In keeping with controversial topics this week (Michael Vick being the big controversy), I found a story out of Virginia about a man who is suing his former domestic partner for emotional distress after the death of his Chihuahua.
In a nutshell…here’s the story: Jeffrey Nanni and Maurice Smith were former domestic partners. Two years ago, Smith allegedly beat their 12 lb Chihuahua with a wooden board. Smith was found guilty of assault and battery as well as cruelty to animals in connection with this event. An autopsy of the dog found that he died of blunt force trauma to the head.
Nanni, who is a paralegal, maintains that he continues to suffer emotional distress and should be compensated for that. He is asking for no less than $15,000, which is the minimum amount that will ensure the case will be heard in this particular court (Arlington Circuit Court).
So…it certainly is a sad case and one that should have never happened (Nanni evidently picked up the dog as he and Smith here fighting and Smith attempted to hit him with the board). Smith served 10 days in jail and was on probation for a year. But, my bigger concern is the precedent that this case could set.
Currently, in almost every state, emotional damages are not allowed to be collected by pet owners. Most states simply allow the owner to collect the “fair market value” of the pet. A recent case in New Jersey though did set another precedent stating that a pet’s “special subjective value” needs to be considered in custody cases. This has now opened up the doors that will move pets from “property” or chattel to another classification that we don’t even have yet (sentient property?).
Another case in California sided against an attorney who was suing a veterinarian for wrongful death of her Maltese. The court stated that pets were considered property and you can’t get damages for emotional distress or loss of companionship with property. Furthermore, parents can’t sue doctors accused of medical malpractice after the death of their child and expect damages for emotional distress either. In case after case across the United States, the courts normally find that there is no basis for damages based on emotional distress because (again) “pets are property”. There are a few states that have broken away (Idaho, Kentucky, Florida, Alaska, New York, New Jersey and Hawaii) from this traditional view of pets as property, but they are still reluctant to award substantial damages based on emotional distress. Instead, the “intrinsic value” of the pet is calculated.
There is no doubt that pets are special to almost every one of us and we cherish their special value…but how do you adequately put a price tag on that in the event of the pet’s death? Should purebreds be worth more? Should dog owners get more money than cat owners? Should it depend on how much money you spent at the veterinary office in wellness care, etc?
The scary thing about this case is that a jury who awards Nanni a substantial amount of money will open the floodgates to a landslide of wrongful death lawsuits. Veterinarians will be forced to carry larger amounts of malpractice insurance simply because the insurance carriers won’t want to take these cases to court…they will settle out of court in order to “make things go away”. If veterinarians have to pay more for insurance, you can be very certain that those costs will be passed on in the forms of higher medical invoices.
And, as many already know, there are people who have a hard time paying for veterinary expenses, despite the fact that it is a true bargain when compared to human medicine. But rest assured, a case like this that sets a precedent will cause veterinary costs to increase.
So, what is the answer? Do we have a new classification for pets beyond property but short of human life? Should you be able to get emotional damages after the loss of your pet?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Request from KittyMadGrrrr on Twitter
So, I am being told in Twitter world that I have been remiss in posting Nutro's reply to me. As I mentioned in a previous blog, the first time Nutro sent information to me, it was nothing more than corporate speak. In other words, a lot of words really saying nothing.
When I followed up with Nutro, I spoke with their communications person who explained this to me: In the lots that were affected there were bags of premix that contained the excess zinc along with bags of premix that were correctly proportioned. Since both types of premix were used in the manufacturing process of these lots, the quality testing done after completion did not reveal any significant aberrations in the final product.
I can understand that. If I wanted to make up 10 batches of brownies all at once and just combined 10 bags of brownie mix into a bowl, I might not know immediately if 1 of those bags of brownie mix had too much of some ingredient in it. AND...a random check of my freshly baked brownies at the end might not find the small number of brownies that had excess ingredient "X". But, if I heard Betty Crocker had recalled the brownie mix after I baked the brownies, I would likely toss the whole tray rather than chance a problem that someone would eat a "bad" brownie.
She also mentioned to me the problems with the premix were noted during a paper audit after the lot had been sent. In an abundance of caution, the decision was made to recall the food, even though it was still unclear as to the effects of excess dietary zinc.
Again, as I have previously mentioned, this seems pretty straightforward to me. Recall the product to prevent any damage. Some posters have questioned the fact that they still saw bags of food on store shelves weeks after the recall and why didn't Nutro do more to get those bags away from consumers.
