Get Dr Pol off the air

[justavet]

Hi, I hope this isn't something I'm not supposed to be doing. If it is, I apologize and I hope a moderator tells me quickly.

I know the National Geographic show about the Michigan vet named Dr. Pol has been mentioned a couple times on SDN.

He and both other established vets in his practice have been found guilty by the Michigan Board of Veterinary Medicine of negligence and incompetence; fined; ordered to attend additional CE; and placed on a year's probation.

I started a petition http://tinyurl.com/9jcp6ht asking NatGeo to cancel the show. Dr. Pol hurts animals and their owners by practicing substandard medicine. Continuing to air the show promotes substandard medicine to the public. This will result in harm to more animals because people will think this substandard care is acceptable. This is below the standards we expect from National Geographic and tarnishes the brand.

With every person who signs the petition, an email goes to six NatGeo staff, the CEO of AVMA, the director of AVMA welfare division, the Michigan state board and Orbitz
which is a major advertiser on the show.

If you think National Geographic should cancel the show because all the vets at the practice were found guilty of negligence and incompetence, please sign the petition and spread the word by posting it to your facebook page, blog, tweet about it, etc.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deli]

link won't work. Otherwise, I probably would. I just watched him let a dogfight puppy sit in a cage to die, while he made a routine mobile appointment.

 

[LetItSnow]

link won't work. Otherwise, I probably would. I just watched him let a dogfight puppy sit in a cage to die, while he made a routine mobile appointment.

Eh. I'm not all that inclined to trust a tv show that's been edited to create a particular effect. A good editor can make the nicest person in the world look as culpable as Ted Bundy.

I wish justavet would have included a link to a reliable source detailing Pol's background and the issues the MiBVM had with him. I'm not all that inclined to take sides based on one person posting something without sourcing.

That's not meant as an indictment of you, justavet. Just... caution on my part.

Anyway. Back to studying for tomorrow's parasit exam. Sigh.

 

[nyanko]

you're just sticking up for dr. pol because he's part of your generation, aren't you?

 

[LetItSnow]

you're just sticking up for dr. pol because he's part of your generation, aren't you?

Did SOV give you permission to use his picture?

(But no, I had never heard of him until justavet's post.)

 

[Jamr0ckin]

I've seen the show, read the report of his cause for probation, signed the Petition, and posted it to my Facebook.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[CalliopeDVM]

Eh. I'm not all that inclined to trust a tv show that's been edited to create a particular effect. A good editor can make the nicest person in the world look as culpable as Ted Bundy.

I wish justavet would have included a link to a reliable source detailing Pol's background and the issues the MiBVM had with him. I'm not all that inclined to take sides based on one person posting something without sourcing.

Here you go: http://www7.dleg.state.mi.us/free/p...cility_Name=&DBA_Name=&profession=69&offset=0. That's the Michigan listing of Dr. Pol's license that shows he was placed on probation and fined. And here is the PDF listing of their findings (negligence and incompetence): http://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/lara_dar_042712_388373_7.pdf. Skip down to the top of page 8 to find Dr. Pol's.

 

[Flim Flam Man]

Here is correct url for the petition ...

http://www.change.org/petitions/national-geographic-cancel-the-incredible-dr-pol

 

[deli]

Here's where I originally heard of his suspension, and how they were still planning on making the show:

http://vetsbehavingbadly.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-incredible-disciplinary-action.html

 

[Finnsheep]

Practically every forum I'm on now is discussing this.

I do not have a TV and have never seen the show. I am very much inclined to side with LIS, since I do not have the facts and I do know that editing can change something a great deal.

What "gross negligence and incompetence" is Dr. Pol and his associate vets displaying? I am not saying that he is perfect or even acceptable- I just don't know. I do like to see both sides before forming my own conclusion.

This isn't an attack on anyone! Just asking...

 

[justavet]

Thanks for posting sources for me. I didn't because I honestly wasn't sure if it was an okay thing to post asking people to sign a petition.

And thans, Jamr0ckin, for signing and especially for getting it on your Facebook page.

LetItSnow, I actually agree with you. It's a TV show- it's edited to effect. I don't think we know what does and doesn't happen, we weren't there. A lot of times when I am there I'm not sure I know what happened! So I reserve judgement, even tho a lot of what I DO see and what I DO hear him say he is or isn't doing isn't ok with me. Whether it's malpractice, or he's incompetent or negligent isn't my judgement to make.

It IS the state board's judgement to make- and they did. ALL THREE of the vets in the practice at the time were found guilty by the state board. That's a board of nine people- six vets, three nonvets- from that state, who know how things are there, saying the vets on the show are providing substandard care.

And it's not about poor. I practice in a poor area but I don't practice poor medicine. Pol has trained his clients to accept poor care. That doesn't mean National Geographic should be allowed to train the nation to accept poor care.

So bottom line, if you want the profession to have high standards for you when you get here, help protect the animals and their owners from substandard care, which is what this show promotes.

