Supervet and other Reality animal shows

volchitsa

Maybe this should be in media rather than here, but I'm just sort of idly wondering what people who have a lot of experience with animals, especially those who work with them, think of programmes like this? There are quite a few of them now.

Is Noel Fitzpatrick some sort of superhero or is this just another fad like Grand designs or house selling programmes? And who are these people? Can ordinary people really afford to have experimental bionic technology used on their pets?

(Full disclosure : I love watching it, but I wonder if I'm being taken for a ride?)

kathleen37

Taken for a ride how?

You can only go to the Fitzpatrick clinic via vet referral. I know someone that got refered there with their dog that has spinal damage (she uses a trolly) Referral fee was a couple of hundred quid. The majority of work done there is via insurance (it's very expensive) They have a team of vets working there so it certainly isn't just Noel.

Bells21

volchitsa wrote:

Is Noel Fitzpatrick some sort of superhero or is this just another fad like Grand designs or house selling programmes? And who are these people? Can ordinary people really afford to have experimental bionic technology used on their pets?

We had one of ours at the vet recently. She was getting a cartrophan injection and there was a possibility that she needed an op on her cruciate ligament. We saw a different vet at the practice that day who spent at least ten minutes telling me that people want operations on their dogs now and want them to have bionic legs etc because of certain TV vets. He said sticking a lump of metal in a dog was unnatural and not necessary etc. He didn't need to mention who he was having a dig at. I smiled politely, waited for him to administer the injection and I left.

seamus

If you listen to Noel Fitzpatrick on the whole topic, you can understand why many vets would have issues with his approach.

Many vets (especially older or rural ones) come from the "just put it down and get a new one" school of thought, whereas Fitzpatrick comes from the complete opposite end of the spectrum. So when the latter see him developing custom prosthetics and metal plates, they see it as pure frivolity and foolishness; exploiting people's emotions about their animals so he can take their money.

Realistically he has demonstrated that veterinary medicine can be taken as seriously as human medicine if the vet is dedicated enough, and naturally that's going to ruffle a lot of vets' feathers.

Fitzpatrick for his part I feel is an incredibly smart man, but he has an ego to match it. One of the reasons he became a vet and not a surgeon was the freedom he would have as a vet to invent and experiment. He spoke on the Late Late at length about it - he feels frustrated that tried-and-tested treatments, procedures and equipment used in veterinary surgery can't be transferred across to human medicine. Anyone proposing to use them on people literally has to go back to square one and prove them as if they've never been seen before. This makes sense for medicine, but very little sense for orthopaedics.

tk123

Bells21 wrote: »

We had one of ours at the vet recently. She was getting a cartrophan injection and there was a possibility that she needed an op on her cruciate ligament. We saw a different vet at the practice that day who spent at least ten minutes telling me that people want operations on their dogs now and want them to have bionic legs etc because of certain TV vets. He said sticking a lump of metal in a dog was unnatural and not necessary etc. He didn't need to mention who he was having a dig at. I smiled politely, waited for him to administer the injection and I left.

I had a similar experience 7 years ago before the tv shows! Bailey wouldn't have seen his 2nd birthday if I had of listened to them.. Most recently the disapproval was more unspoken if that makes sense but I left leaving in no uncertain terms that the vet wasn't happy I had gotten a specialist opinion who themselves got a 2nd opinion to be sure it was the right thing to do.

Isn't the experimental stuff Noel Fitz does subsidised anyways? I don't watch it that often tbh but I saw one where they were making a bone plug and he said that they weren't charging people what it costs to make it because they'd never be able to afford it - it was more the idea of developing these groundbreaking procedures/methods.

Alun

I think he does a lot of pro bono stuff and doesn't always charge full whack if it's something very experimental that he hasn't done before. His practice is obviously very succesfull, but I don't think he personally takes a huge amount of money out of it and ploughs most of his profits back into his business(es), for example setting up his cancer centre. I must admit when I first watched Supervet, I thought he was a bit of a twat and quite arrogant, but as time goes by I've very much warmed to him. He must be a PITA to work for though.

Tilikum

The misses is a vet nurse. She wouldn't have much time for him tbh. Our own dog has three legs. No problem getting around. Sprints like all the other dogs around the park. There's no need to be putting the dogs through all that stress of an operation/recuperation. Just amputate the leg.

Alun

In many cases though, he's doing that kind of surgery on dogs that have identical problems on both legs, where amputation wouldn't really be an option.

Tilikum

Alun wrote: »

In many cases though, he's doing that kind of surgery on dogs that have identical problems on both legs, where amputation wouldn't really be an option.

I'm just on about when he operates on one leg. I've watched ever episode.

seamus

Tilikum wrote: »

The misses is a vet nurse. She wouldn't have much time for him tbh. Our own dog has three legs. No problem getting around. Sprints like all the other dogs around the park. There's no need to be putting the dogs through all that stress of an operation/recuperation. Just amputate the leg.

I do get what you're saying, but we don't take that approach with human medicine. We'll do our best to save a finger or a toe rather than amputate it, even though you can do perfectly well with nine.
So why not the same for dogs? Why is just lopping off the leg preferable to trying to save it?