Well, again, we have to look at the complexity of the food industry. Do you realize that for 4 straight months we had daily recalls on peanut butter based products? More than 2000 products were eventually recalled, some as late as 4 months after the initial recall? My question is this: how does a company not know if it used those products? And the answer isn't clear....even Marion Nestle, noted food blogger, doesn't have an answer for that. So, I guess I am not surprised that some stores still had Nutro Cat food stocked weeks later. Do you think its possible that some stores simply ignored the recall? Maybe some were informed, but didn't follow through by informing employess to pull the product promptly....maybe some got the letter, the manager was on vacation, on his/her return, saw the Nutro envelope and assumed it was an advertisement or program his/her store didn't want to follow and trashed it. Our food supply system, for people and pets, is unbelievably complex and global in scale. There are going to be forgotten corners and out of the way stores that don't get the information as promptly as they should...but that is not the fault of the manufacturing company. As far as consumers, can we make someone watch TV or browse the Internet? NO...and, we as a country value our privacy, so trying to find out who bought what food when is a task that will never be accomplished.
One thing I have noticed is that it is a rare blogger or "twitterer" who has a workable solution to this on-going problem. It's much easier to say "bad company" than try to find ideas that might prevent the problems from recurring.
And finally, for KittyMadGrrr on Twitter...I posted this simply because I knew you would not rest until I did. Does it make you feel better reading it? No...you are convinced that Nutro (and probably a lot of other companies) are simply out there to screw people. Nothing I say, nothing Nutro says will ever make you change your mind.
Did Nutro food kill cats? Right now the evidence is scant. There are very few discussions about zinc toxicosis on any veterinary boards I have visited and these were all focused at the time of the recall.(and I did check as of this morning, looking back over the last 150 days). Addtionally, veterinary nutritionists and toxicologists have not given any indication that cats are dying from eating Nutro food. Yes, clients are saying that their cats got sick after eating Nutro food, but I will reiterate ONCE AGAIN, not all clients are reliable about providing all the needed facts to their veterinarian. Here's a personal example...my new Mastiff puppy is on Iams. I got a new 20 lb bag and within a day he had developed very soft stools and needed to defecate frequently. It would be really easy to blame Iams for producing a "bad" product unless you also knew that I have a 2 year old toddler at home who enjoys sharing his food and snacks with the dog. Maybe it's the "other" food my puppy is getting that is actually causing the issue and not the new brand of food.
Until it can be shown otherwise, I think I am moving on from this discussion. I apologize for the tardiness of this blog, along with any new ones, but I am still trying to feed my family and perform my job. I will be moving on to new topics...hopefully ones that are more productive than this one.
When I followed up with Nutro, I spoke with their communications person who explained this to me: In the lots that were affected there were bags of premix that contained the excess zinc along with bags of premix that were correctly proportioned. Since both types of premix were used in the manufacturing process of these lots, the quality testing done after completion did not reveal any significant aberrations in the final product.
I can understand that. If I wanted to make up 10 batches of brownies all at once and just combined 10 bags of brownie mix into a bowl, I might not know immediately if 1 of those bags of brownie mix had too much of some ingredient in it. AND...a random check of my freshly baked brownies at the end might not find the small number of brownies that had excess ingredient "X". But, if I heard Betty Crocker had recalled the brownie mix after I baked the brownies, I would likely toss the whole tray rather than chance a problem that someone would eat a "bad" brownie.
She also mentioned to me the problems with the premix were noted during a paper audit after the lot had been sent. In an abundance of caution, the decision was made to recall the food, even though it was still unclear as to the effects of excess dietary zinc.
Again, as I have previously mentioned, this seems pretty straightforward to me. Recall the product to prevent any damage. Some posters have questioned the fact that they still saw bags of food on store shelves weeks after the recall and why didn't Nutro do more to get those bags away from consumers.
Well, again, we have to look at the complexity of the food industry. Do you realize that for 4 straight months we had daily recalls on peanut butter based products? More than 2000 products were eventually recalled, some as late as 4 months after the initial recall? My question is this: how does a company not know if it used those products? And the answer isn't clear....even Marion Nestle, noted food blogger, doesn't have an answer for that. So, I guess I am not surprised that some stores still had Nutro Cat food stocked weeks later. Do you think its possible that some stores simply ignored the recall? Maybe some were informed, but didn't follow through by informing employess to pull the product promptly....maybe some got the letter, the manager was on vacation, on his/her return, saw the Nutro envelope and assumed it was an advertisement or program his/her store didn't want to follow and trashed it. Our food supply system, for people and pets, is unbelievably complex and global in scale. There are going to be forgotten corners and out of the way stores that don't get the information as promptly as they should...but that is not the fault of the manufacturing company. As far as consumers, can we make someone watch TV or browse the Internet? NO...and, we as a country value our privacy, so trying to find out who bought what food when is a task that will never be accomplished.
One thing I have noticed is that it is a rare blogger or "twitterer" who has a workable solution to this on-going problem. It's much easier to say "bad company" than try to find ideas that might prevent the problems from recurring.
