Of all things to decline at the vets...DON'T DECLINE THIS!

[Beamers Mom]

Originally Posted by Beamers Mom

because their livelihood is on the line! if a vet treats a dog for heartworms without testing and the dog does have heartworms and dies because of the Heartgard, then there are lawyers out there who would only be too willing to take on the dog owners case against the vet.

A human goes into hospital for surgery and always signs a consent form, yet how many turn around and sue when something goes wrong????

Should have said if a vet gives a heartworm preventative without testing.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by LifeLovePassion

what age should heartworm stuff be given? How young is too young?

Depends on the vet and the area of the country. I'm in a heavily mosquito infested area. My vet started it at 16 weeks.

[RachelandSadie]

Originally Posted by Mitzis Mom

Our vet told me that if they get interceptor as heartworm prevention they are protected against other worms too... is that true?

true. it can prevent/control hookworms, roundworms, and whipworms!!

[RachelandSadie]

Originally Posted by Lizzie07

I have to say this issue gets me too. I have lots of friends who go nearly 100% homeopathic. They at least have their dogs on nosodes to try to prevent HW or some other homeopathic treatment. I know I have seen homeopathic remedies on websites, but I still use Interceptor and I do have my dogs tested every year. What I won't do and have never done is use any new products. I also won't use anything that combines treatments. I only use flea treatments when I feel its needed.

I fear somewhere down the line we might actually hear that there is some risk of something from all these "treatments" we are giving our pets. It's like immunizations, and giving them more frequently than every three years, it makes me sick to think I use to get them on my pets every year.

this is my take on the whole homeopathic thing...for both dogs and humans i believe this:

Natural medicine is AMAZING, however one must realize that it is used as a preventative measure for good overall health and wellness. natural medicine is not always the SOLUTION to the problem. yes it helps the immune system and yes it's great as a wellness thing, but you need doctors and medicine for treating issues and you need an antibiotic to kill the bacteria when they are prevent. natural stuff to prevent and maintain, medical stuff to treat and get rid of....make sense? that's just me! i trust drs and vets, i research what they say and i learn my own views, but at the end of the day most of what they suggest is better for my pet or for me than nothing at all. natural medicine has a place but sometimes you need a science based and well researched medicine as well. hand in hand you'll be a healthy happy human Or dog.

[RachelandSadie]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

ITA. I don't advocate the mobile clinics either. But to say that the test is too expensive to justify not testing or giving preventatives, IMO, is bogus. But chances are, someone who won't shell out for a test or preventatives won't shell out for treatment if their dog does develop heart worms.

nope they sure don't...they put em' down and the really sad thing is...they also won't pay to do it humanely. we're talking back of the shed type of thing here....it's sick and it's wrong and i don't get why the heck they wanted a dog if they don't give a crap about their health??

[RachelandSadie]

Originally Posted by Lizzie07

That's just it, most vet's won't. But I don't believe they are doing any good to not giving the heartguard anyway, especially when you can go to any feed store and get ivermectin. It is safer to get it from a vet, but anybody can give ivermectin to their dogs. That's what heartguard is.

How many times have you heard suspicious people imply a vet is just doing tests to get their money? I am of the opinion that a vet would be doing better by the pet to get the owner to take the heartguard rather than do nothing. And there is no LAW, not even a heartguard requirement to test first. If a vet treats a dog for HW and warns the owner of the potential risks, why can't a vet do the same thing with heartguard?

they are covering their own a$$es here. if they let someone have veterinary ONLY prescriptions and the pill kills their heartworm positive dog...they are at fault and they will be sued for the damages. they require HWT for HWP to save their a$$ 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.

[RachelandSadie]

Originally Posted by LifeLovePassion

what age should heartworm stuff be given? How young is too young?

heartworm prevention can be started at about the same age as first puppy vaccines as far as i'm aware. we don't tend to do the first HW test until 1 year for some reason.

[RachelandSadie]

Originally Posted by Reese1

We use Sentinel and yes it is expensive for three dogs, they are on it all year, but this goes back to the total cost factor.
That's why when people are only concerned about getting a Yorkie for cheap up front, I don't think they consider these types of long run bills.
We test yearly, to me it's our responsibility as pet owners!

someone came in the other day stating he used to own two great danes...after they had to be PTS he added up all their vet bills alone. nothing from like walmart or petsmart, JUST vet bills.... and the total:

Over 14,000 lifetime vet expenses on two danes!!

imagine how much a yorkie would be?

[Lizzie07]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

They can give it without a test. It makes them liable for whatever happens though and not many vets would consider taking that on. They have enough crazy junk to deal with.

