DEAR EDITOR - I was told that a local veterinary practice manager was to pen a reply to concerns expressed in the local press over veterinary charges, and by golly, what an eloquent and robust response we have had.

I have no real disagreement with any part of the rosy image painted of the modern veterinary service and I think it is admirable the pay and conditions of staff have improved in line with treatment standards so that a better service can be delivered to the clients.

However, I do think it would be very useful to view some of the comments from a slightly different perspective.

To talk of all the modern aids to diagnosis and treatment as being a great step forward I believe is possibly a little nave.

My point being, recently while talking to a young vet on the phone, I said to her it was a pity they couldn't do an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan. She said they could - but it would cost £800.

Come on, we would all like to avail ourselves of five star standards from all our service providers but some of us have to be content with a more hands on and less technically driven service that is affordable within the constraints of our limited finances.

The other point I would like to make is with regard to euthanasia, having once been the only option for sick domestic animals.

I think if compromises cannot be made this could result in turning full circle and "heaven forbid" this could once again become a reality purely for financial reasons.

To move on to another related matter I would like to report on the outcome of a letter of complaint I was prompted to write to my veterinary practice.

Some days later I received a telephone call from one of the senior consultants and during our lengthy conversation we had what I feel was some frank and very useful dialogue. While I do not feel I have total satisfaction I do feel that a reasonable compromise has allowed me to lay the matter to rest. The details of which are as follows: -

1. Firstly, and of least importance, as a gesture of goodwill, my account has been credited with some money (I will be donating this via Neil Edwards to the Blue Cross).

2. Secondly, there is to be procedural change which in certain circumstances will save clients money.

3. Finally, and most importantly, the practice has informed me in writing that they are to look at the possibility of reduced fees for rescue animals.

It is, of course, up to themselves to put the flesh on the bones of this proposal but I wish them well and I think this could prove to be a great public relations coup for the practice.

In conclusion, I can only say that the best advice is as the veterinary manager suggests, always discuss options, ask about costs involved and most of all, try to be focused and objective.

D L Pardoe, Crabtree Lane, Bromsgrove