And finally, for KittyMadGrrr on Twitter...I posted this simply because I knew you would not rest until I did. Does it make you feel better reading it? No...you are convinced that Nutro (and probably a lot of other companies) are simply out there to screw people. Nothing I say, nothing Nutro says will ever make you change your mind.
Did Nutro food kill cats? Right now the evidence is scant. There are very few discussions about zinc toxicosis on any veterinary boards I have visited and these were all focused at the time of the recall.(and I did check as of this morning, looking back over the last 150 days). Addtionally, veterinary nutritionists and toxicologists have not given any indication that cats are dying from eating Nutro food. Yes, clients are saying that their cats got sick after eating Nutro food, but I will reiterate ONCE AGAIN, not all clients are reliable about providing all the needed facts to their veterinarian. Here's a personal example...my new Mastiff puppy is on Iams. I got a new 20 lb bag and within a day he had developed very soft stools and needed to defecate frequently. It would be really easy to blame Iams for producing a "bad" product unless you also knew that I have a 2 year old toddler at home who enjoys sharing his food and snacks with the dog. Maybe it's the "other" food my puppy is getting that is actually causing the issue and not the new brand of food.
Until it can be shown otherwise, I think I am moving on from this discussion. I apologize for the tardiness of this blog, along with any new ones, but I am still trying to feed my family and perform my job. I will be moving on to new topics...hopefully ones that are more productive than this one.
Friday, June 26, 2009
When You Don't Want to Board Your Pets...Shoot them??
Ok, this story has irritated me in ways that I can't even begin to explain!! And, I have seen a lot of weird and stupid things that have happened to pets because of their owners.
The Columbus Dispatch has reported that 43 year old firefighter did not want to board his two dogs over vacation. So, he took them to the basement, laid down plastic, tied their leads to a pipe, partially suspended both dogs and proceeded to shoot both of them. One dog was shot 6 times in the head and a total of 11 shots were dealt to both dogs. To keep things quiet, this "gentleman" even fashioned a silencer out of a plastic bottle. Quite considerate!!
He took the dogs' bodies to the fire station where he worked and dumped them in a trash bin behind the station. He bragged to his co-workers about what he did. Thankfully, his co-workers were so disgusted by his attitude, they called the local humane organization to investigate.
The guy even made up a story for his wife and his kids about what happened to Sloopy and Skeeter. Then , when confronted with his crime, he said the dogs drank antifreeze and he was putting them out of their misery. But, that too was a lie.
At his sentencing (5 years probation, $4,500 in fines, and 90 days in jail that can be spent in 10 day stretches over 2 years!), his attorney said that this was "totally out of character for his client and that he was very remorseful". His client (the firefighter) then gave the middle finger to the press. What a class act!!
Does anyone other than me think this guy is getting off a little easy? He is even able to stay on active duty while the fire chief thinks about his discipline.
I have the utmost respect for anyone who puts his or her life on the line on a daily basis to keep me, my family and friends safe. But, I have to admit that I have serious reservations about allowing this guy to keep a job where the public has to trust him. What do you think? Should he lose his job?
The Columbus Dispatch has reported that 43 year old firefighter did not want to board his two dogs over vacation. So, he took them to the basement, laid down plastic, tied their leads to a pipe, partially suspended both dogs and proceeded to shoot both of them. One dog was shot 6 times in the head and a total of 11 shots were dealt to both dogs. To keep things quiet, this "gentleman" even fashioned a silencer out of a plastic bottle. Quite considerate!!
He took the dogs' bodies to the fire station where he worked and dumped them in a trash bin behind the station. He bragged to his co-workers about what he did. Thankfully, his co-workers were so disgusted by his attitude, they called the local humane organization to investigate.
The guy even made up a story for his wife and his kids about what happened to Sloopy and Skeeter. Then , when confronted with his crime, he said the dogs drank antifreeze and he was putting them out of their misery. But, that too was a lie.
At his sentencing (5 years probation, $4,500 in fines, and 90 days in jail that can be spent in 10 day stretches over 2 years!), his attorney said that this was "totally out of character for his client and that he was very remorseful". His client (the firefighter) then gave the middle finger to the press. What a class act!!
Does anyone other than me think this guy is getting off a little easy? He is even able to stay on active duty while the fire chief thinks about his discipline.
I have the utmost respect for anyone who puts his or her life on the line on a daily basis to keep me, my family and friends safe. But, I have to admit that I have serious reservations about allowing this guy to keep a job where the public has to trust him. What do you think? Should he lose his job?
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Nutro Cat Food Recall
Ok...I managed to severely irritate some "tweeple" on Twitter over the course of the last two days simply because I think we should be a little more level headed and not jump to conclusions every time a pet food manufacturer has a recall.