Here's a story on VNS about it
http://beta.vin.com/Members/CMS/Misc/VINNews/Default.aspx?id=24580
Here's a link to the discussion http://beta.vin.com/members/boards/...&Archived=0&ShowOnlyPictures=0&SAID=1&Search=

Here's the DVM360 story about it http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dv...aced-on/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/791615

deli already posted a link to the VBB blog about it. Some 'incredible' quotes from Pol, his lawyer and the show.

 

[LetItSnow]

Thanks for posting sources for me. I didn't because I honestly wasn't sure if it was an okay thing to post asking people to sign a petition.

I hope it is, because it's interesting. I hope my reticence to jump on board without getting more info wasn't frustrating. I just know if I were accused of something I'd want people to get all the info first.

Thanks for the additional links!

 

[nyanko]

anyhow, the thing that this petition is going after is actually the show. So regardless of whether it looks crappy because of the doc or because of the editing....it's the show that's being targeted here for its portrayal of veterinarians. I personally feel like the petition would make a stronger case for rational people if that were the bent of it rather than Dr. Pol's disciplinary record.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I have read through the article and feel like there is a huge rush to judgement here.

1) He was put on probation NOT suspended. There is a big difference. This is basically a slap on the wrist.

2) The facts of the particular case are not clear, and even then, I think that if you put any vet under a microscope, there will be SOMETHING that others think is substandard care. We are far from perfect. A pattern of repeatedly having problems would be something else, and I don't see that in this case.

3) I haven't seen the show so can't draw any further conclusions... but I think a lot of people have a "holier than thou" attitude, and I often find they are no angels in real life... but it looks good to criticize other.

Should the show be pulled off the air? not for this in my mind.
Is he the best example of the practice of veterinary medicine? Of course not. But that is not what the show is about either.

 

[Packen]

What "gross negligence and incompetence" is Dr. Pol and his associate vets displaying? I am not saying that he is perfect or even acceptable- I just don't know. I do like to see both sides before forming my own conclusion.

This isn't an attack on anyone! Just asking...

3) I haven't seen the show so can't draw any further conclusions... but I think a lot of people have a "holier than thou" attitude, and I often find they are no angels in real life... but it looks good to criticize other.

Should the show be pulled off the air? not for this in my mind.
Is he the best example of the practice of veterinary medicine? Of course not. But that is not what the show is about either.

For those of you who have not seen the show, this is a you tube clip that shows EXACTLY why I think Dr. Pol 1) is grossly negligent and 2) should have his show pulled off the air:

[YOUTUBE]GQ9wRD-NFx4[/YOUTUBE]

Go to about minute 2:30 to see "surgical" practice at Dr. Pol's clinic. Granted I am merely a student, but I have NUMEROUS problems with this scenario.
- Dog is a HBC, it is most likely in shock - but he never even thinks to give the animal fluids to address any of the issues of shock
- He anesthetizes the animal, but does not intubate a brachyocephalic dog while conducting surgery.
- He sterile technique is not stellar - and although this is soft tissue surgery, there was an episode where he performed a FHO using the same anesthetic technique and sterile technique. SX 101 - you gown up and put a mask on for orthopedic sx (couldn't find this clip on you tube though)
- Although this may have been cut out, he is never once seen giving the dog any analgesics. Huge welfare concern in my book.

So this is why I think the show should be taken off the air. The general public watches this and then questions why their vet needs all those "fancy" anesthetic machines and fluids. They start to think that their vet is just using those things to squeeze more money out of them. If Dr. Pol doesn't need it, why should any other vet? When in reality it is just poor medicinal practice. "Old School" is not always better.

 

[skittles12]

Go to about minute 2:30 to see "surgical" practice at Dr. Pol's clinic. Granted I am merely a student, but I have NUMEROUS problems with this scenario.
- Dog is a HBC, it is most likely in shock - but he never even thinks to give the animal fluids to address any of the issues of shock
- He anesthetizes the animal, but does not intubate a brachyocephalic dog while conducting surgery.
- He sterile technique is not stellar - and although this is soft tissue surgery, there was an episode where he performed a FHO using the same anesthetic technique and sterile technique. SX 101 - you gown up and put a mask on for orthopedic sx (couldn't find this clip on you tube though)
- Although this may have been cut out, he is never once seen giving the dog any analgesics. Huge welfare concern in my book.

I can definitely agree with these comments. I've seen vets not use sterile gowns, but they always used sterile gloves, drape, and instruments (it looked like those instruments were on a paper towel!).

Not intubating a brachycephalic dog is a major risk, even for a short procedure. There was also no towel/blanket under the dog--those metal tables are cold! What about basic monitoring? Wonder if anyone monitored the dog's recovery?

I have spent time in a rural clinic, and a low cost spay neuter clinic. They offered good care for patients at a very reasonable cost to clients. Low cost doesn't always have to mean low quality.

