Everyone has had "one of those days". You don't really need to elaborate more than that, because regardless of your profession or interpretation, we all know that this phrase means that it wasn't a good day. Well, today I had one. Let me give you some insight into what "one of those days" might mean to a vet.
Firstly, I am not kidding when I say that the majority of dogs I saw today needed to be muzzled in order for me to examine them. I was almost bit at least three times. It's not unusual to have a patient or two in a day where this is needed, but pretty rare for it to be most of them. All of us in the profession have to deal with aggressive, fearful, or otherwise "difficult" patients, but we always hope that most of the pets we see will be pretty tolerant of our services.
Secondly, I was having a hard time getting people to agree to treatments. I had several sick pets, including one dachshund who hadn't been eating well for a week and had difficulty walking for the last couple of days. She appeared to have a partially slipped disk on her back, leading to some neurological dysfunction. The owner couldn't afford any diagnostics at all, even though I told her that this was very serious. Oh, and this was one of the dogs I had to muzzle. I had more clients than average who were like this. I ended up seeing a lot of patients, but didn't have much to show for it. It was one of those days when you really spend much of the day working hard, but don't bring in enough revenue to feel like it was worth it, and don't feel like you helped many pets.
Thirdly, I had several "stupid" clients. Yes, I'll use that word. One had a pomeranian who had previously had problems with vomitting. The owner gave her some eggs and potatoes from an egg salad, and then was surprised and worried that she had a little vomiting and diarrhea. Another person wanted ear medications for her cat, even though she was last seen at a vet in Oklahoma in Novemeber, and never followed their directions. She beame upset when we talked to that vet, they wouldn't authorize further medication without an exam, and we refused to sell her the medication.
Fourthly, while trying to handle one of the "difficult" dogs today I slammed my hand against the wall, and apparently have bruised it. Nothing serious, but darn annoying.
To top it all off, I wasn't even supposed to work today! It was one of my days off, but the other doctor I work with was sick, so I came in for her and switched another day off. So this day should have been hers, not mine.
But thankfully I was able to come home to the arms of a wonderful woman and a cute new puppy. The best news of the day is that Inara is slowly but surely starting to get the idea about housebreaking, and hasn't had anywhere near as many accidents today.
Tomorrow I get another try at a decent day, and then have a day off. It's a good thing that every day isn't like this, or few people would be a vet.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Welcome Home, Inara
For the last few months my family has been talking about getting a new dog. Our lab, Guinevere, is almost 4 years old, and the kids don't really remember her being a puppy (they were 2 and 3 when we got her). So I've been on the lookout for a new puppy to join our family, mostly looking at shelters and rescue groups (yes, I do try to practice what I preach).
Earlier this week a client brought in a very sweet and cute lab mix puppy that I thought was adorable. We were talking, and I found out that she was one of a litter of three that was at a local shelter. I called the shelter (Dog Pack Rescue), and then yesterday we went and took a look at her. It didn't take long for my wife and kids to agree with me that she was so cute and well tempered. And yesterday we took her home.
So now we have little Inara, a three month old yellow lab mix. She actually looks a lot like Guinevere, enough that it would be easy to mistakenly assume that Inara is her puppy (except that Guinevere was spayed at 4 months old). She is named after a character in Firefly, one of our favorite TV shows that unfortunately didn't make it a full season but did get made into the movie Serenity (I would highly recommend both the series and movie...it's one of the best science-fiction shows I've ever seen, and I can't say I've met too many people who disagree with
me). The name also means "bright" or "shining", and is the name of an ancient Hittite goddes of wild animals, so it's pretty appropriate.The kids adore her. Guinevere isn't quite sure what to make of her, and we think she's a little worried that Inara is going to take attention away from her. Thankfully, Guinevere is a very sweet, patient dog. Our cats have taken this addition better than they have any previous one. All-in-all, she already looks to be making a great addition to our family.
However, it's not all fun and games. I'm back to housebreaking, crate-training, and obedience training. I had forgotten how much work all of that was, but I also know how necessary it is. This is the part of puppy ownership that I don't like, but you have to take the bad with the good. This time our kids are old enough that we're making them the primary caretakers, even for cleaning up her "accidents".