Our story so far: On May 21st, Nutro Products voluntarily recalled several varieties of their Nutro Cat Food and Nutro Natural Choice Complete Care Cat Food due to a problem with a premix they buy from another vendor. The premixes (there were actually 2) were either low in potassium and had excessive zinc, or were low in potassium alone. Ok, so the company did what they were supposed to do in this type of event...get the product off the shelves via their distribution network. Nestle has just had to do the same thing, recalling frozen cookie dough due to Salmonella. I haven't seen any tweets (yet) hounding Nestle for being a bad company out to kill people for money...
Next, my "favorite" website, ConsumerAffairs.com did yet another disparaging piece on Nutro on June 3rd, claiming that they were receiving reports of sick and dying cats. Yet, once again, in only one of these multiple cases was there any evidence of the food being tied to the unfortunate sick cats. In all other cases, the food being fed was a coincidence.
Now on June 16th, the Pet Food Products Safety Alliance announced that they had a bag of Nutro Cat tested at Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab and found 2100 ppm zinc in the food. YES! That is a very high number and obviously beyond what should be there. Wanting to know more about PFPSA I did a little research and found that the owner of the site, Don Earl, attempted to sue Menu Foods (on his own) and Kroger for adding cyanuric acid to his cat's food. He lost that suit, even after at least one appeal. AND, I believe the gentleman was told to pay the court costs of the defendants. I am not an attorney, but that sounds to me like he lost.
Ok...you are now caught up. So, being the Twitterphile that I am, I responded to a "tweet" and said simply this: "FYI group testing cat food also soliciting for class action lawsuit. Ulterior motive??" And now, the "you know what" has hit the fan....
From one tweeter: "Sad that you are more worried about a lawsuit than sick pets" Another tweeter sent me numerous references to journals discussing zinc toxicity. Actually, I am glad I got this response. First, because I love to get information and maybe we can find out what is actually happening and second, because I get to see how people use information for their own purposes.
I really appreciate the links to the journals....I have found some good stuff in the short time I read them. I also found that several of those links were to articles discussing zinc toxicity due to metal ingestions (like pennies).
Other tweeters asked me if I doubted the vet toxicologist...I am assuming that they are referring to Dr. Hansen at the ASPCA who is quoted in ConsumerAffairs.com's recent article. The quote is "That’s definitely a high level of zinc. Is it deadly? That’s an interesting question. It sure seems possible. But we don’t have access to information on the long term effects of high levels of zinc in cats.” Now, I read this as a concern, but one of unknown consequence at this time. According to Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, as obligate carnivores, cats seem to have a higher tolerance for zinc. PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying that they can handle 2100 ppm...I am simply quoting experts! Sidenote: Dr. Hansen has also repeatedly stated that he does not believe Nutro Dog foods are causing all of the deaths and illnesses that ConsumerAffairs reports. So, its okay to use his "sound bite" about the zinc levels in the cat food, but we ignore his expert opinion on the Nutro dog food? Just seems odd to me...
I follow a lot of veterinary news type of stories and to date, no one on the Veterinary Information Network is talking about this other than the original recall. The only discussion is coming from websites (as I have noted above) that have links to and interest in class action lawsuits. I have spoken with Nutro Products communications people and they are not reporting any proven connection with any consumer complaints and this recall. Even noted author Marion Nestle has said "Nobody really knows". Now, that may change in the future as we understand more about this problem...
Also, I have sent emails to veterinary nutritionists and toxicologists, including one at Washington State for their opinions. I am very interested in finding out what is going on here. BUT, the whole point of this blog is to make sure that all the information is presented, not just what one group (or the other group) wants to present. And, for everyone who says that Nutro (or any manufacturer) is all about profit and money, why does the same standard not apply to the people advertising for pet owners to join class action lawsuits?
Finally, my most recent Twitter reply comes from someone who says that the food should have been quality tested before it was sold. Ok...I agree with that, but in this world of increasing costs for ingredients, packaging, transportation, etc, where does the line get drawn? How much will people pay for their pet's food (or their own food ) to be tested, retested, and tested yet again? Is there a better way to insure our pet's safety and can we get there without driving companies out of business? And, in the meantime, can we try to avoid the mudslinging and attacks until some clear facts show up??
I am trying to keep updates going at PetDocsOnCall.com as more information arrives. Thinking I need to head over there and post some of these great articles folks sent to me via Twitter....
Update (later in the evening): The LA Times has picked up the recall story. Again Dr. Hansen is quoted as saying: Do those high levels of zinc pose health problems for cats?
"The problem in this case is that we believe no one actually knows (or at least has published) the effects of 2100 ppm dietary zinc long-term in cats. Typically, cats are more tolerant of high zinc than other species, including dogs and humans.
"But it’s certainly possible that those levels of zinc would likely cause health problems in cats that could involve significant intestinal upset and liver and kidney damage."