 

[PetPony]

I saw one episode where the dogs haven't woken up yet from their procedure and he put them in the truck bed of the owners to go home. I thought that wasn't the greatest thing either.

 

[shortnsweet]

For those of you who have not seen the show, this is a you tube clip that shows EXACTLY why I think Dr. Pol 1) is grossly negligent and 2) should have his show pulled off the air:



Go to about minute 2:30 to see "surgical" practice at Dr. Pol's clinic. Granted I am merely a student, but I have NUMEROUS problems with this scenario.
- Dog is a HBC, it is most likely in shock - but he never even thinks to give the animal fluids to address any of the issues of shock
- He anesthetizes the animal, but does not intubate a brachyocephalic dog while conducting surgery.
- He sterile technique is not stellar - and although this is soft tissue surgery, there was an episode where he performed a FHO using the same anesthetic technique and sterile technique. SX 101 - you gown up and put a mask on for orthopedic sx (couldn't find this clip on you tube though)
- Although this may have been cut out, he is never once seen giving the dog any analgesics. Huge welfare concern in my book.

So this is why I think the show should be taken off the air. The general public watches this and then questions why their vet needs all those "fancy" anesthetic machines and fluids. They start to think that their vet is just using those things to squeeze more money out of them. If Dr. Pol doesn't need it, why should any other vet? When in reality it is just poor medicinal practice. "Old School" is not always better.

Ugh that made me nauseous. RTA...ummm what about internal injuries? And his son's comments give me nightmares. I have a sick feeling that dog went home and turned up dead 48 hours later.

 

[DVMDream]

I saw one episode where the dogs haven't woken up yet from their procedure and he put them in the truck bed of the owners to go home. I thought that wasn't the greatest thing either.

We would often to late night emergency surgeries... owners would bring their dogs in right before close and we would end up being at the clinic until 10, 11, midnight.. We would monitor the pet for about an hour or so after surgery but since no one was there to keep an eye on the dogs we would give the owner three options: 1. Take pet to emergency clinic for overnight care. 2. Take pet home with them for them to monitor with directions and numbers to emergency clinic. 3. Leave pet in our hospital overnight (on IV fluids) with them having the full knowledge that no one is in the hospital to monitor the pet.

It was then up to them. Most of the vets actually preferred option 1 or 2, because they would rather have had someone watching the pet vs. no one watching the pet.

But, I do think the rest of the stuff that had been posted about this Dr. was really bad. When he most likely graduated, this stuff was probably common, I actually worked with a vet where they did many of these same things, older guy, great guy, just not really up to date with recent advancements in vet med. Is it negligent... I wouldn't do it.. I would expect better care for my pets, but it is most likely what he has been used to since he graduated, does that make his methods correct.... probably not any more. I do think he needs to take some more CE and get with the times a bit, but I also think that a lot of his practices have to do with being an older graduate.. not saying that is an excuse though.

 

[wildcatj]

We would often to late night emergency surgeries... owners would bring their dogs in right before close and we would end up being at the clinic until 10, 11, midnight.. We would monitor the pet for about an hour or so after surgery but since no one was there to keep an eye on the dogs we would give the owner three options: 1. Take pet to emergency clinic for overnight care. 2. Take pet home with them for them to monitor with directions and numbers to emergency clinic. 3. Leave pet in our hospital overnight (on IV fluids) with them having the full knowledge that no one is in the hospital to monitor the pet.

It was then up to them. Most of the vets actually preferred option 1 or 2, because they would rather have had someone watching the pet vs. no one watching the pet.

But, I do think the rest of the stuff that had been posted about this Dr. was really bad. When he most likely graduated, this stuff was probably common, I actually worked with a vet where they did many of these same things, older guy, great guy, just not really up to date with recent advancements in vet med. Is it negligent... I wouldn't do it.. I would expect better care for my pets, but it is most likely what he has been used to since he graduated, does that make his methods correct.... probably not any more. I do think he needs to take some more CE and get with the times a bit, but I also think that a lot of his practices have to do with being an older graduate.. not saying that is an excuse though.

I would highly doubt that his intention is to be negligent, but I think as a veterinarian (or any medical professional) you have a responsibility to keep up with any new advances. It would be absolutely unacceptable for human doctors to use outdated practices from 30 years ago, so it shouldn't be any different for vets (though I'm sure this happens in human med as well).
I think what bothers me about it is what has been mentioned above. That if people see this as the standard of medicine their pets could be receiving without ill consequences, than why should they pay for more?
Moral of the story is though, that there are plenty of vets out there just like Dr. Pol. Their clients don't know that they are receiving substandard care. In the end it comes down to vets not fulfilling an obligation to practice the best medicine possible and that's a big bummer.

