I had several complaints with this book.
First, I didn't quite agree with his "alternative medicine = unethical" statement. Nor was his argument persuasive at all. Just because you 'support' or suggest alternative medicine as different/alternate options for a client just NOT necessarily mean you are putting down the veterinary (or human) profession. Even if you are putting down the veterinary profession (which wouldn't make sense if you're a veterinarian), how would that be UNETHICAL? Does he know what "ethical" means? Saying that alternative medicine is unethical as his ending 'conclusion'/argument makes me question his understanding of what "ethics" or "ethical" means, which kind of defeats the entire purpose of his book.
Second, I wish he would have also included other ethics, as veterinary medicine does not include only companion, lab, and farm animal medicine. For instance, I would have liked to see some examples of wildlife or conservation medicine and how his explanations would work for and how he would approach these less client-based fields. For example, dealing with the federal/state government for endangered species cases, dealing with the public who 'kidnap' and/or keep/raise baby birds as pets, and dealing with people who keep bringing in injured passerine that are attacked by their cats.
Third, I sometimes felt that he didn't necessarily address the questions in the different cases. So I was left confused as to why he was finished with that case and moved onto the next one.
Fourth, his explanations sometimes didn't seem realistic. Sometimes life doesn't always work that and you can't always do what you believe in. I wanted to also see him offer examples where he did what he actually said and how successful he was in actually using this "Aesculapian authority" (if his clients were actually receptive/responsive/respectful of his application of this 'authority'). He also kept repeating that he would use this authority to convince clients. However, he never explains HOW. Instead of telling, he needs to SHOW, that is what would make the book a whole lot better.
Fourth(and a half, as this is an extension of the previous paragraph), in almost every case, he says he'll use 'Aesculapian authority" to convince the client of his belief. But if you don't necessarily agree with using that as a way to convince/persuade someone to not use convenience euthanasia or to convince someone to euthanize their dog/cat after years of unsuccessful oncology treatments, then is there another way to convince people?
Fifth, I was annoyed with his random littering of latin and french phrases. It made him seem... haughty and confused. I also never understood why he kept using "raison d'etre"... I'm not even sure he's using it correctly, as "raison d'etre" literally means "reason of being". I also don't know latin so his insertion of many latin phrases/words seems irrelevant, arbitrary, and excessive. Especially since he NEVER explains the latin words, which makes his arguments/explanations confusing and not "flowing", as I have to constantly look them up (google/wiki them).
Sixth, there were a couple of grammar mistakes that made it confusing for me to understand what he was trying to say (redundancy, comma splices, etc). Albeit it would be his editor's fault for not catching those mistakes, still... If you're going to publish a book, make sure there are NO grammar mistakes (unless they're on purpose, as for dialogue). Not to say my grammar is perfect but still. THIS IS A PUBLISHED BOOK. Make sure it makes sense through and through.
However, despite all my complaints (which tend to be many), it was a quick (well, most of the time) and good read. I did learn about how to tackle some of the cases (in the sense that I am a little too radical/animal rights-oriented than normal) in a more appropriate and socially ethical manner.