So the adventure begins again!
Friday, February 6, 2009
Waxing Loquacious
loquacious [loh-kwey-shuh
s]–adjective
I have been looking back over some of my previous entries, and have realized that a character flaw I have in person exists in print as well. I enjoy teaching and lecturing, and look for opportunities to do both. Most of my staff over the years have liked this, as I willingly detail to them the "whys" and "hows" of pet care and veterinary medicine. I have also mentored many veterinary students and new graduates, who have commented positively on my explanations. But I do tend to go on at length on many topics, and will give more discussion that what is sometimes needed.
I commonly say that if someone asks me a question that requires a yes or no answer, I will give them that answer and then give them a 20 minute dissertation on why it is yes or no. I have even had receptionists page me on a back phone, ask me a question, wait for my answer, and then hang up on me while I'm explaining it to them. Frankly, I've never gotten upset by this, and we've all joked around about it because everyone knows that I'm a bit of a talker. The receptionist got their answer, and didn't have time for me to go into teaching mode.
Sometimes this can be a good thing. Many diseases or disorders require lengthy explanations for the owners to truly understand what is going on. Just today I was talking to someone whose dog was having severe anxiety when in his kennel. Behavioral issues are never simple or straight-forward, so it was good that I was comfortable in doing a lengthy lesson. The owner thanked me for my thoroughness.
On the flip side, a few months ago I had a client with a different opinion. My tech came back after we were done seeing the pet and was laughing at what the client had said. Apparently she told the tech "That was a very nice vet and I liked him, but he sure can talk!"
What my wife hates is that I'm completely different at home. Though I'm very outgoing in professional situations, and enjoy being with people, when I'm in my private life I'm extremely introverted. Sometimes she can't get two consecutive sentences out of me!
So if I tend to go on a bit long, I do apologize!
s]–adjective | 1. | talking or tending to talk much or freely; talkative; chattering; babbling; garrulous: a loquacious dinner guest. |
| 2. | characterized by excessive talk; wordy: easily the most loquacious play of the season. |
I have been looking back over some of my previous entries, and have realized that a character flaw I have in person exists in print as well. I enjoy teaching and lecturing, and look for opportunities to do both. Most of my staff over the years have liked this, as I willingly detail to them the "whys" and "hows" of pet care and veterinary medicine. I have also mentored many veterinary students and new graduates, who have commented positively on my explanations. But I do tend to go on at length on many topics, and will give more discussion that what is sometimes needed.
I commonly say that if someone asks me a question that requires a yes or no answer, I will give them that answer and then give them a 20 minute dissertation on why it is yes or no. I have even had receptionists page me on a back phone, ask me a question, wait for my answer, and then hang up on me while I'm explaining it to them. Frankly, I've never gotten upset by this, and we've all joked around about it because everyone knows that I'm a bit of a talker. The receptionist got their answer, and didn't have time for me to go into teaching mode.
Sometimes this can be a good thing. Many diseases or disorders require lengthy explanations for the owners to truly understand what is going on. Just today I was talking to someone whose dog was having severe anxiety when in his kennel. Behavioral issues are never simple or straight-forward, so it was good that I was comfortable in doing a lengthy lesson. The owner thanked me for my thoroughness.
On the flip side, a few months ago I had a client with a different opinion. My tech came back after we were done seeing the pet and was laughing at what the client had said. Apparently she told the tech "That was a very nice vet and I liked him, but he sure can talk!"
What my wife hates is that I'm completely different at home. Though I'm very outgoing in professional situations, and enjoy being with people, when I'm in my private life I'm extremely introverted. Sometimes she can't get two consecutive sentences out of me!
So if I tend to go on a bit long, I do apologize!
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Euthanizing Because Of Cost?
Deciding to euthanaize a pet is rarely an easy thing. Which brings the following question from Scott.
Have you had clients resort to financial euthanasia? I read an article that said millions of dogs and cats are put down each year because their owners won't (or can't) pay for the treatment to save them. How do you fell when an owner makes that decision and you have to carry out the procedure?