 

[DVMDream]

I would highly doubt that his intention is to be negligent, but I think as a veterinarian (or any medical professional) you have a responsibility to keep up with any new advances. It would be absolutely unacceptable for human doctors to use outdated practices from 30 years ago, so it shouldn't be any different for vets (though I'm sure this happens in human med as well).
I think what bothers me about it is what has been mentioned above. That if people see this as the standard of medicine their pets could be receiving without ill consequences, than why should they pay for more?
Moral of the story is though, that there are plenty of vets out there just like Dr. Pol. Their clients don't know that they are receiving substandard care. In the end it comes down to vets not fulfilling an obligation to practice the best medicine possible and that's a big bummer.

I completely agree. I think we are responsible to keep up with the new advances and learn about them and implement them into our clinics (within reason, obviously). I also agree that this is not something that should be shown to the public as what vet med is today, it would have been ok 30 years ago, but it is not up to today's standards.

Is there anything from the AVMA regulating that vets not only need to be educated on the recent advancements in vet med, but that certain things have to be implemented or considered the "gold level" standard of care? As things advance in vet med (in any job really), you will run into people that are not comfortable with change and may not be intentionally negligent but just haven't moved with the times and are therefore giving substandard care. Just something that I thought of.

 

[pooter]

For those of you who have not seen the show, this is a you tube clip that shows EXACTLY why I think Dr. Pol 1) is grossly negligent and 2) should have his show pulled off the air:

[YOUTUBE]GQ9wRD-NFx4[/YOUTUBE]

Go to about minute 2:30 to see "surgical" practice at Dr. Pol's clinic. Granted I am merely a student, but I have NUMEROUS problems with this scenario.
- Dog is a HBC, it is most likely in shock - but he never even thinks to give the animal fluids to address any of the issues of shock
- He anesthetizes the animal, but does not intubate a brachyocephalic dog while conducting surgery.
- He sterile technique is not stellar - and although this is soft tissue surgery, there was an episode where he performed a FHO using the same anesthetic technique and sterile technique. SX 101 - you gown up and put a mask on for orthopedic sx (couldn't find this clip on you tube though)
- Although this may have been cut out, he is never once seen giving the dog any analgesics. Huge welfare concern in my book.

So this is why I think the show should be taken off the air. The general public watches this and then questions why their vet needs all those "fancy" anesthetic machines and fluids. They start to think that their vet is just using those things to squeeze more money out of them. If Dr. Pol doesn't need it, why should any other vet? When in reality it is just poor medicinal practice. "Old School" is not always better.

Saying that sterile technique is not stellar is like saying the streets of West Philly are kind of not clean.

 

[wildcatj]

Saying that sterile technique is not stellar is like saying the streets of West Philly are kind of not clean.

Because really, what's the point of even wearing sterile gloves if you're going to put instruments (that may or may not have been sterile to begin with) on a freaking paper towel. Especially when you're doing a freaking enucleation! Sure hope that dog got antibiotics because otherwise I bet it had a super nice infection right in that eye socket...

 

[CalliopeDVM]

I have read through the article and feel like there is a huge rush to judgement here.

1) He was put on probation NOT suspended. There is a big difference. This is basically a slap on the wrist.

2) The facts of the particular case are not clear, and even then, I think that if you put any vet under a microscope, there will be SOMETHING that others think is substandard care. We are far from perfect. A pattern of repeatedly having problems would be something else, and I don't see that in this case.

3) I haven't seen the show so can't draw any further conclusions... but I think a lot of people have a "holier than thou" attitude, and I often find they are no angels in real life... but it looks good to criticize other.

Should the show be pulled off the air? not for this in my mind.
Is he the best example of the practice of veterinary medicine? Of course not. But that is not what the show is about either.

So, you think it's OK for a television show to highlight a vet who has been formally censured for negligence and incompetence without telling the viewers that they're watching a vet who's been found guilty of negligence and incompetence? That leaves me speechless.

 

[MysteryCat]

Looks like he's back... Wasn't he taken off the air for a while? Or was that just a seasonal thing?

 

[deleted498041]

Looks like he's back... Wasn't he taken off the air for a while? Or was that just a seasonal thing?

I never heard of him being taken off the air, I thought that the show had just concluded its season and is now coming back for another one. Not 100% sure about that, though.

 

[Falina]

I think it just the end and start of seasons, like Rwwilliams said. Now, Dr. Pol and his associates were put on probation for a time by the Michigan State board, pending completion of "further education courses". That was last year though, so I'm guessing that is behind them now.

 

[anotherbusybee]

In my opinion and experience...

Nat Geo LOVES to build shows on half-*****ed "experts" who rile up the professional community while pandering to the public's perception that pet animals do not require "fancy" training or medical care.

I think Nat Geo consistently airs incompetent people for a reason. This is why I do not and never will support Nat Geo. They are totally doing it for the $$$$$$ and publicity.

 

[swingnsave]

Got a text from my mom earlier saying she was watching a new vet show on netflix. Guess who!

I explained to her what I knew and encouraged her to research what has been going on since 2011? I'm not UTD but surprised it's now streaming on netflix. Shame on you netflix.

