To not want a vet to operate on me ?

[CremeFresh]

Seriously, this is what my elderly father thinks is the best way forward for me !

I have an injury that my father insists the Supervet could operate on and would cure me. Every single time I see him he mentions it. I have told him to contact him himself and see what he says but he's yet to do it.
AIBU to think that I'm not a bloody chihuahua ?

Bertie he's always had rather forthright ideas but they are getting worse and definitely more odd.

I really don't want an operation and certainly not from Supervet.

Well...technically it's illegal for doctors to treat animals, but not illegal for vets to treat humans. But you'd have to be an idiot to let a vet prepared that was prepared to give it a whirl anywhere near you.

Supervet has an absolute god complex!!

He's been banging on about this for the best part of a year ! I'm tempted to make an appt and take my dad with me just to prove I'm right.

I didn't think vets could treat humans. Christ ! Please don't tell my dad nocool.

Oh just go for it! What's the worst that could happen?

What does he think you need doing that requires a vet op?

Do you have a tail?

Well, in the Discworld novels, the vets who treat horses are better at getting results than the official doctors for humans, as racing horses are worth more.

I'd not dismiss the idea immediately, but unless you know the vet and know he's good, I'd still prefer a specialist for the human animal when it comes to surgery.

Vets do seem better at treating skin problems and the like, though. Have read some horse forums and was shocked to see that conditions that in humans, no one really found a solution for, in horses, they know exactly what to do about it.

What is the procedure that only a super vet can perform?

Supervet tends to base his techniques on human orthopaedic surgeries anyway.

I wouldn't have thaught that there would be much difference between a doctor and a vet when it comes to the simple stuff.

Gosh.
This thread is weird.
I like it.

nocool Well...technically it's illegal for doctors to treat animals, but not illegal for vets to treat humans.

Really? Bristol zoo had a baby gorilla born by ceasarean last year - CS carried out by a local gynaecologist!

I think I've seen this show a couple of times. Do they start with the camera panning round the waiting room? Anxious looking people sitting on plastic chairs, with their injured pets sitting on the floor at their feet?

Camera pans round past various people with cats and dogs, then does a double take when it gets to the OP's DF on chair with OP sitting on floor with exasperated expression ...

Supervet is a right bellend by all accounts

Well...technically it's illegal for doctors to treat animals, but not illegal for vets to treat humans.

Um... got a reference for this nocoolnamesleft ?! It does depend on the definition of 'treat', but in the context of this post and needing an operation, I think the GMC and RCVS might disagree...

Here's a nice little article that sums some of it up: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1898308.stm

Sorry YABU. Most of the vets I have met (especially those with specialisms) have outclassed the doctors and consultants I have met in almost every repsect. Thoroughness, depth of knowledge, breadth of expertise and patient care and sense of accountability in particular.

I would glady have the Supervet operate on me! I think the NHS should employ vets! But it would ruin them. I don't think the NHS is the right environment to produce good doctors though. It must crush the good ones.

I'm a vet - we are allowed to operate on a person in an emergency I thank my lucky stars I live down the road from a big hospital so there will never be a situation where that could happen.
My colleague is married to an anaesthetist - we have borrowed his skills on more than one occasion with very complicated cases.
I Wouldn't let the supervet operate on me but I would prefer my DH (also a vet) to a lot of doctors I have met!

This reminds of when somebody I know slashed their arm in their car if I remember correctly and nipped in to our vet surgery to get patched up.

Nocool names is the closest to being correct and is supported by the BBC article. A doctor (medically qualified) needs to be acting in the instructions of a vet if they are operating on an animal. To do otherwise is illegal under the veterinary surgeons act . Certain animals eg fish are excluded. The BBC article is correctly raising the legal ramifications.

Lol your dad wants to pay for your veterinary treatment . Anyway I'm sure he means well. Do you need a bionic part?

Suoervet guy definitely has dubious morals. And a god complex for sure. The fact that it's broadcast on TV is the worst part of it.

Instead of teaching people that buying an animal whose conformation predisposes it to a life of misery, the tv channel instead says 'hey, it's ok. Buy a dog/cat that is doomed from start but we can 'fix'

Another doctor here who's bf happens to be a vet; my understanding is also that in an emergency a veterinary surgeon is allowed/insured to use their skills to try and help a (human) patient until proper medical help arrives, but as doctors we are not insured to do the same for animals.

Unless, as someone mentioned above it was under the direct supervision of a vet as a particular set of specialist skills were needed but to be honest I'd think you'd be on pretty shaky ground indemnity wise if you bollocksed anything up

Also every vet I know seems to think supervet man is a very arrogant swearyword

Jeezy So if you operated on, say, my cat, and it went wrong - I could take you to court? But if I didn't take you to court would everything be ok for you?
It's kind of interesting that vets can help humans in some circumstances but not doctors treating animals! You'd expect it to be the other way round, really.

Is it the same for dentists, I wonder? Do vet dentists (?!) fill teeth or just remove them? ]]