I’ve had to put several dogs through heartworm treatment when I was fostering for a rescue group. Just about every one we had was positive (I’m in one of the darkest red areas on that incidence map). It’s extremely expensive, time consuming, and so dangerous for the dog. If there’s ANY chance… Don’t gamble. It’s just not worth it.
Hey, the same thing goes for human medicine, only people are less likely to be in a position to complain/haggle about the price (since it is covered by insurance), deny the test/treatment (without denying the overall care), or even realizing that the test is really extra/add-on. Sometimes adults simply just don’t go to the doctor to get the care that the medical colleges recommend. See pap smears, cancer screening, adult vaccination, bloodwork and blood pressure checkups, etc.
Most of the tests I’ve seen that are offered as “extras”, or considered “extras”, fall in the following categories, sometimes overlapping:
-
Cover your back test. Meaning, for standard practices, while the veterinarian and the clinic could get away without doing the test for that particular case, if they don’t at least offer it (and have it declined by the owner), they are risking the possibility of getting sued if something goes wrong later on.
-
Helps in diagnosis and treatment by ruling out/in diseases/conditions. Remember that the animals cannot tell us what is wrong, what hurts. So some tests may make diagnosis and treatment more effective and better tailored than relying on other tests and a guessing game of playing the odds.
-
They are screening/baseline tests. For example, a yearly complete bloodwork in a dog will show any difference from the previous years, or establish a reference to compare it to for future years.
Those damned parasites have their own society with an advocacy website? Sheesh!
Karl, as I said above, I spoke in haste. I agree with your points --and the CYA call for tests is so much more the case in human medicine. Do vets get sued a lot? Plus, with human medicine it’s other peoples money, so patients are less intimidated.
One of the worst memories I have is when my dog was slumping over in the office (he had pneumonia, but I didn’t know anything) of one of the finest hospitals in the nation, and the vet was explaining to me the risks–not the cost, at the moment, which was OK–of lavage, and making me all the more upset. I told an MD friend, who was surprised, and said they do it first without blinking.
In this case I very much appreciated what the vet did.
As long as I’m on vet-patient relations, where the first ve I ever went to (my dog was an adolescent when I got him). I honestly didn’t know if it was OK when my dog (a Golden) sat down, he sat with one leg and a bit of flank folded up a bit under his body–ie, what dogs do when theyre not in pure sitting-cat positin. You know, sort of hyper where-do-babies-come from. His answer: "“We have to live in New York.”
Like some sort of fucking Delphic riddle. After pulling teeth with him he meant “that’s what dogs do.” The “don’t worry about it” part I still never was told. What a prick.
They can and are. Obviously not for the same amount as a human would, but yes, they do.
Mind you, I’m not saying unnecessary tests do not occur. But I think their real percentage is lower than what the general public perceives. It is much more likely that tests which would otherwise not even be questioned in human medicine are ignored in an effort to provide some sort of treatment and relief to the animal (excluding euthanasia).
Has anyone had a heartworm test reported as negative, and then notified that it looked positve? This happened twice with our dog at two different vet locations.
If a used snap test sits well beyond the reading time, the other dots will turn. They won’t be as dark as the control spot, but they’ll be visible. It can really freak owners out if you don’t explain to them what’s going on.
The anti-vaxers seem to be spreading like - the plague.
All I know is that when our guide dog breeder was officially owned by GDB, she got heartworm medicine every month. Since the Vet was employed by Guide Dogs, there was no profit motive involved.
But usually the techs and vets are good about reading times, so they’ll know if the test has been sitting for a really loooong time, to ignore that. And it seems that the owner was told of that, not that he/she actually looked at the test.
Some other possibilities:
-
The opposite occurred, they waited too little time to report the test, and reported it negative before the minimum time had passed.
-
They did two tests (Knotts following by a Snap?), and the Knott’s was negative (not reliable), while the snap test was positive. Though why would they run both, as that is more expensive and time-consuming (not by much, but why do Knott’s?).
-
They only did Knott’s and one observer saw nothing while the other saw the same slide and found the larvae. Aside: snap is an immunoassay based test, Knott’s is just smearing some blood and looking it under the microscope. Microfilaria (if they are present in enough numbers) can be found that way. It is not very sensitive.
Has the practice (just one of them) repeated the heartworm test, and gotten a more conclusive result?