Thank you Keit and Odyssey for your thoughts! :)
Keit said:
As for the animal experimentation and more ethical veterinary medicine...well, it depends on where you study, where you will end up working, etc. Basically, it's kind of hard to talk about possible toxicity of Rimadyl, when many veterinarians still don't prescribe analgesics at all. Because according to them it's better not to give anything and allow the animal to feel pain, because this way they will move less and won't disturb the affected area. They repeat this claim like mantra, while in other "more ethical" clinics you will hear that pre-during-and post operative analgesia are imperative, since they significantly reduce postoperative complications, and seriously reduce recovery time. But then, such protocols are more expensive and take more time and effort. Therefore, many clinics don't do it at all. And there is another side of the coin of various side effects, or as you said, the issue of toxicity when over-using analgetics.
I haven't heard of veterinarians not prescribing pain meds where I live for that reason, though I guess some old-school vets may think that, or if the client can't or won't pay for pain meds. I recall even the animal shelter I briefly interned at used buprenorphine for surgeries.
But what complicates matters even more, that nothing prevents from those "more ethical clinics" to be blind when it comes to vaccines and still insist on annual vaccinations, when today even mainstream veterinary journals say that annual vaccination is unnecessary. So unfortunately veterinary medicine is infected with the same level of ignorance, and probably regarding using laboratory animals for research. Of course, there are degrees, and in some laboratories animals are treated better than in others, but they probably also say that it is unavoidable and much quicker, or cost effective and practical than simply running computer models.
On the other hand, personally I don't understand the whole preoccupation with "new drugs" and "new treatments" for animals, when old ones and less harmful ones still work very well. Yes, various diagnostic tools have been enormously helpful, but when it comes to treatments and drugs the principle of "less is more" appears to apply to all creatures. It's like some vets just enjoy playing doctors, and the more advanced the toys, the more it makes them proud of themselves.
True. I think a big part of annual vaccination is just getting the clients to come in, even if the vets know better, because they want to keep their practices open. A vaccination appointment may also include a wellness exam, which could lead to a new medication for the pet, which makes more money for the practice to pay for supplies, maintenance, the staff, and finally the vet. Some may offer titers, but the client may find the cost excessive and opt for the vaccine instead. As for lab animals, I think part of the ignorance surrounding their use is that if they were no longer used in a research environment, especially for prolific drug testing, a lot of people would lose their jobs.
And I definitely agree with how some vets enjoy "playing doctor" and boosting their own egos and careers instead of what's ultimately best for the pet. It reminds me of a story one of my professors told about how they would treat collapsing trachea in dogs. He said the simplest thing to do was to cut rings out of syringe sleeves and then suture them to the trachea to keep it open. Then some vets started pioneering stents that could be inserted to expand the trachea as a more elegant solution for many years, but then they noticed way more complications from this method than the old one. So now it's come full circle and more vets are opting for the old way.
I don't know. I am kind of in a similar situation, where I am at the beginning of the vet career, and of course it would be great to work in an ethical place that practices alternative vet medicine and makes sure to actually follow the main principle of medicine: "do no harm". But the harsh reality is that most of the times it isn't possible. And not only because there is a need to have an income (though it certainly plays a huge role), but also there is a need to get a practice. And as the saying goes, beggars (or those in need) often can't be choosers. For sure, the intent should be to end up in a place that will allow you to be able to "look at yourself in the mirror in the morning without shame". But often such situation is possible only if you open your own business, or if you will spend significant time looking for a team that will completely suit your preferences. And even then, it doesn't mean that the money will be good.
Bottom line is, when it comes to choices, and if there is no pressing monetary issue, I would probably go with the choice that would lead to the least amount of ethical problems. Also, it maybe would be good to think how your work would make you feel in the long run. Would you be able to do this kind of work everyday for a long time? Is there any redeeming value?
I agree. I don't think it's possible to be completely ethical with how backwards some aspects of veterinary medicine are, but I think, for example, participating in an allopathic small practice that pushes vaccines is much more ethical than torturing animals for research that doesn't lead to results for both human and animal patients. At least in the former case, you can still help many pets and families alike live a better quality of life than if they had received no veterinary attention, although holistic options would likely get better results, especially with a minimalist vaccination schedule.