 

[jmo1012]

Got a text from my mom earlier saying she was watching a new vet show on netflix. Guess who!

I explained to her what I knew and encouraged her to research what has been going on since 2011? I'm not UTD but surprised it's now streaming on netflix. Shame on you netflix.

he also has a published book

 

[Meurks]

Just had a client at our clinic ask me if I watched the show. Hopefully he doesn't think that is the way procedures are performed in our hospital..

 

[DVMDream]

A new complaint has been filed against this vet:

http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/exclusive-report-new-complaint-filed-against-dr-pol

Maybe this will be the nail in the coffin of this show?

 

[Fly Racing]

Wow, good on that vet for taking action! I recently watched part of the first season on Netflix and was very surprised by the standard of care; a bit dumbfounded actually. I understand many times owners have to make decisions that require a vet work 'below the book' because they cannot afford the more aggressive treatments and that the viewers are probably not seeing those discussions, but in the case of the dog fight puppy, the owners were willing to take it to surgery. And yet, no treatment was given 'because the dog would die if we took him to surgery now.' The dog was given NO supportive therapy while he 'recovered for a few hours before surgery.' What about some fluids and discuss the merits of a blood transfusion or plasma based on the blood work, with the owner? What about monitoring him? What about pain management (not a shot of steroids). That poor puppy. In my two years of working in a clinic, we only once had an animal die on it's own while not being actively attended to by the vet at the time. That show had multiple instances of animals dieing while they waited unattended to see if they improve.

And the recumbent horse that was left to die with no attempt to make a diagnosis or provide even a best guess/ low risk treatment? Blood work would have been pretty basic (before moving him with a skiddy). We once saved a horse that was in worse neurological condition than that because the vet did blood work, diagnosed and then treated the problem. We can't save them all, but Dr. Pol did not even try to save this horse.

 

[daish005]

I hadn't heard of Dr.Pol until I was on Netflix bored & looking for some animal related shows.

I randomly pick an episode and he's castrating lamb by having someone else hold them up in the air and just "clipping". Like bam bam bam one after the other the lamb are fully alert and of course screaming at one point it appeared he was using plyers

Somebody please tell me this isn't the standard way of castrating farm animals for veterinarians. It seemed like an incredibly careless, outdated, and inhumane method. I've seen farmers castrate their own bulls, but what's the point of calling a vet if he's just going to do the same thing the same way?

I understand that on working farms with there being so many animals it's impractical to handle every animal as we would our pets making sure they don't feel anything, but his method really didn't sit right with me.

I mean I can understand it wouldn't be practical for a farmer to pay and wait for every one of his animals to be put under for castration. I just hope that here in 2014 we do have an efficient yet still more humane way of doing it even on large working farms. Maybe we don't, what do I know.

Either way I couldn't watch that for entertainment.

 

[Country_roads]

I hadn't heard of Dr.Pol until I was on Netflix bored & looking for some animal related shows.

I randomly pick an episode and he's castrating lamb by having someone else hold them up in the air and just "clipping". Like bam bam bam one after the other the lamb are fully alert and of course screaming at one point it appeared he was using plyers

Somebody please tell me this isn't the standard way of castrating farm animals for veterinarians. It seemed like an incredibly careless, outdated, and inhumane method. I've seen farmers castrate their own bulls, but what's the point of calling a vet if he's just going to do the same thing the same way?

I understand that on working farms with there being so many animals it's impractical to handle every animal as we would our pets making sure they don't feel anything, but his method really didn't sit right with me.

I mean I can understand it wouldn't be practical for a farmer to pay and wait for every one of his animals to be put under for castration. I just hope that here in 2014 we do have an efficient yet still more humane way of doing it even on large working farms. Maybe we don't, what do I know.

Either way I couldn't watch that for entertainment.

As far as I know, we don't. There's plenty of research going on to try and find a balance between practicality and welfare though. Lidocaine injected in to the spermatic cord is used sometimes, but it still slows down processing due to having to wait instead of just the typical wham bam castration. In a working swine operation, workers hang piglets upside down on a rack, make two slits and cut testicles out really quick. The piglets stop squealing the moment they're back in with mom. Giving every piglet local anesthetic? They would have to be handled a lot more, for a lot longer, on top of being castrated. Immensely more stressful. There's work being done with trying to provide analgesics through mom's milk though.

I think a reason for calling the vet to do it instead of doing it yourself is that some farmers may think a vet is more sterile/efficient/just simply better. In some cases, it's probably true. Also, maybe someone just wanted to be on TV.

I don't knock anybody for doing a typical livestock castration as long as it's done correctly.

Ps. Not defending Dr. Pol at all, I don't know anything about him. Just stating what I know about current livestock issues and welfare

 

[DVMDream]

As far as I know, we don't. There's plenty of research going on to try and find a balance between practicality and welfare though. Lidocaine injected in to the spermatic cord is used sometimes, but it still slows down processing due to having to wait instead of just the typical wham bam castration. In a working swine operation, workers hang piglets upside down on a rack, make two slits and cut testicles out really quick. The piglets stop squealing the moment they're back in with mom. Giving every piglet local anesthetic? They would have to be handled a lot more, for a lot longer, on top of being castrated. Immensely more stressful. There's work being done with trying to provide analgesics through mom's milk though.

