My Response the the Daily Mail´s attack on vets

Today a piece has been published in the Daily Mail written by a vet attacking our profession. Here is my response to his claims;

This is not the first time I have had to defend my profession, and I am sure it will not be the last, but to have such sensationalist criticism from a vet, who should know better, beggars belief. This debate raises its ugly head periodically and does nothing more than put hard-working vets under more pressure. It certainly makes me depressed, when I know that everyday I work towards maintaining a good relationship with my clients and only want to help them to do the best for their pets. Of course in any profession there will be those who are not up to standard but these are very few and far between. The vast majority of vets will always have the animals best interests at heart and would never suggest unnecessary treatments at the expense of an animal´s welfare.

What is really at the heart of this debate is money, but vets are private businesses who have to turn a profit in order to survive and in a country with a completely free human healthcare system, this can appear distasteful or expensive to some. However, contrary to popular opinion it is difficult to make money as a vet and few are the ´fat cats´ that some assume. The average wage of a veterinary surgeon in the UK is around £37,000, not bad I grant you, but compare this to an average GP´s income of £100,000, who probably work less hours and certainly don´t do any on-call, and it starts to look paltry. The huge majority of veterinary practices represent great value; yes veterinary advice and treatment are not cheap but, and this is an important distinction, it is not expensive when you consider what you are getting for your money.

Mr Watkinson places particular scorn on the pet insurance industry, claiming it does nothing but allow
vets to perform unnecessary procedures knowing that the owner will not have to pay and is therefore less likely to object. This is a ludicrous statement, pet insurance has probably done more to raise the standards of animal welfare and quality of life than any other intervention. Consider the dog with a broken leg, something which can be easily repaired with the right surgical skill and allow the dog to live a full and happy life with all four legs. For many people without insurance the cost of fixing the leg could be prohibitive, meaning amputation or worse, euthanasia. Or a cat diagnosed with Diabetes, a disease easily controlled with medication, if treatment was not an option, the cat would certainly suffer greatly unless it was put to sleep fairly promptly. The issue of spinal disease in Dachshunds is also discussed, and this is certainly a problem in the breed, particularly if they are allowed to become over-weight. However, countless dogs lives have been saved by spinal surgery (the outcome of which is generally very good contrary to Matthew´s opinion) but the cost, upwards of £2000, would be out of the reach of most without pet insurance.

The subject of pedigree animals and the problems they suffer associated with their conformation is also raised and the blame, in Matthew Watkinson´s opinion, is placed firmly at the door of the veterinary profession. This could not be further from the truth and I am sure if you asked any vet practicing today what they felt was the greatest issue in animal welfare, pedigree associated health issues would come top. Pedigree animals, bred to the extreme by their owners not vets, often place us in very difficult moral dilemmas. Consider the bulldog bitch who needs a caesarian to give birth, without the surgery both she and her pups will die, so the vet has no choice but to operate. Clearly this is a situation not in the best interests of the bitch and the best approach would be to spay her at the same time, so it cannot happen again. However, if the breeder refuses, then the vet cannot do anything about this, other than try to change their minds, which is rarely possible. Vets have worked for years with breed clubs to develop tests to improve the health of dogs and they have made great inroads. Obviously there is a long way to go, some breeders are extremely entrenched in their views, but the profession is likely to make more progress working with them than against them.


In the past decade veterinary medicine has moved on in leaps and bounds and we are now able to perform more complex surgery and medicine than ever before, but this does not mean that we necessarily should. Any procedure has to have had the permission of the animal´s owners and they are well within their rights to refuse if they do not think it is in the best interests of their pet. All good vets, when tackling difficult moral decisions, will discuss them at length with the owners, who are also free to seek a second opinion if they wish. However, it is vital to keep in mind that your vet will have your pet´s best interests at heart and their advice will be genuine.

Matthew Watkinson is making an outrageous and unsubstantiated attack on his own peers and colleagues simply to sell a book, so who is more interested more in money than morals now?