I'm not sure that "financial euthanasia" is the best phrasing, but I understand what you're trying to say. This is not an uncommon situation, and in most cases I can't fault the owner. However, that's not to say that I like doing it. Always keep in mind that the veterinarian is the final decider about whether or not the euthanasia will be performed. Most of us try to respect an owner's wishes, but we have our own ethics and are under no moral or legal obligation to perform a service merely because a pet owner wants us to. So to me and most veterinarians, there has to be a justifiable reason for euthanizing a pet, and I take that on a case-by-case situation.
Case #1--An 11 year old cat begins to vomit frequently. The owner pays for lab tests, which show nothing abnormal. The vet repeats the exam a week later and notices a lump in the abdomen in the region of the stomach. X-rays don't reveal anything other than a mass, but it doesn't appear to be something the cat swallowed. The next step is exploratory surgery, which the owners cannot afford. The vet has a strong suspicion that the cat has a tumor, possibly in or on the stomach. The cat continues to vomit, and can't seem to keep food down. The owners don't want him to suffer, and ask the vet to perform euthanasia. In this situation, I would do it because the cat has a high likelihood of having a serious problem, and it isn't going to get better without extensive treatment. Rather than letting the pet suffer and die slowly, I would put it to sleep.
And know what? This happened with my own cat. However, I did the exploratory and discovered that most of his stomach was one big tumor. I knew that I couldn't afford chemotherapy, and it was large enough to be inoperable, so I ended up putting him to sleep. So this is a real situation that I modified slightly for the sake of discussion.
Case #2--Here's another real case. An owner has a 10 year old golden retriever that develops a large mass in the abdomen. Surgery is performed and it is discovered that there is a huge mass involving the spleen. The spleen is removed and the dog recovers well. About 6 months later, more masses are detected in the abdomen, which means that a return of the cancer is likely. The owner can't afford more treatment, and decides to put the dog to sleep when they become big enough to affect the quality of life. I would definitely do this euthanasia, as the owner has already done a lot, and further intervention would likely not help.
Case #3--A six year old cocker spaniel has a horrible ear infection, and has had frequent infections for the past five years. The owners aren't willing to do any further diagnostics or surgery to help, and are tired of the smell and appearance. The dog is otherwise happy and healthy, but will have life-long problems with the ears. The owners want the dog euthanized because of the chronic problems and impact on their lives. I would refuse to do this procedure because the dog's life is not at stake, and an inconvenience to the owner is not a justifiable reason to me.
Case #4--A five month old labrador puppy comes in with a broken front leg. The owners are young and cannot afford the needed surgery. Simply splinting or casting the leg would be questionable. This is a tougher case, as the dog's life will be significantly impacted, even if the injury isn't life-threatening. I would likely refuse euthanasia, but offer to help adopt the dog out to someone who could help.
As you can see, each case is different, and they aren't always clear-cut. The rule-of-thumb I tend to use is "what is the pet's life going to be like if we do nothing?" If the quality of life would be really bad or fatal, I will strongly consider euthanasia. If the quality of life won't be bad, just inconvienent or less than ideal, I likely won't do it.
So yes, Scott, people do have to make decisions for their pets' health based on finances. This is the reality of the world, and isn't something that I condemn people for. One of my equine professors in vet school taught me a very important lesson. She said that someone shouldn't have to go bankrupt simply to prove their love for an animal. I would agree with this, and have remembered it over 12 years later. I would prefer it if clients could always afford treatment, but that's not always the case. This is why I recommend having an emergency fund just for your pet's care. But in the cases where the owner can't pay for treatment, I try to put the pet's best interests first. Not always a pleasant task, but a necessary one.
Have you had clients resort to financial euthanasia? I read an article that said millions of dogs and cats are put down each year because their owners won't (or can't) pay for the treatment to save them. How do you fell when an owner makes that decision and you have to carry out the procedure?
