Quote:
Originally Posted by RachelandSadie  they are covering their own a$ here. if they let someone have veterinary ONLY prescriptions and the pill kills their heartworm positive dog...they are at fault and they will be sued for the damages. they require HWT for HWP to save their a$$ from loosing their license or having a ruined practice over an owner's stupid choices. and it makes perfect and complete sense to me.
just like you can't prescribe meds to a dog without seeing it first, otherwise it's illegal because there is no client/patient relationship and if something happens to the dog the vet is liable. |
I don't think that is why they are doing it, to cover their butts? Yeah, there is every bit as much risk giving the HW treatment as there is to giving the heartguard. In both cases, a vet can cover his a$$ by telling the owner what the risk is. How is one different than the other? And this isn't about prescribing meds without seeing it first. If a vet is looking at a healthy pet and the owner declines the test, why not, if the owner understands the risks, just give the heartguard? Is it really better to let the dog just DIE from heartworms? A vet, IMO, should at least TRY to get the owner to buy the heartguard. The dog has a better chance that way.
What about the ignorant, money hungry vets still out there pushing annual vaccines? Rabies is by law, and if a vet is required by law, that is one thing, but what about the vets who push all the other vaccines? In 2006, the AAHA even changed their guidelines to every three years. Why aren't those vets who are giving annual vaccines worried about a lawsuit? What if a dog gets an immune system problem from over vaccination? Can the owner sue? I doubt it. Is the vet worried about his reputation? No. Will the practice be ruined? Doubt it.
Sorry, I don't buy that a vet is so worried about a lawsuit.