Our story so far: On May 21st, Nutro Products voluntarily recalled several varieties of their Nutro Cat Food and Nutro Natural Choice Complete Care Cat Food due to a problem with a premix they buy from another vendor. The premixes (there were actually 2) were either low in potassium and had excessive zinc, or were low in potassium alone. Ok, so the company did what they were supposed to do in this type of event...get the product off the shelves via their distribution network. Nestle has just had to do the same thing, recalling frozen cookie dough due to Salmonella. I haven't seen any tweets (yet) hounding Nestle for being a bad company out to kill people for money...
Next, my "favorite" website, ConsumerAffairs.com did yet another disparaging piece on Nutro on June 3rd, claiming that they were receiving reports of sick and dying cats. Yet, once again, in only one of these multiple cases was there any evidence of the food being tied to the unfortunate sick cats. In all other cases, the food being fed was a coincidence.
Now on June 16th, the Pet Food Products Safety Alliance announced that they had a bag of Nutro Cat tested at Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Lab and found 2100 ppm zinc in the food. YES! That is a very high number and obviously beyond what should be there. Wanting to know more about PFPSA I did a little research and found that the owner of the site, Don Earl, attempted to sue Menu Foods (on his own) and Kroger for adding cyanuric acid to his cat's food. He lost that suit, even after at least one appeal. AND, I believe the gentleman was told to pay the court costs of the defendants. I am not an attorney, but that sounds to me like he lost.
Ok...you are now caught up. So, being the Twitterphile that I am, I responded to a "tweet" and said simply this: "FYI group testing cat food also soliciting for class action lawsuit. Ulterior motive??" And now, the "you know what" has hit the fan....
From one tweeter: "Sad that you are more worried about a lawsuit than sick pets" Another tweeter sent me numerous references to journals discussing zinc toxicity. Actually, I am glad I got this response. First, because I love to get information and maybe we can find out what is actually happening and second, because I get to see how people use information for their own purposes.
I really appreciate the links to the journals....I have found some good stuff in the short time I read them. I also found that several of those links were to articles discussing zinc toxicity due to metal ingestions (like pennies).
Other tweeters asked me if I doubted the vet toxicologist...I am assuming that they are referring to Dr. Hansen at the ASPCA who is quoted in ConsumerAffairs.com's recent article. The quote is "That’s definitely a high level of zinc. Is it deadly? That’s an interesting question. It sure seems possible. But we don’t have access to information on the long term effects of high levels of zinc in cats.” Now, I read this as a concern, but one of unknown consequence at this time. According to Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, as obligate carnivores, cats seem to have a higher tolerance for zinc. PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying that they can handle 2100 ppm...I am simply quoting experts! Sidenote: Dr. Hansen has also repeatedly stated that he does not believe Nutro Dog foods are causing all of the deaths and illnesses that ConsumerAffairs reports. So, its okay to use his "sound bite" about the zinc levels in the cat food, but we ignore his expert opinion on the Nutro dog food? Just seems odd to me...
I follow a lot of veterinary news type of stories and to date, no one on the Veterinary Information Network is talking about this other than the original recall. The only discussion is coming from websites (as I have noted above) that have links to and interest in class action lawsuits. I have spoken with Nutro Products communications people and they are not reporting any proven connection with any consumer complaints and this recall. Even noted author Marion Nestle has said "Nobody really knows". Now, that may change in the future as we understand more about this problem...
Also, I have sent emails to veterinary nutritionists and toxicologists, including one at Washington State for their opinions. I am very interested in finding out what is going on here. BUT, the whole point of this blog is to make sure that all the information is presented, not just what one group (or the other group) wants to present. And, for everyone who says that Nutro (or any manufacturer) is all about profit and money, why does the same standard not apply to the people advertising for pet owners to join class action lawsuits?
Finally, my most recent Twitter reply comes from someone who says that the food should have been quality tested before it was sold. Ok...I agree with that, but in this world of increasing costs for ingredients, packaging, transportation, etc, where does the line get drawn? How much will people pay for their pet's food (or their own food ) to be tested, retested, and tested yet again? Is there a better way to insure our pet's safety and can we get there without driving companies out of business? And, in the meantime, can we try to avoid the mudslinging and attacks until some clear facts show up??
I am trying to keep updates going at PetDocsOnCall.com as more information arrives. Thinking I need to head over there and post some of these great articles folks sent to me via Twitter....
Update (later in the evening): The LA Times has picked up the recall story. Again Dr. Hansen is quoted as saying: Do those high levels of zinc pose health problems for cats?
"The problem in this case is that we believe no one actually knows (or at least has published) the effects of 2100 ppm dietary zinc long-term in cats. Typically, cats are more tolerant of high zinc than other species, including dogs and humans.
