Too Much Puppy (or Kitty) Love?

When reviewing the various benefits packages for jobs I was recently applying to, I was surprised to discover that one company offered employees' pets full medical insurance coverage. Considering the pricey veterinarian visits for my new puppy, health insurance began to seem appropriate for him as well. Little Poochini insists on continually being the center of attention, requires a special diet, and is known to bark until his demands are satisfied. His playful disposition and constant presence lead me to forget that he is not an actual person; I think of him more as a little boy than a pet sometimes.

A week ago Poochini had a urinary track infection, which required antibiotics to be crushed in his food twice a day. In the past several months, he has also been to the vet more than I have been to my primary physician over the past several years. Are we beginning to place the health of our pets at a higher priority than the medical care we seek for ourselves?

Apparently in 2005, over two billion dollars of American spending can be attributed to pet medications (1). Many households have made desperate financial sacrifices to ensure that their pets receive the best available healthcare, regardless of what that may entail (1). Some pets undergo several courses of chemotherapy because their owners are hesitant to put their cherished loved ones to sleep. New drug developments by pharmaceutical companies and subsequent approval by the Food and Drug Administration has enhanced the number of available pet medications currently in circulation (1).

I think we sometimes procrastinate when it comes to addressing our own health needs. Then suddenly when we think our pet might be ill, we are anxious to run our pet to the veterinarian immediately. In kindergarten, I also recall that putting our family dog to sleep proved almost as devastating as the loss of a close family friend!

Should pets undergo intensive treatments and medical interventions like chemotherapy or be put to sleep? Are our pets sometimes subjected to unnecessary suffering because of our selfish desires to prolong their lives as long as possible? Does the development of new pet medications significantly interfere with medical research for humans?

Reference:
1. Donn, Jeff. "Americans increasingly medicating pets" Yahoo News. 11 Mar 2007.

FDA set to ignore advice of countless experts

The following article from the Washington Post describes the FDA's plans to approve the use of cefquinome, a broad-spectrum, powerful "last-resort"-type antibiotic, to help our poor cows recover from respiratory infections that are mainly caused by the poor living conditions imposed upon them by industry standards.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003599980_anti040.html

Never mind that there are several other antibiotics available and already on the market to treat these infections. Never mind that several panels of experts, including the American Medical Association and their own internal review panel, cried foul against cefquinome's approval.

Widespread use of cefquinome (yes, even in animals) will most certainly deal a potentially devastating blow to our ability to fight infections in humans. Decades of science, on top of recent evidence of advancing antibiotic resistance in pathogens, are behind the experts here. What's changing minds at the FDA? Well, they've gotta stand behind their new "guidance document"--the wording of which was apparently influenced by industry reps--which, according to the article, stays the FDA's hand unless they can show a direct impact of the drug on human mortality. Honestly.

Cefquinome is used in European livestock, and there appears to be some evidence that pathogens are developing resistance to this high power antibiotic:

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/VMAC/VMAC0906White.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/vmac-testimony.html