Veterinarians of Queensland, Australia issue life ban to cat owner who complained about poor veterinary treatment

The Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland responded to a complaint by Maria, the owner of a now deceased cat whose name is Princess, by issing a life-time ban on any future treatments for any type of pet that she owns. Does this sound astonishing to you? It does to me.

Princess - let down by veterinarians
Princess – let down by veterinarians
Two useful tags. Click either to see the articles:- Toxic to cats | Dangers to cats

Maria has done nothing wrong. Her complaint was entirely legitimate. In fact it went to the heart of what is wrong with many veterinary practices in many countries not just Australia: vets are often commercially associated with big business, such as the dry cat food manufacturers, to the detriment of their patients. Vets too often peddle products in their own interests and for their monetary gain at the expense of the health and welfare of their patients, mainly cats and dogs. They work under a conflict of interest.

To be fair not all vets are like this but clearly in Australia many are.

Here is the story about Princess, her red-and-white female cat, and how Maria ended up complaining.

At the age of 11, Princess was overweight. Maria’s veterinarian prescrined a weight loss cat kibble (Royal Canin Weight Loss Management) and Princess continued to gain weight (surprised?).

A year later she had type 2 diabetes presumably because of her obesity. The next vet’s dietary prescription was Hills m/d, dry and wet. Princess got worse. The diabetes remained and she had other health issues such as gum disease and jaw cancer.

Maria took Princess to 23 different veterinarians and they all prescribed Hills m/d cat food, a high carb diet. Do you get the distinct feeling that some Australian vets have been bought lock, stock and barrel by Hills Pet Food? The company say they are recommended by vets worldwide. Yes they are because they have bought the souls of these vets.

Maria had to do something so, after her own deligent research, she went back to basics and fed Princess with a raw diet. Her health picked up within six months and she lost 3 pounds. Her diabetes stabilised. However Princess died due to her other illnesses in April 2016.

Maria felt compelled to make a formal complaint to the Australian Veterinary Association. She employed a lawyer to make the complaint. Here is an extract:

“Our client finds most ironic and offensive the fact that veterinarians and commercial pet food companies operate in a symbiotic relationship where vets recommend the food that makes the animals sick, and when they return to the vet, the vet prescribes the food that makes the animals sick, and the cycle of over servicing by veterinarians continues. Inherent in this equation is the equally harmful fact that at no time do vets inform pet owners of the possibility that the commercial pet foods may be harming their pets, and provide them with an option for a prescribed diet based on raw diet or species appropriate nutrition.”

Note the intelligent assessment that some Aussie vets work in a “symbiotic” manner with big business. Symbiosis is when both parties gain.

The Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland responded issuing a…

“life-time ban on any future treatments for any type of pet I might have”.

Get that. I can hardly believe that is true. Is it true? The source is the well respected website The Truth About Pet Food. Queensland is an Australian state in the northeast of the country and continent. Clearly they acted unilaterally and it seems in a fit of pique to attack Maria. There is no doubt that Maria touched a nerve. These vets know what they are up to and it is against their oath, ethics and practice guidelines.




11 thoughts on “Veterinarians of Queensland, Australia issue life ban to cat owner who complained about poor veterinary treatment”

  1. Too many vets in too many countries are trying to be like many human doctors-ally themselves with big business to rake in as much money as they can. I’ve worked with a few like that and didn’t stay long when I made my dislike with the practices they followed. I always had the welfare of the pet at heart and at times (too many to count) would actually go against the dr’s orders. Those clients to whom I made suggestions thanked me when their beloved family members improved. I have also worked with doctors who thanked me for my suggestions when made outside the exam rooms and off the record.

    Reply
    • I love your comment. Not all vets as you say align themselves with big business but in the modern age, for me, too many do. It happens in the UK too almost 100%.

      Reply
  2. Symbiotic, just like those that promote cats to run free so when they find them dying and suffering they can parade them in social media to line their own pockets with massive donations and gofundme accounts. (One of your resident posters even bought herself a brand-new car from parading suffering cats in social media, cats that she caused to suffer from her own neglect. I have irrefutable proof of this too. Posts of hers saved in her very own words.) This is why some money-hungry veterinarians promote TNR. A never-ending supply of injured and sick cats for them to treat and charge for it.

    Catching on yet? Got a mirror? Without sick and injured cats to report about you wouldn’t even have a web-site to bring in all that click-bait money. Get some Windex and clean your mirror, it seems to be so dirty you can’t even see your own reflection in it.

    Thanks to you and your (lack of) values, cats have already become the new tobacco, both just as socially unacceptable and despised.

    Reply
    • This site covers all topics and you know that. Explore the site and that will become clear. This site does not rely on stories about injured cats. In fact I try my best to avoid them. As to values, I feel mine are fine thank you very much. I doubt yours are though.

      Reply
  3. That is beyond unethical. This is the kind of backlash you can expect as we move closer and closer to establishing at least rights for the pet owners beyond property value. In the US a veterinarian does not have to treat any animal they have the absolute right to refuse, legally. I considered this long and hard before filing suit against my crap veterinarian.
    Refuse to be silent , demand to be heard. I hope she has sought a lawyer out because this is retaliatory in nature.

    Reply
  4. Thanks to Michael Broad for bringing this story to the attention of P.O.C.’s membership and citing the excellent source. I know this particular story just broke and he dropped everything to jump on it. The trend of veterinarian’s unethical relationship with just-for-profit big cat food manufacturers (especially Hills) at the dire expense of actually and knowingly harming the animals it feeds is not news to me, and now should be on everyone’s mind to do something about it. With this example, and the extremely punitive knee-jerk banishment from veterinary care of this whistle-blower, it should horrify all pet owners and get law firms and government agencies to jump on this travesty from every angle. OMG where does one start? With this case for sure!

    Reply
    • We think alike Albert and thanks for bringing the story to my attention. This lady, Maria, is also like us. Veterinarians’ ethics are not infrequently compromised by financial profit.

      Reply
  5. Bless Maria for saying what many wouldn’t.
    No vet had worked in the best interest of Princess.
    Nowhere am I reading that she was treated in any way except by an already failed food diet.
    She didn’t have to die from diabetes complications, even at 11 years old.
    I view pet food representatives that visit vet offices as “pushers” and those vets as greedy, uncaring bast-ards.
    I hope that Maria has the same thoughts that I do, ie. who cares about a local ban. I’ll pursue somewhere else. But, I must say that my attitude toward Aussies and cats is in the toilet.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

follow it link and logo