But there does have to be a balance - Fitzpatrick doesn't undertake these things lightly. He puts the quality of life for the animal first, he doesn't just do an operation to see what happens.
Plenty of other vets might though and if his "style" of surgery was to become a thing, then animal welfare laws and regulation of veterinary would need to become a lot tighter to avoid botched experiments everywhere.

volchitsa

OP here, sorry ended up posting and running just now, but those are exactly the questions I've been asking myself - I mean, it's amazing what he does, and he does often say things like taking quality of life into account and maybe not operating and so on, and I totally get that when people have a dog that's in pain and can be cured, they want to do that. I just wonder where the limit is, and when you get a dog put through multiple operations and then they say he's got maybe six extra months thanks to the operation, is there not a certain amount of "Gee whiz look what we can do" in those operations?

The fact that it makes such good TV is part of why I'm wondering that - so ok, he puts all his money into the practice, and does free ops for those who can't pay, and I'm sure all that's true, but as someone who watches lots of Grand Design stuff, but hates the manipulative side of Big Brother, I'm left wondering where on that spectrum I would "put" Supervet. And I don't really know.

I'm not sure I'm being very clear about this, I'm not sure I can explain really.
I just feel a slight unease about where the animals themselves come, on what is after all a reality TV show. OTOH maybe I should also compare it to those hospital programmes rather than to BB.

I don't know, I just feel the animals themselves can't consent, and I wonder how far the fact of it being a TV show influences what is being done.

kathleen37

The family I know that took their dog there - he wouldn't operate as he said he couldn't guarantee a good result. Dog was happy enough on her trolley, so he said it wasn't in her interest to put her through an op that probably wouldn't help her.

They didn't appear on the telly, nothing to see, I guess. The telly thing actually concerned them before they went, they had no interest in appearing. The stuff that appears on tv is apparently a tiny part of what they do and no one appears if they don't want to.

kathleen37

Tilikum wrote: »

I'm just on about when he operates on one leg. I've watched ever episode.

I think my thoughts on seeing this were, I guess it will help. Those new prosthetics they use really are lightweight and if they will actually help? Why not?

From experience, I've found that tripod cats seem to cope much much better than the one tripod dog we had. We had issues with the dog in relation to tissue damage relating to the loss (front leg removal) and then as she got older, she really, really slowed down.

Never had any issues at all with the tripod cats - if either front or back leg gone.

I remember the one cat he had that lost both back legs, and the implants he did - I thought that was fantastic.

He's an odd character - but I genuinely think the animals are his priority. And I absolutely understand his frustrations that the technology he is helping to create, can't be used more quickly on humans.

Alun

kathleen37 wrote: »

He's an odd character - but I genuinely think the animals are his priority. And I absolutely understand his frustrations that the technology he is helping to create, can't be used more quickly on humans.

I agree. I often joke that if my gammy knee eventually needs surgery, I'll go to see Noel rather than a human orthopaedic surgeon, as I'll probably get a more advanced treatment there

muddypaws

I think that it is a fad in a way, TV will move on to the next thing, dog training programmes were very popular not that long ago. Dog trainers continue to work without the spotlight and I think Noel Fitzpatrick will as well. So the entertainment aspect of it is probably a fad.

Alun

Does anyone remember in a recent series, where he was wandering around with what looked like a plastic ski boot on his foot, because he'd broken it? If so, did you secretly think to yourself that he probably operated on it himself?

tk123

I've only seen a few episodes - Bailey already has his bionic legs so seeing it on TV I'm like meh - been there, done that!

volchitsa

Alun wrote: »

Does anyone remember in a recent series, where he was wandering around with what looked like a plastic ski boot on his foot, because he'd broken it? If so, did you secretly think to yourself that he probably operated on it himself?

Yes I saw that and TBH it did occur to me that he must have at least wanted to be awake to follow what was going on if he had to be operated on himself!

But I guess you get that with doctors anyway. He does seem to be amazingly good with manual skills though, which I suppose is essential in a surgeon too, but we tend to always think of the intellectual side of medicine don't we? Or I do anyway! Whereas what comes across to me on the programme is as though it's almost more of a really really complicated form of DIY!

omerin

I really like this show, one of the very few I watch and for the most part what he is doing is great although he does over egg it a bit for TV.

The amount of free work that he does is miniscule I would say, he does give "friend's rates" to charities, having said that it can be still quite expensive, example in the link of a westie called Rodney that was aired recently with no feet cost £10k, well worth a read

https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/911SMa

A lot of people don't understand why people spend so much on their pets and would probably recommend putting the animal to sleep rather then spend thousands fixing them. I think in most cases he recommends the best option given the circumstances

Zapperzy

I really like the guy, of course he beefs up everything to make a tv show out of it but I see a genuine love for animals in him. Think I read that he has a background in media and arts as well as veterinary. His interview with dave fanning is worth a listen if it's still on the Rte website. Talks a lot about growing up and why he got into veterinary.

Springwell

He's certainly not raking it in - that practice must cost a bomb to run and staff 24hrs. He speaks very differently when giving talks to veterinary professional vs "the public" - he told us being ten million in debt is the magic number where it pays for the bank to keep you open vs putting you into recievership for example...

sillysmiles

I think what is good about it it that is makes it ok for people to want to try to keep their animal alive and recognise that they are not disposable and not "just" a dog. I think the more that speaks of good animal welfare and raising the standard of being a pet owner is a good thing.