Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


Don't get me wrong, I think fox hunting

> and a lot of animal testing is terrible, but these

> extreame campaigners that will hurt people, and

> dig up dead old ladies, what the fcuk is that

> about?

>


I was living in Staffordshire, where the crime took place, at the time they disinterred that old lady's body. It was terrible. She had been buried in 1997 and, IIRC, the remains were stolen in 2004/5. After a two-year campaign involving about 450 incidents (hoax bombs, phone calls, etc.) the family, who owned a guinea-pig farm, shut up shop. It was the only way they felt they could get the body back.


I dislike vivisection It is, however, necessary and the pain and suffering of animals should be minimised, but stunts like disinterment are indefensible. It was meant to show the lengths some would go in the name of animal rights (parallels here with abortion clinic bombings, anyone?) but it only proved the movement's impotence.


[Freud/] As for the bigger question, and again back to abortion, of why people act on behalf of specific groups of the helpless (animals, foetuses) instead of looking more generally at reducing suffering across society, I'm not sure. This is anecdotal evidence, but plenty in the animal rights brigade are generally misanthropic, believe humans are a stain on nature, a cancer in the universe, all that crap. Similarly there is a religious sentiment in the (particularly US) anti-abortion lobby that sees society as sinful, liberal, decadent... Saving "the innocent" is one way of people dealing with this. [/Freud]


I dunno whatothers think.

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was meaning what's the process i.e. is it

> anaesthetised so that it won't feel pain (erring

> on the side of caution in case it can feel pain)

> or is it done in a way that it would feel pain (if

> it did feel pain)



In the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee report pulished yesterday, it states that evidence points to foetuses as if being in a heavily sedated state when they are in the womb anyway. So while there is nervous system activity, it is rather like when someone has an operation and goes under general anaesthetic.

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But child abuse and neglect to unwanted children

> on the other hand can be quantified. As can

> post-natal depression, increased risk of suicide,

> alcoholism and drug abuse.


Agreed and I am certainly not belittling these things, but is abortion the only way to tackle them? It seems barbaric to go for that option in a civilised society. Going by this argument, are you saying because you are an unwanted child it would have been better to abort you? I rather think we would all be less enriched had that happened. I may not agree with you all the time but I'm bloody glad you're in the world.

Oof PGC the link you listed goes to a site that describes itself :


"LifeSiteNews.com is a non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family"


that sound good doesnt it ..... but read further in the " about us" section and get get little hints like:


"LifeSiteNews.com's writers and its founders, have come to understand that respect for life and family are endangered by an international conflict. That conflict is between radically opposed views of the worth and dignity of every human life and of family life and community. It has been caused by secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality and natural law principles which are seen as the primary obstacles to implementing their new world order. "


Oh dear dear me...........


delve a bit deeper and go get the links to the likes of the Campaign Life Coalition & the International Right to Life Federation


Its intertesting isnt it how people how beleive in the existance of " God" , despite no evidence to back it up in any fashion , still profess to live their lives according to the " word" of this fellow that effectively, doesnt exist.


Hmm..its hardly seems like a bunch I would really want to take much notice of


BTW, anyone been to the Stopes Clinic in brixton recently ?


I have funnily enough - It didnt seem to be a place full of people haveing a laugh and a joke. Indeed, I would suspect that people were taking the decision very very seriously indeed.


Its a shame the prayer mumbling nutters outside were cursing them as they drove into the clinic - a very unchristian thing to to to someone in distress.

Edited cos I was kind of exaggerating for dramatic effect!! But it could have all been true!


....any woman who knows she cannot cope with a child, should never have to have that child; because the pain the feotus may or may not feel when aborted, cannot be compared to the pain a child may feel throughout it's life and the pain that child's future children may feel; unless you are prepared to start supporting these children and making sure they are looked after, no matter what is costs society.

No, no one will "win" this.


For me, your last post just illustrates how different circumstaces will mean different decisions and beliefs.


"the pain the feotus may or may not feel when aborted, cannot be compared to the pain a child may feel throughout it's life" Well of course you can't compare them, but for some people the former would mean more than to others, that's exactly the problem whenever this debate comes up. If you take away the biggots, most people are pretty clued up these days, but individuals have different moral make ups, and there will never be a happy medium with this subject.


I agree with you completely about looking after the kids by the way.

"Did I win yet?"


Not by a long shot. You said: "...unless you are prepared to start supporting these children and making sure they are looked after, no matter what is costs society." I am and think we as a society should. I have offered to adopt various friend's children as an alternative to abortion and would rather a hike in my taxes to cover support and care for either the parents or children than throwing them out with the gin and bathwater

It's a difficult area and morality is so subjective that there are no absolutes. I do feel that over time the science will be the key to this i.e. freezing fertility until required (more easily than today's pill) and perhaps evidence of sentience of the foetus.


I'm not sure about you, but I would think that would tip the scales against. CWALD - would you believe it justified to terminate if the foetus would deemed sentient?

You can debate and opinionate endlessly about this difficult and emotive issue and everyone has an absolute right to do that, whatever their views. But I would just say that, unless you have direct experience of this subject, you can never fully understand all of its elements. It is not just about right/wrong/morality, etc. How much simpler would it be if it was! Taking such a moral stance is all very well Nero and, yes, the whole business is very 'distasteful', I can vouch for that. We can all stand in judgement of others and measure them according to our own moral barometers, but nothing is gained by making a woman feel criminalised by her decision. I wonder sometimes whether the fact that it is often men who are so vocal on this subject, is aligned to the fact that it is one over which, ultimately, they have so little control. Women may be more inclined to think 'there but for the grace of god....etc'.
Point taken and I'm not denying anyone their right to an opinion, as I did in fact state. Just trying to get away from this black and white/right and wrong issue. Men are of course affected by abortion and I am not saying that they should be excluded from the debate. It's just that I've noticed that often the most inflexible views tend to come from them. As for the comparision with shooting a man, what if that man was holding a gun to a loved one's head? What we perceive as being wrong or immoral can often be challenged when certain circumstances present.
I have been following this for some time but not had the time to collect my thoughts . It's a debate that I always thought I was very clear on. Choice for women was paramount. That's probably because I was at college with plenty of aspiring, intelligent women who articulated the pro-choice arguments. Now though, I have my own kids and have plenty of friends with youngsters too and it does kind of move the goalposts a little. I keep returning to the idea that "two wrongs do not a right make". If you conceive by mistake - you cannot rectify it by aborting the fetus.

Fizzy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I wonder sometimes

> whether the fact that it is often men who are so

> vocal on this subject, is aligned to the fact that

> it is one over which, ultimately, they have so

> little control. Women may be more inclined to

> think 'there but for the grace of god....etc'.



Although this issue does affect women more keenly than men, I don't think that means men should not a. have opnions on the subject or b. legislate (i.e. male MPs). We talk of society and it is for society through MPs and judges (as useless as some may be) to make the law that fits the current morality of this society. This can and will change over time by science and increased conservatism or liberlaism but it is a matter for men and women together to determine not women alone.


Otherwise, like PGC says, none of us could expect anyone but victims, sufferers or perpetrators of whatever crime, disease or condition to be able to debate and frame opinions/legislation on whatever the matter of concern.

I see Rev Joel Edwards, General Director of the Evangelical Alliance, has been appointed as a commissioner to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This should be interesting as the Evangelical Alliance campaigns to undermine women's rights to choose an abortion. They're also anti-gay.


Don't they read people's CV before they appoint them?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...