"But it’s certainly possible that those levels of zinc would likely cause health problems in cats that could involve significant intestinal upset and liver and kidney damage."
So again, he is stating that we need more information, as I keep saying as well. BUT, the fine folks in Twitterland still are finding fault with my plea for calm and rationale thinking. One tweeter actually tweeted "Dont f___ with pet parents trying to warn others of poisoned pet food" I guess it's ok to f___ with someone trying to call for more information though.
She also seems to think that I am selling something, actually accusing me of a pyramid scheme. I guess I have some income that I am unaware of! :-)
Friday, June 19, 2009
PETA Says "Stop Fishing"
I know I said that this blog was supposed to be about animals in the news and new pet health related topics, but I can't help but show my irritation at PETA's latest escapade. This will be brief, I promise!
PETA wants to stop fathers from fishing with their kids on Father's Day! I am not joking, you can read the brief story here as well as watch the news video. This spokesperson ("spokesgirl") says "that's no way to teach a child compassion to other animals, much less human beings".
Ok...how about PETA's antics of humilating models wearing fur? How about the evil offspring of PETA, Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front firebombing the cars of scientists in California? Is that their idea of compassion? PETA doesn't want us to own pets...how does that teach compassion??
Are there reports that PETA is losing money during this recession? It sure seems like they are stretching for new ways to get people's money from them!! Let me know what you think and share your opinions here.
PETA wants to stop fathers from fishing with their kids on Father's Day! I am not joking, you can read the brief story here as well as watch the news video. This spokesperson ("spokesgirl") says "that's no way to teach a child compassion to other animals, much less human beings".
Ok...how about PETA's antics of humilating models wearing fur? How about the evil offspring of PETA, Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front firebombing the cars of scientists in California? Is that their idea of compassion? PETA doesn't want us to own pets...how does that teach compassion??
Are there reports that PETA is losing money during this recession? It sure seems like they are stretching for new ways to get people's money from them!! Let me know what you think and share your opinions here.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
PETA Complaining Again!!
A few weeks ago a an article happened across my desk which mentioned that PETA was upset about a medical training school using anesthetized cats as training aids for students learning to pass an endotracheal tube. I sort of shrugged that story off until I see ANOTHER PETA complaint against a hospital in Missouri who is also using live cats to help train their staff.
First, let's examine what is being done. Ensuring a patent airway in any patient (human or pet) is a vital skill for nurses, technicians, doctors and veterinarians to have. Without an open airway, obviously, life giving oxygen can't make it into the body and organs begin to shut down. Endotracheal tubes also provide protection against accidental aspiration of vomited material, blood from the oral cavity, etc. So...lets agree that this is an important skill to learn.
Now, the complaint...PETA says that you don't need live animals, manniquins work just as well. I can tell from this staement that no one at PETA has spent time trying to pass an endotracheal tube. I spent 15 years working as a veterinary assistant and have literally passed thousands of tubes as part of my duties of helping anesthetize and keep animals safe. Often, there are challenges to this part of the procedure and although I have never intubated a human being, I can imagine, doctors, nurses, and paramedics deal with similar issues. Manniquins do not simulate the "real life" complications that occur.
As I was attempting wrap up this post, I just found another story where PETA is "outraged" at the Pike Place Fish Market in Seattle for their antics as they are selling their fish. In case you don't know of Pike's Place, this AMAZING store shows the way a group of people should work together. You focus on your job, have fun, be there for your fellow employees and customers, and make the decision that today is going to be a good day. This group of driven individuals has set a great work ethic and they have fun while they are working. There are books and videos that show their excitement at work and how ANY business can take Pike's Place ideas and translate them into profitable business. People spend their lunch hours watching these fish guys have fun at work and make money at the same time.
I guess PETA thinks we should all be sullen, morose, boring individuals at work with no hands on training. I could actually find some respect for PETA if they would stop focusing on these little tiny issues (donkey basketball, intubating cats, etc) and spend some time (and money) on educating people about the importance of spay/neuter, maybe even fund a low cost spay neuter clinic. How about doling out some money to local shelters who are desperate for funds during this recession?? How about helping pet owners understand the value and expertise of their veterinarians?
Better yet...how about we get some PETA volunteers to undergoing anesthesia so that new nurses and doctors can intubate them?
UPDATE(6/15/09): The AVMA says that the scheduled demonstration of tossing fish will go on as planned at their Seattle meeting.
First, let's examine what is being done. Ensuring a patent airway in any patient (human or pet) is a vital skill for nurses, technicians, doctors and veterinarians to have. Without an open airway, obviously, life giving oxygen can't make it into the body and organs begin to shut down. Endotracheal tubes also provide protection against accidental aspiration of vomited material, blood from the oral cavity, etc. So...lets agree that this is an important skill to learn.
