The vets opinion

[Tommy Coyote]

I'm in the Midwest. We use titles. For everything.

[Sue R]

"We use doctor with our vet as a sign of respect." I like that attitude.

[G. Festerling]

When I grew up in Germany, we called everyone older than us (adults) by their family name with Mr., Mrs. or Miss. If there was a title that was earned or given, that was also used as a sign of respect. NEVER was it taught to make any feel inferior or less worthy.

Being that respect seems to be going out the window... maybe some of that would not be bad. I call all my vets Dr. unless it happens to be my friends.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

During routine treatments, I'm Mister and he's Doctor. When he has to put one of our dogs down it's Donald and Ben.

 

Donald McCaig

[Sue R]

I know I'm "Sue" with the staff that know me at my vet office. I'm "Mrs. Rayburn" with those that don't.

 

And when the vets call me or it's a new vet, it's always, "Hi, Mrs. Rayburn, this is Jack Smith." Maybe because I'm older and they are way younger, and it's a nice sign of respect to be called "Mrs." - and then I always say, "It's Sue." The two vets I use the most would have no objection to me using their first names, I'm sure, and I often call them "Dr. Amy" or "Dr. Jesse" when talking to the staff. But when I talk to them, I tend to revert to "Dr. Smith." I guess I'm torn between the familiarity I feel because they make me feel comfortable (they talk "with" me and never down to me, and they listen and respect what I say), and the respect I like to show because of their education and position.

 

I felt very close to our older, now-retired vet. We were on first-name basis (or "Dr. Tom" to his face), and he was free with his empathy and his hugs when I was worried about my animals. I love my current vets and still miss Dr. Tom. He was special.

 

Like Donald, I think the level of familiarity varies with the situation.

[nancy]

I'm old. I was taught to call adults by title and surname. Unless I was specifically asked to do otherwise. So that is how I treat adults, of any age, until they do offer their given names.

 

But, if a young professional greets me as, "Hi, Nancy!" all bets are off. If the doctor calls me Nancy, Pat is his name. Especially if I see him squiggle. He deserves to be uncomfortable for taking liberties with me!

[mum24dog]

I'm old. I was taught to call adults by title and surname. Unless I was specifically asked to do otherwise. So that is how I treat adults, of any age, until they do offer their given names.

 

But, if a young professional greets me as, "Hi, Nancy!" all bets are off. If the doctor calls me Nancy, Pat is his name. Especially if I see him squiggle. He deserves to be uncomfortable for taking liberties with me!

 

I'm old too, but being a teenager in the 60s (and having the father I did) I grew up in a culture where respect and authority has to be earned rather than given as of right because of presumed status or letters after a name.

 

I hope I am polite and respectful to everyone, whoever they are, unless they have given me reason not to be and disrespect is something that makes me really angry. Using a title is just convention for some and adhering to convention doesn't always imply sincerity.

 

I like that my youngest daughter has grown up from the age of 9 in an agility community where titles are never used and all ages and abilities are treated with respect if they deserve it.

 

I do agree that I can bridle at the use of my first name by people who are supposed to be serving me in any capacity and who have never met me before, but that depends on situation. If I were in hospital I would certainly object to staff using my first name until we got to know each other. I would be in a vulnerable position and would resent to be made to feel patronised.

 

I don't take long to get to first name terms, but I never force it on anyone. I would hate to be Mrs to the world in general; it would make me feel so old.

[KnottyClarence]

I've always wondered when the shift came from "patient" to "client". If my dog's in the clinic for a broken leg, I think he's a patient. I don't want advice on his treatment which I will then follow or not at home. I want professionals who know how to fix him to get busy. Though then after he's better I might ask for their opinion or advice about routine maintenance issues. I'm going to these professionals because they know stuff and can do stuff that a lot of training has taught them to do and which I can't do.

 

The clinic I go to most often, which is the busiest vet clinic I've ever seen, has us address the docs as "Doctor Scott, or Doctor Sue". I am not sure this is a great compromise.

[Liz P]

So those of us who have gone to school for 8+ years and worked our butts off for a DVM, MD, PhD etc haven't earned respect?