I think a reason for calling the vet to do it instead of doing it yourself is that some farmers may think a vet is more sterile/efficient/just simply better. In some cases, it's probably true. Also, maybe someone just wanted to be on TV.

I don't knock anybody for doing a typical livestock castration as long as it's done correctly.

Ps. Not defending Dr. Pol at all, I don't know anything about him. Just stating what I know about current livestock issues and welfare

Yeah, I don't know enough about farm animal medicine to make comments on his techniques in that aspect. I know castration is a thing in farm animals that is often not very erm "nice". I have read however many farm veterinarians commenting and saying that Dr. Pol is definitely not practicing good medicine with farm animals either.

I do know enough about small animal medicine to know that not only are his methods severely outdated, they are negligent, dangerous and far below even minimum standard of care. I mean things as simple as: using sterile instruments, not sending patients home still under anesthesia, providing an ET tube for a brachycephalic dog (or any dog that is undergoing surgery really), monitoring anesthesia (not even fancy machines, even just a pulse ox with a heart rate would be better than the nothing he has been seen using in his show), providing support after/during surgery in terms of IV fluids and temperature control (even just a blanket under the pet during surgery to keep the metal table from making them cold). There are a bunch of very simple and not expensive things that he can do that would improve his practices. But he either doesn't care or is too set in his ways and change scares him. I am not sure what it is, but it definitely isn't the "kind old vet that does it cheap for people who can't afford it". Many people have commented that have been to his clinic and say his prices are average and not the cheapest, so he is cutting corners and basically making bank by doing so.

And the things that I am commenting on are obvious from watching the show... not just that it was edited out. You can watch them carry dogs out a few times to trucks and vehicles that are completely sedated and not alert enough to really be going anywhere.

You can watch him do an enucleation on Boston Terrier with his instruments lying on a paper towel, no blanket under the dog, no monitoring, no oxygen support, no ET tube.... nothing. The dog is just lying on the cold, metal table while he snips its eye out with instruments that are placed on a paper towel. You also question if pain meds were given, but that could have been edited out, so he may have given them and it just wasn't shown. The rest is blatantly obvious as they show the whole surgery on the show.

He also gives a dog that was hit by car a steroid injection and just allows it to sit in a cage. Nothing else done.

Recently saw an episode where he again was doing an enucleation due to a dog being kicked in the head by a horse... he instantly sedates the dog, looks at the eye, grabs some instruments and cuts the eye out. Again, no oxygen, no ET tube, no sterile instruments, no sterile gloves, no blanket or temperature support for the dog. I don't see him examine the dog any further or check for any other injuries, though it is possible that he did and the show just didn't represent that. Then they show them taking the dog out of the vet clinic and placing it in the back of the owner's truck while the dog is still completely laterally recumbent and showing no signs of starting to recover from the sedation/anesthesia.

It is really bad, because a lot of what he does can be fixed by doing simple, easy things that don't cost a lot of or even any money.


ETA: I know you weren't defending him, just figured I would expand upon what I feel is wrong with what he does and why the show should be cancelled. I really don't think the public should see this and think that is representative of what the veterinary profession does.

 

[brightimpressio]

I hadn't heard of Dr.Pol until I was on Netflix bored & looking for some animal related shows.

I randomly pick an episode and he's castrating lamb by having someone else hold them up in the air and just "clipping". Like bam bam bam one after the other the lamb are fully alert and of course screaming at one point it appeared he was using plyers

Somebody please tell me this isn't the standard way of castrating farm animals for veterinarians. It seemed like an incredibly careless, outdated, and inhumane method. I've seen farmers castrate their own bulls, but what's the point of calling a vet if he's just going to do the same thing the same way?

I understand that on working farms with there being so many animals it's impractical to handle every animal as we would our pets making sure they don't feel anything, but his method really didn't sit right with me.

I mean I can understand it wouldn't be practical for a farmer to pay and wait for every one of his animals to be put under for castration. I just hope that here in 2014 we do have an efficient yet still more humane way of doing it even on large working farms. Maybe we don't, what do I know.

Either way I couldn't watch that for entertainment.

Some lamb castrations that I've seen have been kinda like this. Pretty similar to what country_roads mentioned about the swine castrations. Most of the time we rubber banded them but sometime that wasn't... practical. In all cases the lambs stopped crying when they were back with their mothers. I'm not sure if this is how it's done everywhere (and it kinda freaked me out at first), but the lambs didn't seem to care that much, at all.

 

[Caia]

This is the kind of topic that I don't want to get involved in any arguments in on FB....but it seems like there's a decent amount of people even with animal backgrounds that love the show.