Now, the complaint...PETA says that you don't need live animals, manniquins work just as well. I can tell from this staement that no one at PETA has spent time trying to pass an endotracheal tube. I spent 15 years working as a veterinary assistant and have literally passed thousands of tubes as part of my duties of helping anesthetize and keep animals safe. Often, there are challenges to this part of the procedure and although I have never intubated a human being, I can imagine, doctors, nurses, and paramedics deal with similar issues. Manniquins do not simulate the "real life" complications that occur.
As I was attempting wrap up this post, I just found another story where PETA is "outraged" at the Pike Place Fish Market in Seattle for their antics as they are selling their fish. In case you don't know of Pike's Place, this AMAZING store shows the way a group of people should work together. You focus on your job, have fun, be there for your fellow employees and customers, and make the decision that today is going to be a good day. This group of driven individuals has set a great work ethic and they have fun while they are working. There are books and videos that show their excitement at work and how ANY business can take Pike's Place ideas and translate them into profitable business. People spend their lunch hours watching these fish guys have fun at work and make money at the same time.
I guess PETA thinks we should all be sullen, morose, boring individuals at work with no hands on training. I could actually find some respect for PETA if they would stop focusing on these little tiny issues (donkey basketball, intubating cats, etc) and spend some time (and money) on educating people about the importance of spay/neuter, maybe even fund a low cost spay neuter clinic. How about doling out some money to local shelters who are desperate for funds during this recession?? How about helping pet owners understand the value and expertise of their veterinarians?
Better yet...how about we get some PETA volunteers to undergoing anesthesia so that new nurses and doctors can intubate them?
UPDATE(6/15/09): The AVMA says that the scheduled demonstration of tossing fish will go on as planned at their Seattle meeting.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Pet Health: Vaccines...What's the Controversy?
I am old enough now that I can still recall the days of taking my dachshund, Rusty to our veterinarian in Westerville OH and getting his "rabies, distemper, and lepto" vaccines (those were the days BEFORE parvo...if you can believe that). I remember Rusty having a reaction (hives) and we opted to not vaccinate for lepto anymore, but it was only after a long discussion with our veterinarian.
As you may have seen in another recent post I had, the Alabama House just okayed the use of 3 year rabies vaccines in that state
Fast forward to this morning as I spent a good 20 minutes on a pet forum carefully crafting an answer to someone who thinks that veterinarians are scamming clients by charging too much for vaccinations and that everyone should just buy the vaccines from the local farm and feed store. I followed that by reviewing news video from Georgia about vaccines can be problems for pets...(here's the linkbut you will have to search for "pet vaccines" to see the video)
WHY all the controversy? Why do "pet experts" on the Internet or in the media think that they know more than veterinarians??
We know that vaccines help prevent disease...that much is fact as we have seen from the literal extinction of smallpox, the reduction of polio, and our low rate of rabies among our dogs and cats. We also know that some vaccines create a longer lasting immunity than other vaccines. But, if you listen to the media (and I referenced this in the last posting) you would think that millions of pets are dying from vaccines and that these newer guidelines mean that you don't have to go to the veterinarian at all!! I am continually amazed at the sheer amount of BAD information on this subject that is prevalent in the mass media and the new media of the Web.
Let's do a little history here: When vaccines for pets first became prevalent (around the 1950s-1960s) little research was done as to the duration of immunity created by the vaccines. The manufacturers of vaccines said "re-vaccinate annually" and veterinarians did so. Also, vaccine technology has changed...we have moved from using "killed" viruses to modified live viruses and even recombinant DNA technology to create vaccines. As we have gotten "smarter" about vaccines, veterinary science started making changes to recommended protocols.
Around the mid 1990s, this topic really gathered steam as scientists and veterinarians started searching for a correlation between an aggressive cancer in cats (fibrosarcoma) and vaccines. Some people also believed that there was a connection between recent vaccine events and immune mediated problems in dogs. Science has shown that some cats do develop these terrible cancers when they are injected (vaccines, antibiotics, etc), but not all cats will develop them. I saw one study from showing that about 1 in 30,000 cats develop this cancer.
Both the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) recommended going to an extended vaccine protocol as the science and information got better. This happened as early as 2001 and some veterinarians had already changed protocols at that time. The majority of veterinarians now recommend vaccinating for "core" vaccines, like canine distemper, feline distemper, canine parvovirus, and rabies every 3 years instead of annually. Other vaccines, like feline leukemia, Bordetalla, Lyme Disease, and others, should be used based on the risk factors that your individual pet has. The best way of determining those factors is to have an open discussion with your veterinarian.