 

The way I was raised, you don't use the first name of your elders without something like uncle in front. If you aren't related, it's Mr, Mrs or Miss. That is a sign of respect.

 

At my workplace, fellow employees use our first name most of the time, but clients use Dr. Clients are addressed by Mr, Mrs, etc. When I am calling another hospital, I ask for fellow doctors by their formal name (ex: Dr. Smith). This is done as a sign of respect. Outside of the workplace, such as at a trial, titles are not used. The trial field is the great leveler.

 

client = the human (you are paying for services, so yes, you are a client)

 

patient = the pet

 

To the OP, vets are human. We make mistakes and we don't know everything about all topics. Some know more about nutrition than others. I can tell you that there are well done studies out there looking at a variety of raw diets, both home made and commercial, that show ALL of the diets tested have serious nutritional deficiencies. I don't think your first vet was wrong in cautioning you about feeding a raw diet, especially to such a young dog. On that same note, Royal Canin has many thousands of studies proving their diets are nutritionally complete. They aren't perfect and are not right for every dog, but they have proof to back up their claims.

 

As far as vaccines, some vets are bound by the policies of the hospital they work for. They may have a different opinion but be unable to express it because of their contract. Look at the current vaccines guidelines to become an educated consumer.

 

Vets don't recommend blood tests for no reason. You certainly have the right to decline them. Wellness testing is an excellent idea if you can fit it into your budget. It helps you catch problems before they get serious. It can also help diagnose your pet down the line when they do get sick. For example, your dog's normal WBC count might run low. A WBC on the high end of normal could indicate a problem for him, even if he is still in the normal range. Having previous wellness testing results helped diagnose a dog of mine when she nearly died, saving me thousands and speeding up the process of finding her problem.

 

Sometimes we recommend tests in sick animals when our PE doesn't give us enough clues. The point of those tests is to go on a search for clues that will help us chose an appropriate treatment. Other times we find clues on our PE but need confirmation before treating. This might be because the treatment is harmful if done in a pet that doesn't need it, as well as because sometimes we are wrong. (Remember, we are still human and make mistakes.) If you don't understand the purpose of a test, ask why it's being done.

 

Rather than getting frustrated, start asking WHY.

[puppytoes]

With my first dog, I initially went to the vet with a total belief that they knew best. After some experiences that left me (and my dog) feeling unsatisfied (one vet insisted that my 60 pound dog had to be on the examining table even though she was shaking, making me leave the room while examining etc.) I started looking around. I eventually found an amazing vet that loved animals, that was great with people and had a similar philosophy to mine. The first time she came in, she got right on the floor and started talking to my dog and getting to know her. When she retired and I had to find a new vet for my now 2 dogs I was much pickier. I ended up at a fancy clinic that was very holistic and offered many alternative services and really emphasized prevention. After our first routine check-up where both my 3 and 14 year old dogs were given a clean bill of health, I was pleased with her thoroughness and her manner and I felt that I could trust her. 2 months later, my beloved 14 year old dog stopped eating after apparently hurting her back. The clinic was very accommodating in terms of scheduling and I appreciated that the clinic had in house x-rays so that we did not have to go elsewhere. We tried a few things but when nothing seemed to be working, she gently suggested that it might be her time to go. I really appreciate (as someone else mentioned) that she did this as at that time I would have done/paid anything for more time with her. I now have complete trust in her and feel confident that her suggestions are in no way self serving. But I think I would also now recognize that feeling in my gut and listen to it more.

[Tommy Coyote]

I really pay a lot of attention to what my vets have to say. I usually see the same ones over and over. I trust them. But if I see something weird going on that doesn't look right to me I get on the phone and call them asap.

 

I wish I had as much confidence in my own doctor has I have in my vets.

[Mark Billadeau]

I can tell you that there are well done studies out there looking at a variety of raw diets, both home made and commercial, that show ALL of the diets tested have serious nutritional deficiencies.

Do you have links to more recent studies than those discussed in:

 

Raw food diets in companion animals: A critical review

 

Abstract.

