|
November 2009 Letters to the Editor
Ear Crop Better in Vet Hands
Editor:
I think it is ridiculous for veterinarians to take the high “moral” ground in relation to ear crops [“Where Banfield Stands on Other Procedures,” September 2009, Bonus Content]. As long as the breed clubs have these standards, these surgeries will continue to be in demand.
All we are doing by refusing to learn how to perform them well is subjecting puppies to ear crops on breeders’ kitchen tables or in the backs of vans at dog shows. And, might I add, with drugs sold to these people by veterinarians who don’t want to do ear crops.
At least I provide these puppies with all the safeguards currently available with any surgery. Will I miss doing ear crops if the breed standards ever change? Not really, but at least I’m not turning an owner away to seek out the alternative.
Nancy E. Ball, DVM
Solomons, Md.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where’s Patty Khuly?
Editor:
I can’t tell you the disappointment I felt when picking up my September copy of Veterinary Practice News only to find no column by Dr. Patty Khuly. I receive all the veterinary industry magazines and look forward to yours the most because of the Reality Check column.
Her articles are such progressive and refreshing food for thought. I do not always agree with Dr. Khuly, but I always appreciate her angle and the fact that she is willing to raise difficult issues for discussion. I was so impressed that your magazine was willing to support such a progressive and, yes, controversial writer.
I am so disappointed that an industry magazine I once found so exciting about its willingness to be progressive and see the new face of the profession has gone old school and removed what was so special.
Kristin Sulis, DVM
Mount Tabor Veterinary Care
Portland, Ore.
Editor’s note: Dr. Khuly still writes for Veterinary Practice News every month. