Pets Undercover

The title of this post is the same as that of a very interesting programme shown on ITV 1 last night. It was part of the regular "Tonight" series of reports, and featured the rising costs of veterinary treatment and vets who charged for treatment that animals don't need, just to rake in more money. It was very interesting because we had exactly the same problem with a vet a few years ago.

Our Labrador had a fit one afternoon (I know what a fit looks like, as we had an epileptic dog in the past). We called our local vet, and someone came out to check the dog.

Our dog was then hospitalised overnight, put on a drip, had blood tests and when we collected him next day we were given heart medication and anti-inflammatory drugs for arthritis, as well as the obligatory antibiotics which every pet owner now seems to be lumbered with whenever they visit their vet for anything other than the annual boosters!

We read the details of the heart medication which we had been charged for, and the list of symptoms it was supposed to treat did not apply to our dog. He did not cough, was not breathless and was generally physically fit for his age - and he did not have any arthritis.

We were not happy with the crap we had been fed by this particular vet, so we went for a second opinion, which confirmed what we knew - our dog was not arthritic and did not have any heart problem.

The dog's behaviour started to become what I can only describe as "weird" - he would stand and stare at walls and he started to "forget" his house training. We went back to the vet, who told us the dog was "going a bit gaga!"

I had looked at my copy of "Black's Veterinary Dictionary" (I had always wanted to be a vet) and our dog's symptoms pointed to a brain tumour. Still this "gaga" idea persisted, until one day in February 2006.

Our dog had two fits in quick succession, and ended up unable to move properly. We called the vet out, and thankfully this time saw a new one. She told us that the problem was most likely to be a brain tumour, and the only kind course of treatment was to put the dog to sleep there and then, which we agreed to. We have since lost all faith in the veterinary profession.

Read about the programme here.

Coma - book vs film

At the moment I am reading Coma, a brilliant medical thriller by Robin Cook.

I've read the book a few times, and find it interesting with the right amount of mystery and suspense. Today I watched the film version of Coma, and noticed that there are differences with the book.

The main difference is that in the book, the main character, Susan Wheeler, is a medical student about to start a surgery rotation in a top Boston hospital. In the film, Susan Wheeler is an established doctor at the Boston Hospital. The book features her growing relationship with Mark Bellows, a surgery resident at the hospital who is partly responsible for her training. In the film they are already linked.

As well as changing some of the character's names (for instance, the Chief of Surgery in the book is Stark and in the film it is Harris - Harris is the Chief of Anaesthesia in the book) the initial character in the book - eventual coma victim Nancy Greenly - is first encountered by Susan Wheeler in intensive care after suffering an anaesthetic complication - in the film Greenly and Wheeler are best friends since school.

The film would have been better had it stuck more rigidly to the book - featuring the encounter in the medical school accommodation block with the hitman and the main character being a medical student instead of an established doctor - but overall it is a very watchable film.

I have read several books by Robin Cook - Brain, Contagion, Acceptable Risk, Vector and Shock.

For me, Shock was most like Coma. For Jefferson Institute read Wingate Clinic.

I aim to read more Robin Cook books in the future. The medical aspect makes them very interesting.