I'm not sure that "financial euthanasia" is the best phrasing, but I understand what you're trying to say. This is not an uncommon situation, and in most cases I can't fault the owner. However, that's not to say that I like doing it. Always keep in mind that the veterinarian is the final decider about whether or not the euthanasia will be performed. Most of us try to respect an owner's wishes, but we have our own ethics and are under no moral or legal obligation to perform a service merely because a pet owner wants us to. So to me and most veterinarians, there has to be a justifiable reason for euthanizing a pet, and I take that on a case-by-case situation.
Case #1--An 11 year old cat begins to vomit frequently. The owner pays for lab tests, which show nothing abnormal. The vet repeats the exam a week later and notices a lump in the abdomen in the region of the stomach. X-rays don't reveal anything other than a mass, but it doesn't appear to be something the cat swallowed. The next step is exploratory surgery, which the owners cannot afford. The vet has a strong suspicion that the cat has a tumor, possibly in or on the stomach. The cat continues to vomit, and can't seem to keep food down. The owners don't want him to suffer, and ask the vet to perform euthanasia. In this situation, I would do it because the cat has a high likelihood of having a serious problem, and it isn't going to get better without extensive treatment. Rather than letting the pet suffer and die slowly, I would put it to sleep.
And know what? This happened with my own cat. However, I did the exploratory and discovered that most of his stomach was one big tumor. I knew that I couldn't afford chemotherapy, and it was large enough to be inoperable, so I ended up putting him to sleep. So this is a real situation that I modified slightly for the sake of discussion.
Case #2--Here's another real case. An owner has a 10 year old golden retriever that develops a large mass in the abdomen. Surgery is performed and it is discovered that there is a huge mass involving the spleen. The spleen is removed and the dog recovers well. About 6 months later, more masses are detected in the abdomen, which means that a return of the cancer is likely. The owner can't afford more treatment, and decides to put the dog to sleep when they become big enough to affect the quality of life. I would definitely do this euthanasia, as the owner has already done a lot, and further intervention would likely not help.
Case #3--A six year old cocker spaniel has a horrible ear infection, and has had frequent infections for the past five years. The owners aren't willing to do any further diagnostics or surgery to help, and are tired of the smell and appearance. The dog is otherwise happy and healthy, but will have life-long problems with the ears. The owners want the dog euthanized because of the chronic problems and impact on their lives. I would refuse to do this procedure because the dog's life is not at stake, and an inconvenience to the owner is not a justifiable reason to me.
Case #4--A five month old labrador puppy comes in with a broken front leg. The owners are young and cannot afford the needed surgery. Simply splinting or casting the leg would be questionable. This is a tougher case, as the dog's life will be significantly impacted, even if the injury isn't life-threatening. I would likely refuse euthanasia, but offer to help adopt the dog out to someone who could help.
As you can see, each case is different, and they aren't always clear-cut. The rule-of-thumb I tend to use is "what is the pet's life going to be like if we do nothing?" If the quality of life would be really bad or fatal, I will strongly consider euthanasia. If the quality of life won't be bad, just inconvienent or less than ideal, I likely won't do it.
So yes, Scott, people do have to make decisions for their pets' health based on finances. This is the reality of the world, and isn't something that I condemn people for. One of my equine professors in vet school taught me a very important lesson. She said that someone shouldn't have to go bankrupt simply to prove their love for an animal. I would agree with this, and have remembered it over 12 years later. I would prefer it if clients could always afford treatment, but that's not always the case. This is why I recommend having an emergency fund just for your pet's care. But in the cases where the owner can't pay for treatment, I try to put the pet's best interests first. Not always a pleasant task, but a necessary one.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Should I Breed My Dogs?
I talk to people about spaying and neutering their pets on a daily basis. And almost every day I talk to someone who has an interest in breeding their dogs, and don't want to have them "fixed" because of this desire. However, most of them really shouldn't be breeding, and have misconceptions about breeding. Which brings us to today's question from a reader.
I bought a male teacup poodle and a female tiny toy poodle. It turns out that the male is now 7 pounds at 6months and the female is a very petite 4 pounds - just the opposite of want I thought. Can I breed these two poodles? I really wanted to poodles I could mate.
