. It would be hard to do this if you aren't thick skinned. Liked her posts even tho she was a Beastie Boys fan. No accounting for some people. :)

Daphne, I am curious as to why one would leave such a wonderful working environment. It makes no sense at all to leave a place that, if what you say is true, has all the bells and whistles that a speciality clinic has. (and may not have the brains to utilize) I am not doubting you, just very puzzled by the contradiction in your actions (leaving Banfield) and your words (lauding the place you left).
And Dr. Lee....those of us who love our pets and have lost then due to vet malpractice know of what you speak. There is no greater pain than losing a pet that way, and if you think that words can sting...try having that happen to you.
While I will never understand your attacks on Dr. Ken, I hope that you will continue to PUBLICLY support the concept of pets as family vs. pets as property. As Dr. Ken says, if a "rogue" jury composed of animal lovers sets precedent by awarding a very high award for pain and suffering, you will all wish that you had gotten behind "Gracie's Law."
I notice that a very pointed post by Natalie Kramer has been removed, as it was honest, although unflattering to you, so there must sadly, be censorship on this blog.
I will not be posting on a blog where I feel that I am not welcome, and have been essentially told (by you) to get lost, but I thank you again for your public comments regarding the fact that our companion animals ARE indeed, family.

For the record, I left because of the hours: I worked no less than 11 hours/day and almost always worked on Saturday. Clients loved the convenience, but I got tired of paying the price for it.

Also, we were not a specialty clinic, and never claimed to be. We didn't even have ultrasound. We referred to internal med, orthopedic, and ophthalmic specialists frequently. Banfield is designed to provide GP-level care.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Banfield-Pet-Hospital-Reviews-E137890.htm

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/pets/banfield.html

There were plusses and minuses about working for Banfield as my first post-internship job in the Washington, DC metro area.
Ultimately, I found that their style of practice did not fit mine. I certainly feel as though Banfield uses their lower cost services and extensive vaccination practice as a draw for pet owners looking to save money. I gradually fatigued of the recurrent situation where pet owners really just wanted to get "their pet's shot" and not address the actual health issues that were present on physical exam (periodontal disease, obesity, etc).
So, I moved on to emergency and now my own house call holistic practice and am much more professionally satisfied. I do value my experience working for Banfield as there are many service provisions that they do quite well.
Dr Patrick Mahaney
www.PatrickMahaney.com
@PatrickMahaney