All of this talk about how vets should really be paid for their
diagnostic abilities, rather than their shot-giving abilities, made me decide
to contribute this....  See, we seem to be having a bit of a problem with our
vet...  or, well, not really with her, but with the 2nd vet at her practice.
Every time we go in there lately, there's a new 2nd vet -- it seems as if
they're on a 3 month rotation or something!  I don't know if they really are
the equivalent of "interns" on rotation, or whether she keeps trying out new
vets and they never stay, but they're all pretty young, and obviously not very
expereinced with ferrets.  Unfortunately, you don't know until you get there
whether you'll get the good vet who's been there all along, or the latest new
guy.  Now, I don't have any objection to young vets, and I know that the
only way they'll get experience with vets is if they work with them.  But, the
whole point of my bringing in my ferrets for checkups is really the CHECKUP,
NOT just getting a shot.  And they don't seem to realize that.  In fact, I have
to wonder if these guys are really capable of diagnosing anything in ferrets.
One of them had to go out in the hall and ask one of the assistants at what age
my youngest would need its next set of kit shots!  Now, maybe its unfair to
judge on that basis, but if a person has to ask her assistant when ferrets
need shots, do they really know enough to catch anything that might be wrong?
And if they can't, well, then they shouldn't be seeing me in the first place,
regardless of the fact that the bill is based primarily on the shots rather
than the diagnosis.  I don't know...   (But I do know that if
they won't let me schedule SPECIFICALLY with my old vet from now on, I'm going
to be searching for a new one...)
 
Sorry so long...  but maybe if vet bills listed the visit as the primary
expense, and the shots as lesser ones, even if the total cost wasn't any
different, it would put the emphasis where it belonged....
 
-Rochelle
 
[Posted in FML issue 0731]