First, I would recommend and going back in the archives to ready my entries on breeders and spaying or neutering. These posts will give you a good idea about my opinions on this area. In your specific situation, I would first ask if you have experience with breeding. If not, you need to contact a breeder who is or has shown their dogs, and/or is actively involved in a breed club. Good breeding is not merely a matter of putting two dogs together and getting puppies. You also need to consider the quality of the dogs you are breeding. Which brings me to the second point, and that is to assess whether or not the dogs meet breed standards. Your vet and a responsible breeder/shower will be able to help you with that. If the dogs have any common genetic or physical disorders, or simply aren't good breed quality, you shouldn't mate them.
Consider the cost to your dogs. These are living, caring creatures, and not simply dog factories. There are absolutely no medical benefits to allowing dogs to breed, and numerous hazards to doing so. True, health concerns are uncommon, but they do happen. This can included increased risks of cancer, risks of prostate disease in males, uterine infections in females, and so on. Again, go back and read the previous entries I mentioned.
There can be financial cost as well. A couple of weeks ago I was speaking to a groomer I know and found out that she breeds Australian shepherds (which really have nothing to do with originating from Australia). She completely agrees with my opinion of casual breeders, and shares my distaste for them. She also talked about how she has champion quality dogs, shows and competes with them, and because of all of this she is lucky to break even when she breeds puppies. Usually she looses money. This is very typical of the responsible, quality breeders. They enjoy the breed and the hobby, but realize that they make enough money to support it and won't really make anything more than that. So don't start to think that you can make a lot of money by breeding, especially with something as common as poodles.
Now let's assume that you have talked to your vet and a good breeder, have determined that your dogs are good breed standard and are healthy, you wait until the female is 18-24 months old before breeding, and are otherwise doing everything right. These dogs are too young to be bred, and haven't finished growing. They will become reproductively mature at 7-9 months old. However, you SHOULD NOT breed them then, as that's the equivalent of a 13-14 year-old girl getting pregnant. Yes, it's biologically possible, but it's more risky that someone in their 20s. So you have some time to figure out if they're going to grow much more. If both dogs are small like this, differences in size aren't as important. However, whenever the male is significantly larger than the female, there is a chance that the puppies will be too large for her to give birth to. This can lead to problems during labor and delivery, often requiring a Caesarian section. Once these puppies are at least a year old, talk to your vet about whether or not they should be bred. And please go into that discussion with an open mind, being perfectly willing to not breed if that is what your vet recommends. If you have your mind set to breed these dogs and aren't willing to listen to advice from people who know more than yourself, then you are in danger of becoming one of these people that vets and responsible breeders speak against.
I bought a male teacup poodle and a female tiny toy poodle. It turns out that the male is now 7 pounds at 6months and the female is a very petite 4 pounds - just the opposite of want I thought. Can I breed these two poodles? I really wanted to poodles I could mate.
First, I would recommend and going back in the archives to ready my entries on breeders and spaying or neutering. These posts will give you a good idea about my opinions on this area. In your specific situation, I would first ask if you have experience with breeding. If not, you need to contact a breeder who is or has shown their dogs, and/or is actively involved in a breed club. Good breeding is not merely a matter of putting two dogs together and getting puppies. You also need to consider the quality of the dogs you are breeding. Which brings me to the second point, and that is to assess whether or not the dogs meet breed standards. Your vet and a responsible breeder/shower will be able to help you with that. If the dogs have any common genetic or physical disorders, or simply aren't good breed quality, you shouldn't mate them.
Consider the cost to your dogs. These are living, caring creatures, and not simply dog factories. There are absolutely no medical benefits to allowing dogs to breed, and numerous hazards to doing so. True, health concerns are uncommon, but they do happen. This can included increased risks of cancer, risks of prostate disease in males, uterine infections in females, and so on. Again, go back and read the previous entries I mentioned.
