FERRET-SEARCH@LISTSERV.FERRETMAILINGLIST.ORG
|
|
Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sun, 9 Jan 2005 17:18:32 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hopefully this bill will pass and other states will follow. Interesting
reference to an article in the Veterinary Economics August 2004.
~Amy~
http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/letters/1272830.shtml
Pet vaccine bill deserves support
Because many veterinarians have failed to disclose that most core
veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, pet owners, unaware
that their animals don't need multiple yearly vaccinations, have
overvaccinated their companions -- taking an unnecessary toll on their
finances and animals' health. Rep. Peter Rines of Wiscasset has
introduced legislation -- LR883, An Act to Require Veterinarians to
Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms -- to solve this problem.
Most Maine veterinarians have vaccinated clients' pets annually,
biennially or triennially and not disclosed the fact that challenge
studies by Dr. Ronald Schultz of the University of Wisconsin's School of
Veterinary Medicine have proven that distemper, hepatitis and parvovirus
vaccines protect for at least seven years. According to Colorado State
University's Veterinary Teaching Hospital, "Yearly booster vaccine
recommendations for vaccines other than rabies virus have been determined
arbitrarily by manufacturers."
Why haven't veterinarians disclosed this information to clients? One
possible explanation is in a Veterinary Economics August 2004 cover story
titled "Targeting Changing Vaccine Protocols," which states: "In the
1970's and '80s many veterinarians derived a substantial percent of their
total incomes from vaccinating dogs and cats ... (a)nd in many practices
today, the vaccination reminder is the one thing that drives visits from
healthy pets. So changing ... vaccine protocols could have a significant
affect on finances."
The American Animal Hospital Association's 2003 Vaccine Guidelines
reports: "(T)he ethical issue that our profession struggles with today
is whether economics justifies giving an animal a drug (vaccines are
biologic drugs) that is not necessarily required. As a minimum, we
should allow pet owners to make this choice rather than make it for
them." Rines' legislation would give pet owners the information they
need to make that choice for their animals. Please ask your legislators
and pet-owning friends to support this bill.
[Posted in FML issue 4753]
|
|
|