This segment, from ABC’s “20/20” program, caused quite a stir within the veterinary community.

I wouldn’t have believed any of it when I became a first-time dog parent, in 2002.  But since then, I’ve come to realize that this is merely the tip of the iceberg, as I document elsewhere on Shayna’s List, and I discuss in my book.  Also, see below the video for an excerpt from a veterinarian who is trying to stand up for basic ethics, and is waging a very lonely fight.

See more US News from ABC|ABC World News

You can learn more about Dr. Andrew Jones at: http://www.veterinarysecretsrevealed.com/

And through a Google search, you can find lots of veterinarians assailing Dr. Jones personally (some with legitimate points), and trashing ABC, but almost none address the basic points he made.

Two vets offer dissenting opinions on the 20/20 piece

It’s for this reason that an article by Emily Jefferson, DVM is so refreshing – because she acknowledges there are serious problems within the veterinary profession, and that if vets don’t clean it up, someone else (eg Shayna’s List) will.  Excerpt:

You probably know that 20/20 aired a segment on alleged dishonest practices within the veterinary field.  A veterinarian named Dr. Andrew Jones (who had left the profession) tried to discuss some issues I’ve addressed over the last 3 years in Ethical Veterinarian.  Among these were over-vaccination, “upselling” of unnecessary procedures, and the potential for veterinarians to put business interests above animal well-being.

Firstly, I never expect a media piece to report accurately on science topics.  This was obviously a shaming attention-grabber, not the effective educational piece it could have been.  Any compelling scientific comments that the interviewed vets made, if they existed, probably ended up on the cutting room floor.  Let’s face it, they wouldn’t have been alluring to the average TV viewer or easily interpreted by a TV journalist.

So yes, trying to incriminate a vet for recommending a dental cleaning, of all things, was lame.  Conducting an undercover investigation was also lame…we’re not the mafia or an illegal prostitution ring. And since I do not know Dr. Jones personally, I can’t even say with certainty what his motive was for doing the interview.

But I have to point out that throughout the segment, 20/20 did say that “some veterinarians” engage in unethical business practices.  It never generalized this to the entire profession. Nonetheless, this approximately 7 and 1/2 minute piece still incited the biggest emotional uprising of veterinarians I’ve seen for any reason.  A factual correction or two about dental cleanings and lumps would have sufficed. However, an astounding number of vets were galvanized to start reactionary blogs, or at least their posts seemed to be shared like never before.  Contained in these posts was an overflow of outrage, defensiveness, melodrama, self-validation and calls for professional solidarity.  It was as if a national tragedy with pervasive loss of life had occurred. […]

[O]ur defensive backlash still irked me more than anything about the 20/20 piece itself. Why? Because it was the same unproductive, in-unison, knee-jerk reaction vets seem to show whenever someone else implies they may be wrong.  After the segment aired, vets immediately set to work trying to refute everything about the 20/20 segment, even the parts that were accurate or could have been legitimate in certain instances.

Also, I’ve been expecting a TV expose on the vet industry for years, so I’m not on board with the shock. (I knew it was coming for sure when the plaintiff in the Corpus Christi cat vaccine case personally contacted me. After losing the life of her beloved cat and the case, the flabbergasted plaintiff stated, “I lost my veterinarian lawsuit because “if all veterinarians adhere to the same standards then it’s not negligence.”)

I never wanted to see veterinarians tossed into the sensationalist media ring, but that’s why I and a handful of others in the field have been working to engage vets in a professional, internal setting on these potentially explosive issues—for years.  I would have never taken my concerns to TV news. But, on the other hand, can I tell you what response I’ve gotten from other vets using professional appeals rather than the silly mainstream media? Almost nothing.  A frustrating, empty silence.  One closed-minded VMA after another.  An ongoing belief that the veterinary status quo will be just fine—permanently.  An insistence that we don’t have to evolve at the pace of society in our decisions about animals.

Dr. Jones said he needed to say things that “weren’t being said.” Again, I think he used some examples that were too vague and situational to be considered valid. But his sentiment was justified – there are problems in this profession that it refuses to address internally. Business practices that conflict with animal (and veterinarian!) welfare are among those. You quickly hit a wall inside this profession if you disembark from the collective view, even with compelling evidence in hand. If you’re a vet and don’t think so, maybe it’s because you’ve never disembarked from the collective view. Have you? I’ve done it, both as an associate and as a practice owner, and you should see the juvenile behaviors I’m met with. They shock me much more than the 20/20 piece.

[Continue reading]

Here’s one more kernel of acknowledgment contained in an article from another vet, Patty Khuly, VMD, MBA, that otherwise scorches both ABC and Dr. Jones (emphasis added):

Our track record on vaccination policy is embarrassing. According to some vaccine manufacturers, including Dr. Mark Kimsey, senior brand manager for canine biologicals with Boehringer Ingelheim, a full 60 percent of us are still vaccinating our patients annually in spite of long-standing evidence-based recommendations to the contrary. (Ignore your coop’s foxes at your own peril.)

At the risk of incurring the 60 percent’s wrath, I say it’s high time we abandoned our protectionist ways with respect to vaccination protocols and accepted that vaccinating annually makes us look like turnip-trucking idiots who care more about our bottom lines than our patients’ well-being.

I don’t care why you do it––whether it’s because you think you won’t get your patients in every year or because AAHA and the AVMA give you a wink and a nod in the name of “veterinary discretion” (for shame!)––you should just stop doing it already.

It makes us all look stupid when we ignore reams of evidence because it’s more expedient to do so.

[Continue reading]

The truth is coming.  And it’s not going to be pretty.  But it is long overdue.  And Shayna’s List will be taking a leading role in arming dog parents with the facts necessary to make informed decisions on how to judge veterinary care – and inoculate them against the manipulation and subtle bullying that can lead them to make bad decisions.

And it will be done in Shayna’s name – because her dog friends deserve much better than what they are now being subjected to.

.

.

.

.