There can be financial cost as well. A couple of weeks ago I was speaking to a groomer I know and found out that she breeds Australian shepherds (which really have nothing to do with originating from Australia). She completely agrees with my opinion of casual breeders, and shares my distaste for them. She also talked about how she has champion quality dogs, shows and competes with them, and because of all of this she is lucky to break even when she breeds puppies. Usually she looses money. This is very typical of the responsible, quality breeders. They enjoy the breed and the hobby, but realize that they make enough money to support it and won't really make anything more than that. So don't start to think that you can make a lot of money by breeding, especially with something as common as poodles.
Now let's assume that you have talked to your vet and a good breeder, have determined that your dogs are good breed standard and are healthy, you wait until the female is 18-24 months old before breeding, and are otherwise doing everything right. These dogs are too young to be bred, and haven't finished growing. They will become reproductively mature at 7-9 months old. However, you SHOULD NOT breed them then, as that's the equivalent of a 13-14 year-old girl getting pregnant. Yes, it's biologically possible, but it's more risky that someone in their 20s. So you have some time to figure out if they're going to grow much more. If both dogs are small like this, differences in size aren't as important. However, whenever the male is significantly larger than the female, there is a chance that the puppies will be too large for her to give birth to. This can lead to problems during labor and delivery, often requiring a Caesarian section. Once these puppies are at least a year old, talk to your vet about whether or not they should be bred. And please go into that discussion with an open mind, being perfectly willing to not breed if that is what your vet recommends. If you have your mind set to breed these dogs and aren't willing to listen to advice from people who know more than yourself, then you are in danger of becoming one of these people that vets and responsible breeders speak against.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
More Aching Joints
Here is another set of questions that are a good follow-up to my previous discussion about osteoarthritis.
Quick question...have you heard of a procedure where you actually clean the joint? I think it involves removing some of the scar tissue or build up that is causing the pain. I've heard it was a less invasive option. Also, that are your thoughts on giving the animal a cortisone shot?
Remember that osteoarthritis is a complex of problems, and is rarely treated or controlled by a single simple option. There are also various degrees of the disease, from mild to severe. The progression of the disease can begin with inflammation and cartilage erosion, and proceed to spurs and remodeling of the bone around the joint. However, it is never just a single factor. Pain comes from several factors, including the mentioned cartilage erosion, lack of synovial (joint) fluid, chemical mediators of inflammation, abnormal bone structure, and instability of the joint. Because it is usually a multifactoral disease, a multimodal approach to treatment is best. A single treatment is rarely the best option.
I have not heard of any surgical option used commonly in the treatment of arthritis in pets. Since this type of arthritis is not merely scar tissue or abnormal bone development, I can't imagine it working. If there is significant enough remodeling of bone leading to spurs, then I could see a rationale for it, but this situation is not going to happen commonly. Also, it might be misleading to think of joint surgery as less invasive. Even if done arthroscopically it is going to involve general anesthesia and an incision into the joint. Depending on the joint, this may not even be logistically possible, especially in smaller dogs. I definitely wouldn't recommend it for most cases.
Cortisone injections have their place in treatment of arthritis, but it is a very limited place. The injections are basically just strong and long-lasting antiinflammatories. Their mechanism of action really isn't any different than giving prednisone or similar steroids. Steroids are great at reducing inflammation and itching, but have limited (if any) effectiveness against pain. That's why steroids aren't commonly used for treatment of arthritis, since NSAIDs are much better at controlling the pain of the disease. There are also side-effects of long-term steroid use, and the injections can't be used indefinitely. In my opinion, there are better ways of controlling the pain and inflammation of osteoarthritis.
As you can see, this isn't as simple as many think. Treating arthritis can be a difficult endeavor, and require multiple types of medications and supplements. It's also a disease that is progressive and generally irreversisble. At some point, treatments that once worked will no longer work as well. But we're learning more about the disease process all of the time, and continue to develop more options, which can give hope for our painful pets.
Quick question...have you heard of a procedure where you actually clean the joint? I think it involves removing some of the scar tissue or build up that is causing the pain. I've heard it was a less invasive option. Also, that are your thoughts on giving the animal a cortisone shot?
