Antibiotics First, Then x-rays & blood tests

And don't trust any vet that will do it any different. Money suckers.

Glarb has spoken.

On Fri 11 Feb 2005 11:31:13p, Glarb wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav
):

And don't trust any vet that will do it any different. Money
suckers.

Glarb has spoken.




Care to ellaborate?

--
Cheryl

"Cheryl" wrote in message
And don't trust any vet that will do it any different. Money
suckers.

Glarb has spoken.




Care to ellaborate?

It all speaks for itself. There are vets scamming people by not going with
antibiotics first. I am now seeing more and more "Well, before I prescribe,
let's do some x-rays and some bloodword, blah blah blah."

I love cats, but they are not children. Try the course of antibiotics first
and if that doesn't make pootie feel better, then go to the stuff normally
reserved for humans.

Glarb

I would agree with that! Antibiotic over-use for problems that aren't
even bacterial are creating super-bugs that will not be treatable.

Rhonda

Karen Chuplis wrote:


Well, if they don't have a condition that antibiotics will help it defeats
the purpose, and just contributes to the problem of antibiotic resistant
infections as we have from human doctors just giving out antibiotics for
every sniffle. I would appreciate a thorough vet as opposed to one that just
wants to try an antibiotic in place of a thorough exam.

"Diane L. Schirf" wrote in message
My doctor takes this approach. He could have prescribed an antibiotic
when I had an apparent ear infection, but he sent me to an audiologist,
who determined I had fluid in my right ear and that I had mild
sensorineural hearing loss in the left and moderate in the right, so she
sent me to her ENT, who determined after trying some things that I had
something blocking the right ear from draining. He did a biopsy and tube
insertion; it turned out to be a swollen adenoid (unusual in adults). At
some point, I'll have to get hearing aids for the sensorineural loss, of
which I was totally unaware.

All that from what *appeared* to be a simple ear infection.

Yes, but you are a human, not a cat.

in article , Diane L. Schirf
at wrote on 2/12/05 5:19 PM:

In article ,
"Glarb" wrote:

"Diane L. Schirf" wrote in message
My doctor takes this approach. He could have prescribed an antibiotic
when I had an apparent ear infection, but he sent me to an audiologist,
who determined I had fluid in my right ear and that I had mild
sensorineural hearing loss in the left and moderate in the right, so she
sent me to her ENT, who determined after trying some things that I had
something blocking the right ear from draining. He did a biopsy and tube
insertion; it turned out to be a swollen adenoid (unusual in adults). At
some point, I'll have to get hearing aids for the sensorineural loss, of
which I was totally unaware.

All that from what *appeared* to be a simple ear infection.

Yes, but you are a human, not a cat.

How is the principle different? The goal should be to treat the cause,
not the symptoms. Pouring antibiotics down a cat that doesn't have a
bacterial infection is silly and potentially harmful.

Apparently, Glarb is cheap.

"Karen Chuplis" wrote in message
...
in article , Diane L.
Schirf
at wrote on 2/12/05 5:19 PM:

In article ,
"Glarb" wrote:

"Diane L. Schirf" wrote in message
My doctor takes this approach. He could have prescribed an antibiotic
when I had an apparent ear infection, but he sent me to an
audiologist,
who determined I had fluid in my right ear and that I had mild
sensorineural hearing loss in the left and moderate in the right, so
she
sent me to her ENT, who determined after trying some things that I had
something blocking the right ear from draining. He did a biopsy and
tube
insertion; it turned out to be a swollen adenoid (unusual in adults).
At
some point, I'll have to get hearing aids for the sensorineural loss,
of
which I was totally unaware.

All that from what *appeared* to be a simple ear infection.

Yes, but you are a human, not a cat.

How is the principle different? The goal should be to treat the cause,
not the symptoms. Pouring antibiotics down a cat that doesn't have a
bacterial infection is silly and potentially harmful.

Apparently, Glarb is cheap.


Well that was a little harsh, now wasn't it? What if Glarb is old and
handicapped and on a fixed income?! Why do you have to
be so MEAN, Karen?

Everyone has different views about the value of animal life vs. that of
human life, but the bottomline is that if you've adopted an animal, you
should be responsible for the welfare of that animal, which means
avoiding unnecessary pain in your pets. So, when you give that
antibiotic treatment to your pet, you may be causing him/her
unnecessary suffering and delaying the diagnosis of real problem (plus,
forcing antibiotics down a cat's mouth is NOT fun for the cat and
antibiotic resistance among animals sometimes can cross over to
humans). If you can't afford the medical cost of your pets, it may be
the best to give them to someone who can.

Karen Chuplis wrote:

Well, if they don't have a condition that antibiotics will help it defeats
the purpose, and just contributes to the problem of antibiotic resistant
infections as we have from human doctors just giving out antibiotics for
every sniffle. I would appreciate a thorough vet as opposed to one that just
wants to try an antibiotic in place of a thorough exam.

Most emphatic ditto!
--
Jean B.