What field of veterinary medicine are you currently working in? I'm thinking about different areas of practice to go into, apart from small animal practice. Income isn't pressing for me at the moment (never took out loans), though it'd be nice to be able to afford some land one day.
For instance, I liked working at the animal shelter much more than I thought I would. It had its downsides (kill shelter, had to vaccinate all cats and dogs without a microchip, aggressive animals, etc.) but I liked helping care for sick animals so that they'd have a better chance of getting adopted, and could imagine myself doing that as a career. It'd be great if there were more holistic vets interested in shelter medicine; they might get together to set up rescues and end up with very healthy pets. But that takes money that isn't here right now, especially with how underfunded normal shelters are.
Alternatively, I'm considering emergency medicine, where vaccinations are rarely, if ever, given. I'd imagine you could use most of your training where lifestyle changes wouldn't be possible at the moment, like if a dog got hit by a car or ate xylitol and needs immediate treatment. We're not permitted to intern at emergency clinics until we've passed our surgical nursing classes, so I don't have experience with it yet. A big downside is that you'd be working the night shift, though.
There are also opportunities for monitoring diseases in animals, more so for veterinarians, I believe, than technicians. For example, in the United States at least, there are government-funded laboratories in many states that offer disease surveillance and necropsies for commercial and backyard animal agricultural operations, like CAHFS by UC Davis, so that outbreaks of avian influenza and other illnesses that can affect the country's food supply can be tracked. I used their services when one of my hens died suddenly of what turned out to be lymphoid leukosis caused by avian leukosis virus, and it provided a sense of closure for me. It's definitely not glamorous, and you'd need a strong stomach, but I'd think it'd be a more ethical area of practice.
Sorry, if my reply is more of a rant than a direct answer to your questions. ;) But I can certainly understand your dilemma. And actually I disagree with the statement that animal physiology and anatomy differs from the human one. We do share a lot of basic functionalities and principles. So it is indeed possible to draw many comparisons. BUT, often there are significant interspecies differences when it comes to pharmacodynamics of drugs, which can cause very different responses to the same drug in different animals. And in this respect torture of countless mice and rats cannot be justified in any way.
No problem, I enjoyed reading your response. You're absolutely right about anatomy and physiology -- you put it much more clearly than I could have! I intended my statement to be with regard to how different species react differently to drugs than others, but I didn't show that in my writing. I'll need to be more mindful of that next time (especially since I did well in anatomy and physiology for my program :facepalm:).
Odyssey said:
I'm of the opinion that if you want to know how to better treat a certain animal study that animal in a clinical setting, use your skills of observation, consult experienced practitioners and use methods that are not harmful or loaded with side effects. Start with the basics of providing healthy food, exercise, and a good environment and see how the animals improve. If this is done the need for extensive research may not even apply. Or, for once, we can study healthy animals (and people) and use the results to actually help animals become healthy.
I have no problems with animal research if conducted using the principles above.
I'm glad you got something out of the show and I hope you find a job that fits in with your principles.
Absolutely! AFAIK it's not common for veterinarians to opt for a more holistic approach, even basic nutrition, and what I've seen of that so far is more focused on reducing obesity rates in pets than optimal health. Raw food diets aren't adequately studied either for disease treatment and prevention, despite loads of testimonials, because the AVMA dismisses it and I assume some professionals that may be open to the idea are afraid of getting sued if a human gets sick from handling raw pet food. I also think part of the problem is that many clients don't want to opt for a holistic approach, and would rather give their pets a pill than work to change the pet's lifestyle, or are dismissive of any treatments not condoned by organizational authorities, so many times clinics that offer alternative medicine have to offer conventional treatment to stay in business.
Or they could just study healthy animals (and people), as you said. Makes me wonder how much the emotional environment for the pet has on wellness and lifespan, because even some cats live to 20 while subsisting on crappy kibble.
Sorry if I got too off-topic! Thanks for reading, and thanks again for the show.