Remember that osteoarthritis is a complex of problems, and is rarely treated or controlled by a single simple option. There are also various degrees of the disease, from mild to severe. The progression of the disease can begin with inflammation and cartilage erosion, and proceed to spurs and remodeling of the bone around the joint. However, it is never just a single factor. Pain comes from several factors, including the mentioned cartilage erosion, lack of synovial (joint) fluid, chemical mediators of inflammation, abnormal bone structure, and instability of the joint. Because it is usually a multifactoral disease, a multimodal approach to treatment is best. A single treatment is rarely the best option.
I have not heard of any surgical option used commonly in the treatment of arthritis in pets. Since this type of arthritis is not merely scar tissue or abnormal bone development, I can't imagine it working. If there is significant enough remodeling of bone leading to spurs, then I could see a rationale for it, but this situation is not going to happen commonly. Also, it might be misleading to think of joint surgery as less invasive. Even if done arthroscopically it is going to involve general anesthesia and an incision into the joint. Depending on the joint, this may not even be logistically possible, especially in smaller dogs. I definitely wouldn't recommend it for most cases.
Cortisone injections have their place in treatment of arthritis, but it is a very limited place. The injections are basically just strong and long-lasting antiinflammatories. Their mechanism of action really isn't any different than giving prednisone or similar steroids. Steroids are great at reducing inflammation and itching, but have limited (if any) effectiveness against pain. That's why steroids aren't commonly used for treatment of arthritis, since NSAIDs are much better at controlling the pain of the disease. There are also side-effects of long-term steroid use, and the injections can't be used indefinitely. In my opinion, there are better ways of controlling the pain and inflammation of osteoarthritis.
As you can see, this isn't as simple as many think. Treating arthritis can be a difficult endeavor, and require multiple types of medications and supplements. It's also a disease that is progressive and generally irreversisble. At some point, treatments that once worked will no longer work as well. But we're learning more about the disease process all of the time, and continue to develop more options, which can give hope for our painful pets.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Pros & Cons Of Pet Insurance
Now that I'm back in town, let's start the week with a question from a reader.
I'm thinking about getting a dog for my mom and concerned about the expense of vet care. What do you think about getting pet insurance? She is resistant to the cost. What are the arguments in favor of it? Do people who have pet insurance tend to care for their dogs better? Are dogs with pet insurance generally healthier?
Pet insurance is actually a very good idea, but it may not be what people expect it to be. Insurance is much more common in Europe than in the US, but even there a majority of pets are not on a program. I can't speak for how insurance programs work outside of the US, so my comments may only apply in my own country.
There are multiple pet insurance providers, and you will need to look around and check what each one provides. In general, they do not cover pre-existing conditions, like with human insurance, so if your pet has existing allergies, arthritis, a heart condition, or some other medical issue you may not be able to get insurance. The plans work very differently than human equivalents. There are no copays and the veterinary clinic doesn't handle any paperwork. You will have to pay out-of-pocket for any services, then submit your receipts to the insurance company. They will then reimburse you according to your plan. In other words, you still need to have the money to pay the vet up-front, and will get a portion of that money back at a later time.
That being said, I think insurance is a great idea. Having the money to cover a serious illness or injury, such as cancer or a ruptured ligament, can be difficult. It will still be hard to come up with the money to pay the vet, but knowing that you're getting a portion of that back can make it easier. I have had clients use it, and they have seemed very happy with it.
If you have been reading my blog or go back through the archives, you will see my discussions on the costs of pet care. Anyone wanting to get a new pet needs to be prepared for the costs involved. If you're not ready to take on those costs, then you shouldn't get a pet, plain and simple. Part of that cost may be insurance. Is the cost worth it? Well, with any insurance you're paying a monthly premium with the hope that you never have to use it. We pay our car insurance and home/renter's insurance every month, but hope that we never come into a situation where we need it. If we need to use our insurance, it means that something bad and expensive has happened, and that's never good. Pet insurance should be looked at in the same way.
Another option is to "self-insure". Set money aside in a savings account just for your pet, up to what you would be willing to spend for a medical issue. Even the most expensive procedures don't normally go over $3000 (US), and $1000 will cover any minor illness and most moderate ones. If you can leave this money alone for your pet, then you really don't need insurance.
