But we don't know why the vet suggested it do we? But you say its a racket! Key word here is suggesting. I don't believe the DVM insisted it be done twice a year. And I agree that if you have the dog on a preventative than its probably not necessary. Then again, it depends on the current health and age of the dog- just like it does with humans.
But to suggest the test is a racket is wrong. I love how people on this site assume a vet is trying to screw the consumer when they make a suggestion- like teeth cleaning. Is it necessary? Probably not. Is it in the pet's best interest? certainly. Do you HAVE to do it? No.
But an option was offered to a client therefore its a racket, right?

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Evil Little Thing

Member since Jul 2013

11224 posts

Posted on 10/7/15 at 12:46 pm to tigerinthebueche

I'm not anti-vet, by any means. I'm all for preventative treatment & routine exams. I love my current vet. But after some shady practices and treatments at a vet in town several years ago, I also don't think it's unwise to question when services that seem unnecessary are suggested. Forgive my use of the word "racket."

OP: It wouldn't hurt to seek out another professional opinion.

Better?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by brgfather129

Los Angeles, CA

Member since Jul 2009

17099 posts

Posted on 10/7/15 at 12:47 pm to tigerinthebueche

quote:
I love how people on this site assume a vet is trying to screw the consumer when they make a suggestion- like teeth cleaning

I'm sure there are plenty of good vets out there...but, the "hard sell" for unnecessary add-on tests/services is becoming more commonplace in the profession. If your dog had a loose stool for five minutes three months ago, good luck leaving without being made to feel like you are Michael Vick for not wanting to run them through a battery of costly tests.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by tigerinthebueche

Member since Oct 2010

36791 posts

Posted on 10/7/15 at 12:47 pm to Evil Little Thing