I hope with the recent actions against him, there is some education on what isn't ok for the general public.

 

[DVMDream]

Some lamb castrations that I've seen have been kinda like this. Pretty similar to what country_roads mentioned about the swine castrations. Most of the time we rubber banded them but sometime that wasn't... practical. In all cases the lambs stopped crying when they were back with their mothers. I'm not sure if this is how it's done everywhere (and it kinda freaked me out at first), but the lambs didn't seem to care that much, at all.

We rubber banded every male lamb in Scotland when I was lambing for two weeks. They didn't seem to care much, really didn't like being restrained. Otherwise they went right back to running, jumping and playing when we were done. I am sure it is uncomfortable, I mean it is basically cutting off blood supply to the testicles and scrotum, but like has been said, there really hasn't been any better recommendations for castration of farm animals that is efficient and not going to make the farmer go broke.

 

[Country_roads]

Some lamb castrations that I've seen have been kinda like this. Pretty similar to what country_roads mentioned about the swine castrations. Most of the time we rubber banded them but sometime that wasn't... practical. In all cases the lambs stopped crying when they were back with their mothers. I'm not sure if this is how it's done everywhere (and it kinda freaked me out at first), but the lambs didn't seem to care that much, at all.

Yeah I originally learned banding for sheep and goats too. I think a lot of people are on the fence about banding now though because studies that have been done show that the animals are in significant discomfort for a prolonged period of time (obviously). However there's the definite upside of no blood and (I believe, but maybe wrong) a lesser risk of infection. I was at a beef cattle welfare symposium not long ago and they demonstrated a tool that was similar to a burdizzo...I guess. They slit the scrotum and clamped the instrument on the the spermatic cord, the instrument then twisted at a very fast rpm and it ligated the spermatic cord and the testicle came right off! Pretty neat in my opinion.

 

[brightimpressio]

Yeah I originally learned banding for sheep and goats too. I think a lot of people are on the fence about banding now though because studies that have been done show that the animals are in significant discomfort for a prolonged period of time (obviously). However there's the definite upside of no blood and (I believe, but maybe wrong) a lesser risk of infection. I was at a beef cattle welfare symposium not long ago and they demonstrated a tool that was similar to a burdizzo...I guess. They slit the scrotum and clamped the instrument on the the spermatic cord, the instrument then twisted at a very fast rpm and it ligated the spermatic cord and the testicle came right off! Pretty neat in my opinion.

Huh! That sounds really interesting!

 

[dyachei]

Yeah I originally learned banding for sheep and goats too. I think a lot of people are on the fence about banding now though because studies that have been done show that the animals are in significant discomfort for a prolonged period of time (obviously). However there's the definite upside of no blood and (I believe, but maybe wrong) a lesser risk of infection. I was at a beef cattle welfare symposium not long ago and they demonstrated a tool that was similar to a burdizzo...I guess. They slit the scrotum and clamped the instrument on the the spermatic cord, the instrument then twisted at a very fast rpm and it ligated the spermatic cord and the testicle came right off! Pretty neat in my opinion.

Are you referring to the newberry knife?

I castrated some cattle like that. so quick and they are back to regular activity. I'd like it better if we could control pain better though. Just because they dont act painful doesn't mean they aren't

 

[Fly Racing]

Are you referring to the newberry knife?

I castrated some cattle like that. so quick and they are back to regular activity. I'd like it better if we could control pain better though. Just because they dont act painful doesn't mean they aren't

You make a good point that I wish more people understood. "Animals don't feel pain like we do," really makes me scratch my head since they have the same pain receptors and afferent system as people. If a 2,000lb giant, that we couldn't communicate with, grabbed all the (human) boys by a leg and gave them a quick castration, I bet the giants would think those human kids don't feel pain the same either. They are probably fearing for their life and just happy to be back with mom.

As a side note from an earlier post, equine vets have started twisting off testicles as well. There is significantly less bleeding. The horses are still anesthetized (and some vets also do a local block), so not the same as some farm animal practices, but still interesting.

 

[Country_roads]

Are you referring to the newberry knife?

I castrated some cattle like that. so quick and they are back to regular activity. I'd like it better if we could control pain better though. Just because they dont act painful doesn't mean they aren't

Yeah I believe that was it, I just couldn't remember the name. And of course I agree with your second statement, pain mitigation is one of the biggest welfare issues in the livestock industry today. In the demonstration I witnessed, the vet touted the use of Lidocaine directly in to the spermatic cord for pain management. Will producers start that practice? I'm not totally convinced because it still takes extra time. I don't think it's a bad idea to push harder for producers to offer some sort of pain relief for any procedure (dehorning, castration, tail docking etc.). However, I know that's easier said than done. I agree that there is a widespread notion among many that indeed "animals don't feel pain like we do". I also agree that is silly, but behavior is a rapidly growing field and I feel like we're really starting to get some important points to producers (and some vets too!).