Having insurance doesn't make a pet healthier or make someone a better pet owner. A pet's health is determined by how their owner cares for them, and involves preventative care, nutrition, and early treatment of illness. There are plenty of humans with insurance that are still in poor health, and still don't go to the doctor. The same is true of pet insurance. And even if you have the insurance, it is up to you, the owner, to take them in for medical conditions.
Also check with your veterinarian about preventative health programs. Many veterinary hospitals have developed programs where you pay an annual or monthly fee, and the basics of vaccines, routine testing, and office visits are covered at no additional cost. These programs are not offered by most vets, and will vary widely, so you may need to ask around. Some insurance programs will also cover routine preventative care and are not just for catastrophic illness.
In short, I do recommend pet insurance if you don't have the money to self-insure. If your vet offers a kind of "wellness program", consider getting that and supplementing it with insurance.
Hope this answers your question adequately!
I'm thinking about getting a dog for my mom and concerned about the expense of vet care. What do you think about getting pet insurance? She is resistant to the cost. What are the arguments in favor of it? Do people who have pet insurance tend to care for their dogs better? Are dogs with pet insurance generally healthier?
Pet insurance is actually a very good idea, but it may not be what people expect it to be. Insurance is much more common in Europe than in the US, but even there a majority of pets are not on a program. I can't speak for how insurance programs work outside of the US, so my comments may only apply in my own country.
There are multiple pet insurance providers, and you will need to look around and check what each one provides. In general, they do not cover pre-existing conditions, like with human insurance, so if your pet has existing allergies, arthritis, a heart condition, or some other medical issue you may not be able to get insurance. The plans work very differently than human equivalents. There are no copays and the veterinary clinic doesn't handle any paperwork. You will have to pay out-of-pocket for any services, then submit your receipts to the insurance company. They will then reimburse you according to your plan. In other words, you still need to have the money to pay the vet up-front, and will get a portion of that money back at a later time.
That being said, I think insurance is a great idea. Having the money to cover a serious illness or injury, such as cancer or a ruptured ligament, can be difficult. It will still be hard to come up with the money to pay the vet, but knowing that you're getting a portion of that back can make it easier. I have had clients use it, and they have seemed very happy with it.
If you have been reading my blog or go back through the archives, you will see my discussions on the costs of pet care. Anyone wanting to get a new pet needs to be prepared for the costs involved. If you're not ready to take on those costs, then you shouldn't get a pet, plain and simple. Part of that cost may be insurance. Is the cost worth it? Well, with any insurance you're paying a monthly premium with the hope that you never have to use it. We pay our car insurance and home/renter's insurance every month, but hope that we never come into a situation where we need it. If we need to use our insurance, it means that something bad and expensive has happened, and that's never good. Pet insurance should be looked at in the same way.
Another option is to "self-insure". Set money aside in a savings account just for your pet, up to what you would be willing to spend for a medical issue. Even the most expensive procedures don't normally go over $3000 (US), and $1000 will cover any minor illness and most moderate ones. If you can leave this money alone for your pet, then you really don't need insurance.
Having insurance doesn't make a pet healthier or make someone a better pet owner. A pet's health is determined by how their owner cares for them, and involves preventative care, nutrition, and early treatment of illness. There are plenty of humans with insurance that are still in poor health, and still don't go to the doctor. The same is true of pet insurance. And even if you have the insurance, it is up to you, the owner, to take them in for medical conditions.
Also check with your veterinarian about preventative health programs. Many veterinary hospitals have developed programs where you pay an annual or monthly fee, and the basics of vaccines, routine testing, and office visits are covered at no additional cost. These programs are not offered by most vets, and will vary widely, so you may need to ask around. Some insurance programs will also cover routine preventative care and are not just for catastrophic illness.
In short, I do recommend pet insurance if you don't have the money to self-insure. If your vet offers a kind of "wellness program", consider getting that and supplementing it with insurance.
Hope this answers your question adequately!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)