Feeding of raw meat-based diets to pets has become an increasingly popular trend amongst pet owners. Owners, who desire to provide the best for their pets, seek veterinary opinions about food options. This paper reviews and applies standards of evidence-based medicine to grade the available scientific literature that addresses the nutritional benefits or risks, infectious disease risks, and public health implications of raw, meat-based pet diets. Although there is a lack of large cohort studies to evaluate risk or benefit of raw meat diets fed to pets, there is enough evidence to compel veterinarians to discuss human health implications of these diets with owners.

[Liz P]

Mark, I have read a lot of studies and I have seen both very healthy and very sick dogs being fed raw. It works for some dogs and not for others. I knew a case of 2 dogs owned by the same owner that died as a result of nutritionally deficient raw diets. I want my clients to know both sides of the story, not just the hype and propaganda. It's all about informed choices and education.

[Laurae]

Right, but you said earlier that

 

there are well done studies out there looking at a variety of raw diets, both home made and commercial, that show ALL of the diets tested have serious nutritional deficiencies.

[waffles]

I would love to see studies on a raw diet but one of the problems I see is that everyone feeds it differently. I know people who feed boneless chicken, rice and peas to their dogs and that is it!

I know many people feed just raw meat with the 80% meat, 10% bone, 10% organ philosophy. Others add in supplements, others use less meat, no bones and lots of veggies. Some cook all the meat. Some add eggs and fish oil. Some feed a lot of variety of meats (and variety in cuts) and others feed maybe just two types of animals. Then there are commercial raw diets.

 

Raw means something different to everyone. I know it can be hard to get a lot of data since it would be up to the people to record what % of what (meat, bone, type of meat, supplements, etc) they fed. I read that link Mark posted and was shocked that someone was feeding their dogs just 80% rice and 20% meat.

 

It is an interesting topic. Would love to learn more.

 

 

Back to the vet topic though, I ask a lot of questions to my vet and he appreciates that. I was just there with one of my cats who has kidney stones and asked him to write down what he was telling me. I probably asked 'why' numerous times. I feel that I have an expert in front of me whom I trust so why not ask him everything I want to know? I typically come in with questions written down. I'll even ask 'so I read this online or someone told me this...' and I'll ask his opinion on it.

[Pipedream Farm]

Mark, I have read a lot of studies and I have seen both very healthy and very sick dogs being fed raw. It works for some dogs and not for others. I knew a case of 2 dogs owned by the same owner that died as a result of nutritionally deficient raw diets. I want my clients to know both sides of the story, not just the hype and propaganda. It's all about informed choices and education.

This gives me your recollections, I would like to read the studies since the "devil is in the details" (experimental set-up).

 

Mark

[Liz P]

Right, but you said earlier that

 

Exactly. People need to know the risks and be willing to live with their choices. And, the doctor that told the OP to never feed raw may have only seen that study or others like it.

[Liz P]

This gives me your recollections, I would like to read the studies since the "devil is in the details" (experimental set-up).

 

Mark

 

One study was listed in the paper in your link. The author was Dr. Lisa Freeman, a brilliant scientist, veterinarian and nutritionist. I don't pay much attention to the raw vs kibble debate, so I can't pull out a ton of references on short notice that I've read.

[Tommy Coyote]

I don't feed raw. I don't want to deal with a bunch of raw meat. I don't want the germs all over the kitchen where I fix my own food. I'm a vegetarian.

 

I feed my dogs a good quality kibble (Fromm Gold) and half a can of really good canned food a day. Their coats just look gorgeous. And I don't have to deal with a mess. And they love their food.

 

Someone here on the boards pointed out that wolves fed a commercial kibble were a lot healthier than wolves fed a traditional raw diet. Does anyone have a link for that study?

[GentleLake]

One study was listed in the paper in your link. The author was Dr. Lisa Freeman, a brilliant scientist, veterinarian and nutritionist. I don't pay much attention to the raw vs kibble debate, so I can't pull out a ton of references on short notice that I've read.

 

And that link points out that "There are no published level 1, 2, or 3 studies of nutritional risk or benefit of raw meat feeding to dogs or cats."

 

So, if the studies are inadequate, how can anyone justify using them to support a position that raw feeding is unsound? (Or vice versa?)

 

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people feeding deficient raw diets (e.g. w/ no bone for calcium). But to use those examples as "proof" that the concept of raw feeding is intrinsically flawed is absurd.