So far, this seems pretty straightforward...but the confusion and the controversy comes about when people equate veterinary visits with vaccines. I can't stress this enough....the most important reason to see your veterinarian is to have a good physical examination done on your pet. I recommend twice yearly examinations, but all pets should go at least once yearly. Also, trying to save money by vaccinating your pets yourself is also a potential for disaster. First, how do you know that the vaccines have been handled properly at your local farm/feed store or pet store? Next, do you know all the components of the vaccine you are about to give? What if your pet isn't at risk? Why should you give that vaccine?
Veterinarians and their staff members want your pet to be "immunized" not just poked with a needle. If you have questions or concerns about your pet's vaccine schedule, talk with your veterinarian. Find out your pet's risk factors and the potential effects of not vaccinating. Titer tests are available to check antibody levels for certain diseases, but be forewarned that they are not 100% understood (is your pet truly protected) and they can be quite a bit more expensive than the vaccines themselves.
You can also post questions to veterinarians at www.PetDocsOnCall.com. Our doctors will be sure to provide you with accurate information that you can trust...after all, its from a veterinarian!
This topic is still quite controversial and has many tangents and side avenues to explore. I welcome your comments and questions and hopefully we can both learn a little bit more about keeping our furry friends safe!
As you may have seen in another recent post I had, the Alabama House just okayed the use of 3 year rabies vaccines in that state
Fast forward to this morning as I spent a good 20 minutes on a pet forum carefully crafting an answer to someone who thinks that veterinarians are scamming clients by charging too much for vaccinations and that everyone should just buy the vaccines from the local farm and feed store. I followed that by reviewing news video from Georgia about vaccines can be problems for pets...(here's the linkbut you will have to search for "pet vaccines" to see the video)
WHY all the controversy? Why do "pet experts" on the Internet or in the media think that they know more than veterinarians??
We know that vaccines help prevent disease...that much is fact as we have seen from the literal extinction of smallpox, the reduction of polio, and our low rate of rabies among our dogs and cats. We also know that some vaccines create a longer lasting immunity than other vaccines. But, if you listen to the media (and I referenced this in the last posting) you would think that millions of pets are dying from vaccines and that these newer guidelines mean that you don't have to go to the veterinarian at all!! I am continually amazed at the sheer amount of BAD information on this subject that is prevalent in the mass media and the new media of the Web.
Let's do a little history here: When vaccines for pets first became prevalent (around the 1950s-1960s) little research was done as to the duration of immunity created by the vaccines. The manufacturers of vaccines said "re-vaccinate annually" and veterinarians did so. Also, vaccine technology has changed...we have moved from using "killed" viruses to modified live viruses and even recombinant DNA technology to create vaccines. As we have gotten "smarter" about vaccines, veterinary science started making changes to recommended protocols.
Around the mid 1990s, this topic really gathered steam as scientists and veterinarians started searching for a correlation between an aggressive cancer in cats (fibrosarcoma) and vaccines. Some people also believed that there was a connection between recent vaccine events and immune mediated problems in dogs. Science has shown that some cats do develop these terrible cancers when they are injected (vaccines, antibiotics, etc), but not all cats will develop them. I saw one study from showing that about 1 in 30,000 cats develop this cancer.
Both the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) recommended going to an extended vaccine protocol as the science and information got better. This happened as early as 2001 and some veterinarians had already changed protocols at that time. The majority of veterinarians now recommend vaccinating for "core" vaccines, like canine distemper, feline distemper, canine parvovirus, and rabies every 3 years instead of annually. Other vaccines, like feline leukemia, Bordetalla, Lyme Disease, and others, should be used based on the risk factors that your individual pet has. The best way of determining those factors is to have an open discussion with your veterinarian.
So far, this seems pretty straightforward...but the confusion and the controversy comes about when people equate veterinary visits with vaccines. I can't stress this enough....the most important reason to see your veterinarian is to have a good physical examination done on your pet. I recommend twice yearly examinations, but all pets should go at least once yearly. Also, trying to save money by vaccinating your pets yourself is also a potential for disaster. First, how do you know that the vaccines have been handled properly at your local farm/feed store or pet store? Next, do you know all the components of the vaccine you are about to give? What if your pet isn't at risk? Why should you give that vaccine?
Veterinarians and their staff members want your pet to be "immunized" not just poked with a needle. If you have questions or concerns about your pet's vaccine schedule, talk with your veterinarian. Find out your pet's risk factors and the potential effects of not vaccinating. Titer tests are available to check antibody levels for certain diseases, but be forewarned that they are not 100% understood (is your pet truly protected) and they can be quite a bit more expensive than the vaccines themselves.
You can also post questions to veterinarians at www.PetDocsOnCall.com. Our doctors will be sure to provide you with accurate information that you can trust...after all, its from a veterinarian!
This topic is still quite controversial and has many tangents and side avenues to explore. I welcome your comments and questions and hopefully we can both learn a little bit more about keeping our furry friends safe!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)