I also think that fear factors in to the whole thing quite a bit because it's suggested that fear and pain are directly, and positively, correlated. Realistically, can anything be done about that via desensitization/low-stress handling? Well...hopefully!

 

[dyachei]

Yeah I believe that was it, I just couldn't remember the name. And of course I agree with your second statement, pain mitigation is one of the biggest welfare issues in the livestock industry today. In the demonstration I witnessed, the vet touted the use of Lidocaine directly in to the spermatic cord for pain management. Will producers start that practice? I'm not totally convinced because it still takes extra time. I don't think it's a bad idea to push harder for producers to offer some sort of pain relief for any procedure (dehorning, castration, tail docking etc.). However, I know that's easier said than done. I agree that there is a widespread notion among many that indeed "animals don't feel pain like we do". I also agree that is silly, but behavior is a rapidly growing field and I feel like we're really starting to get some important points to producers (and some vets too!).

I also think that fear factors in to the whole thing quite a bit because it's suggested that fear and pain are directly, and positively, correlated. Realistically, can anything be done about that via desensitization/low-stress handling? Well...hopefully!

They are. But we should have an understanding that even without behavior changes, there is pain. prey species are less likely to show weakness.

I think we should premed with some sort of pain control for surgical procedures. At least in horses, we dont have to worry about them getting into the food chain.

 

[Country_roads]

They are. But we should have an understanding that even without behavior changes, there is pain. prey species are less likely to show weakness.

I think we should premed with some sort of pain control for surgical procedures. At least in horses, we dont have to worry about them getting into the food chain.

And this is something that we as veterinarians and as scientists must convey to producers. You and I know how pain works, we understand that many animals by nature are stoic. Producers may not be as educated. My entire thesis is based on euthanasia and pain perception because some of the current on-farm methods used for this animal are horrendous. I don't think the farmers are inherently cruel, i think some just don't get it. I agree with pre-surgical anesthetic, it's all about finding a procedure that is actually applicable on a 1000+ head operation. That's why research is so important.

I think you and I are on the same page.

 

[Caia]

It's not just vets and scientists taking part, but corporations that source animal products as well. Nestle just recently made a big move in welfare by requiring certain standards in regards to pain control, gestation crates, battery cages, etc. in their sourcing and essentially forcing producers to comply through market pressures. Other corps like McDonalds are also participating.

http://mobile.foodmanufacture.co.uk...o-boost-animal-welfare-standards#.VC3ceKOCOc0

Which is definitely good, but I think it's a slippery slope when large corporations are controlling the way animals are raised.

 

[SouthernKyGal]

I don't have a problem with Dr. Pol at all. In fact, I love the show. Sure, he does things differently than other vets but no two vets are the same and I have yet to meet a vet that has been in practice as long as him. His ways are a little old fashioned but they still work.

 

[dyachei]

I don't have a problem with Dr. Pol at all. In fact, I love the show. Sure, he does things differently than other vets but no two vets are the same and I have yet to meet a vet that has been in practice as long as him. His ways are a little old fashioned but they still work.

The issues people have are that as the standards of care have changed, he hasn't. And it puts animals and humans at risk.

 

[DVMDream]

I don't have a problem with Dr. Pol at all. In fact, I love the show. Sure, he does things differently than other vets but no two vets are the same and I have yet to meet a vet that has been in practice as long as him. His ways are a little old fashioned but they still work.

It isn't about doing things "different" or even being "old fashioned". He is negligent. He has been disciplined by his state board for negligence. Providing a towel to support body temperature is simple and something even "old fashioned" vets provide. Providing oxygen for a patient that needs it, sterile instruments (even the old fashioned vet I worked with had an archaic autoclave to sterilize instruments). Putting on sterile gloves when enulceating an eye that could easily cause infection into the brain if not done well is simple and something even an "old fashioned" vet would do.

Part of becoming a veterinarian is taking the following oath:

"
Being admitted to the profession of
veterinary medicine, I solemnly
swear to use my scientific
knowledge and skills for the benefit
of society through the protection of
animal health, the relief of animal
suffering, the conservation of
livestock resources, the promotion of
public health, and the advancement
of medical knowledge. I will
practice my profession
conscientiously, with dignity, and in
keeping with the principles of
veterinary medical ethics. I accept
as a lifelong obligation the continual
improvement of my professional
knowledge and competence."

The bolded part says it all. You accept as a lifelong obligation to continually improve your knowledge (this is where continuing education comes in) and improvement of professional knowledge and competence. If you can't keep with the oath that you take at graduation by continuing to educate yourself and keep up to date on what is considered the minimum standard of care for the patients in your care, then don't become a vet. There should be no such thing as the "good old fashioned vet" because every vet should keep up on what is current and continue to update their procedures to provide what is the best care or at least meeting the minimum standards. We aren't talking about CT scans or MRI's. We are talking about providing basic support to patients and NOT sending them home from surgery until they are at least sternal and preferably able to get up and support themselves.