BTW, not long ago a dog was given Ivermectin and then switched to an actual product (Heartgard). In between the switch, it was not HW tested (accidental and devastating oversight). Dog got heartworms. Could have been the regular Ivermection or Heartgard (guessing the former). It's pretty darn scary to think people can just buy a bottle of it. The general public does not know brands and nobody except the company and store knows how it was shippied, what temp. it was kept at, etc.

What dog was that? Is that on YT? I hadn't heard anything like this. The friends I have that use ivermectin have never had a problem and never had a dog with HW.

If you have a puppy tested, start it on heartguard, then continue on heartguard, why would you need to get annual tests? If the dog got HW, the case couldn't be very bad, because you'd still be giving the heartguard. Unless you bought six months worth of useless Heartguard, the Heartguard should take care of the HW.

I frankly don't know how the preventive I get is shipped, what temp, etc. I bet it goes out UPS and can sit on a tarmac and cook for all I know. There is no reason to assume the ivermectin is shipped any worse. It is given to livestock, after all.

[Lizzie07]

Originally Posted by Cha Cha

Just like bacteria developes a resistance to antibiotics, worms mutate and develop a resistance to drugs. That is another reason why yearly tests are so important.

I've never heard of a single case were this has happened with HW.

[Lizzie07]

Originally Posted by Beamers Mom

because their livelihood is on the line! if a vet treats a dog for heartworms without testing and the dog does have heartworms and dies because of the Heartgard, then there are lawyers out there who would only be too willing to take on the dog owners case against the vet.

A human goes into hospital for surgery and always signs a consent form, yet how many turn around and sue when something goes wrong????

Wow, I don't know of any vets getting sued! Sorry, this doesn't make sense. How would you ever know what killed the pet? The heartguard or the HW? Could I sue a vet if my dog died as a result of regular HW treatment? No.

[RachelandSadie]

Originally Posted by Lizzie07

What dog was that? Is that on YT? I hadn't heard anything like this. The friends I have that use ivermectin have never had a problem and never had a dog with HW.

If you have a puppy tested, start it on heartguard, then continue on heartguard, why would you need to get annual tests? If the dog got HW, the case couldn't be very bad, because you'd still be giving the heartguard. Unless you bought six months worth of useless Heartguard, the Heartguard should take care of the HW.

I frankly don't know how the preventive I get is shipped, what temp, etc. I bet it goes out UPS and can sit on a tarmac and cook for all I know. There is no reason to assume the ivermectin is shipped any worse. It is given to livestock, after all.

here is the problem with over the counters, 1 800 pet meds, ext for getting prevention....

you don't know where it was made (some people are getting meds made in third world countries shipped to them in full on chinese from pet meds)

you don't know how old it really is (outdated won't work as well)

and you don't know if it's been frozen or over heated (most meds. require room temp. to be effective)

if you are buying things that aren't the actual thing you thought you were buying then you aren't getting an effective drug and you have a higher risk of getting worms. it's just a fact. not all pills work the way they should and sometimes even in just one missed dose heartworms develop. and any activity at any time those worms show up could cause one of them to dislodge into a lung and kill the dog. it only takes one missed pill for heartworms to form and if a HWP is given and it kills that ONE WORM insdie the dog and it just happens to flow into the blood stream and clot, well bye bye beloved dog...HWT are very very important, they can save lives if done. does that make more sense?

[RachelandSadie]

Originally Posted by Lizzie07

Wow, I don't know of any vets getting sued! Sorry, this doesn't make sense. How would you ever know what killed the pet? The heartguard or the HW? Could I sue a vet if my dog died as a result of regular HW treatment? No.

Neocropsy that's how you know. they'd have it done and find out it was a heartworm that killed the pet and then they'd sue the vet because they trusted that the preventative would treat and prevent heartworms and it didn't, instead it killed the dog...therefore it's the vet's fault that sold it to them without checking to be sure there weren't worms present and warning them of the risk!!

are you just trying to argue every point made? because we've been through the answers to all your current questions and you are refuting all of them again a second time. and just because in your small world you haven't heard of something happening doesn't mean in the "real" veterinary world that it hasn't happened. it HAS happened or they wouldn't create the rules about it.

[Cha Cha]

Originally Posted by Lizzie07

I've never heard of a single case were this has happened with HW.

There are lots of cases, especially in the south where dogs on preventative are testing positive for HW. Some will say it is because of poor compliance. Others say they have complied and followed the directions. However, in theory, just like any medication, if you do not follow the directions given, and an infected dog is receiving small dose every couple of months, it seems completely logical for the parasite to develop a resistance. Regardless of which side of the fence you are on, it is being watched by veterinarians and studied by the drug companies. All the more reason to test yearly. If nothing more than knowing your pet is parasite free, it does give the drug companies feedback that their products are continuing to work.

[Lizzie07]

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.