On May 26, 11:54 pm, "cindys" wrote:
Hello, everyone! We're going away for a few days, and we decided to board
Alex (my 16-year-old early CRF kitty) mostly because he no longer uses the
litterbox (behavioral, not medical -- we've had it checked out), and we
can't ask the woman who will be feeding our other cats to come to our house
5 or 6 times a day to change the puppy training pad (which is what Alex has
been using in lieu of his litterbox). (I'm just grateful he's willing to
consistently use a puppy training pad rather than using the living room
carpeting).

I provide really good care for my kitties in terms of checkups, any required
medical procedures, medications, the best food, lots of attention, subcu
fluids and potassium and omega-3 supplements (in the case of Alex) etc. So,
I don't think it could be argued that I'm a negligent cat slave, but I do
try to avoid vaccinations as much as possible because my cats are strictly
indoors and never get out (the last "escape" was in 2001), and vaccinations
can have some nasty complications. It is the policy of the vet hospital that
all cats who are boarded must be vaccinated against distemper, so I resigned
myself to the fact that I would need to have Alex vaccinated (okay, not the
end of the world). I think I should mention that we had been taking all of
our cats (and our dog) to this vet hospital for over 15 years. It's a huge
office with many veterinarians and lots of staff and a director whom we
don't particularly care for. The first vet we had there resigned and went to
a smaller practice which was quite a distance away. Our most recent vet
recently resigned also "for personal reasons." We are in the process of
transferring the care of our animals to a smaller office with a veterinarian
we really like albeit (unfortunately) still under the auspices of the mother
corporation.

To make a long story short, when my husband brought Alex in to be boarded,
he (my husband) told the staff that we were willing for the cat to have the
distemper vaccination but that we did not want him to have another
examination since he had been examined twice in the last six months at that
office. The receptionist told my husband that this would be the decision of
the doctor to make since they don't like to vaccinate cats without an
examination. To make a long story short, the director of the vet hospital
phoned us and explained to us that our cat was "very, very, very, very, very
old" and that it wouldn't be a big deal to vaccinate a younger cat without
doing an exam first, but that he didn't feel comfortable vaccinating a
"very, very, very, very, very old" cat without an examination (funny, he had
tried to push us into letting him do a dental on our 15-year-old dog who
ending up dying two months later).

When we continued to refuse the exam, he suggested a "mini-exam." I asked
how much would that cost? He said "$36." (What a bargain! The "regular"
exam costs $42.) When I reiterated that the cat had actually been examined
three times in the last six months, the third time being by Dr. H. (at the
other practice), he wanted to know why the cat had seen Dr. H. I told him
it was because we were transferring the care of all of our cats to the other
practice, ever since Dr. A. resigned. (Cat who ate the canary look on my
face).

Finally, he announced that he just didn't feel comfortable vaccinating the
cat without the exam, and so we would need to skip the vaccination (I think
this was supposed to be a scare tactic/manipulation on his part, little did
he know that we never wanted the vaccination in the first place). He told us
that we were putting our cat at risk for an upper respiratory infection. I
asked him weren't all the other boarded cats vaccinated? He agreed that they
were, but that our cat was still at risk. We declined the vaccination (and
the exam).

Did I do the right thing? Besides early CRF, Alex has stable cardiomyopathy
(since age 2) and diabetes in remission. Is Alex really at a big risk for an
upper respiratory infection at the boarding facility (where the other cats
are all ostensibly vaccinated)? Is the risk greater than the risk of
vaccination? Was this really just about money on the part of the director of
the vet hospital? Opinions please.
Thanks in advance.
---Cindy S.

A vaccination that day would have made no real difference to his risk
of getting a URI.

It's entirely sensible to do an exam on an older animal before giving
it a vaccination.

Any individual MIGHT be the one who's better off not getting a
vaccination, IF EVERYONE ELSE IS VACCINATED. On the other hand, an
elderly cat already in compromised health has a significantly greater
chance of having complications from the vaccine, so on balance I come
down on your side in refusing the vaccination (which wouldn't be
effective anyway, during his period of greatest risk of exposure to a
URI.) If he could have gotten it enough in advance that it would be
effective while he was being boarded, it would be different, because
YES, he is at an increased risk of infection while he's there, and
less likely than a younger, healthier cat to be able to fight it off.

There is no contradiction between insisting on an exam before giving a
vaccination to an elderly, health-compromised animal, and insisting on
dental care for an elderly, health-compromised animal. Proper dental
care does a lot more than give you clean, shiny teeth, and is
important to overall health.

No, vaccines aren't completely safe, but the disease they protect
against killed a lot more individuals than the vaccines have ever
caused any kind of problem for.

Lis