[GentleLake]

I don't feed raw. . . . I'm a vegetarian.

 

I've never understood the "I'm a vegetarian" argument against feeding dogs raw.

 

Unless you're feeding your dogs one of the few vegetarian kibbles out there, you're still feeding your dogs meat, just in a form that looks (and actually is) much less like raw meat.

 

Feeding raw isn't for everyone and I'm not one of those raw feeders who looks down on people who, for whatever reason, don't want to feed raw. If you don't want the additional work or don't like handling meat or whatever reason, fine.

 

Feed your dogs whatever you're comfortable with; it's fine by me. Just don't use being vegetarian as an excuse when the kibble you're dumping into the dogs' bowls contains meat.

[Sue R]

I've never understood the "I'm a vegetarian" argument against feeding dogs raw.

 

By leaving out the parts about not wanting to handle raw meat or be concerned about the possible germs associated with it, you have left out the Tommy's rationale for what she does. The way I read it, she is not against feeding dogs meat because "I'm a vegetarian" but because "I'm a vegetarian" she does not care to handle raw meat or have it in her kitchen, That is a different argument from saying that she doesn't believe in eating meat so that's why she doesn't feed raw even though she feeds meat in another form. It's not "an excuse" but rather a reason, in this case.

 

Those that feel that their animals should not eat meat because the person doesn't believe in him/herself eating meat, is another argument entirely.

 

PS - I had a couple of vegetarian friends. Neither one ate any form of meat. Neither had an issue feeding meat in the form of prepared dog/cat food to their dogs/cats. Neither was unwilling to feed meat to family members who chose to eat meat (husbands and children) but neither enjoyed handling raw meat or being concerned about germs on the counter, so both were extremely conscientious about cleaning up after.

[GentleLake]

By leaving out the parts about not wanting to handle raw meat or be concerned about the possible germs associated with it, you have left out the Tommy's rationale for what she does.

 

Except that I didn't leave that out.

 

 

Feeding raw isn't for everyone and I'm not one of those raw feeders who looks down on people who, for whatever reason, don't want to feed raw. If you don't want the additional work or don't like handling meat or whatever reason, fine. (emphasis added)

 

Feed your dogs whatever you're comfortable with; it's fine by me. Just don't use being vegetarian as an excuse when the kibble you're dumping into the dogs' bowls contains meat.

 

Not wanting to handle meat is an understandable argument. My point is that being vegetarian is not.

 

ETA: Your p.s. kinda substantiated my point.

[Sue R]

Yes, you did. You quoted, "I don't feed raw...I'm a vegetarian." You put "..." where she said that she didn't like to handle raw meat or be concerned about the germs in her kitchen. You equated not feeding raw directly with being vegetarian, which is not what she said - she said that she didn't feed raw, didn't like to handle raw meat, didn't like the germ aspect, and was a vegetarian. She never said anything about not wanting to feed her dogs a vegetarian diet, and then turn around and feed them meat in a kibble form.

 

And, yes, my PS pointed out that one can be a vegetarian, not like to handle raw meat, not like the idea of germs from that meat in the kitchen, and still prepare that meat for others. But if Tommy prefers to not do those things, so what? She's feeding her dogs and how she feeds them is her choice, as you point out. Quality prepared food is a fine alternative.

 

Apparently we will not agree on this and, again. so what? I feed prepared, quality kibble with raw as a supplement and tooth-cleaning aid. I don't give a darn about handling raw meat and am pretty lenient about germs in my life. I prepare raw meat for my own family so doing the same for the dogs is a non-issue.

[Tommy Coyote]

Gentle Lake: I didn't mean anything by saying I'm a vegetarian except that I just don't like keeping raw meat around. And I don't like to work with it.

 

But my dogs get meat. I just give them canned because it's so much easier to fix. And they get a good quality kibble.

 

I would be afraid to feed my dogs raw anyway. I just don't know enough about dog nutrition to be comfortable feeding raw that I fixed up myself.

 

We had a thread here not too long ago about how dogs have developed about 9 specialized genes (well you get what I mean) for digesting carbohydrates. Wolves don't have those genes. Dogs don't need to be on a wolf diet.