All a bit vague really, like the programme. The programme itself was very flawed, imo, as they took 3 pets to 3 different vets to see what treatment and advice would be given. But all 3 presented with rather vague symptoms, eg not eating, and while it's all very well this vet knowing from the outset that there was not, actually, anything wrong with any of them, the vets they took them to did not. Esp with the cat, I think it would be pretty irresponsible to just do nothing if the cat wasn't eating. As we all know, that can be dangerous for a cat. I can't remember what was wrong with the rabbit. I think it raised a good point, but didn't actually delve into it in any detail. I think you'd have to be very naiive to think there were no vets out there happy to exploit owners. And it's all well and good raising the issue, but I don't think the programme offered any solutions. The only good thing about the programme imo was the expose of the vet who was struck off and then re-instated. But that wasn't really related to the rest of the programme as it was clearly a case of a vet who was either totally incompetent and/or exploiting owners for huge sums of money at the expense of their pets. An extreme situation. Was the programme trying to say there are lots out there like that? Like most Tonight programmes, it was pretty low on content and investigative journalism and high on sensationalism.
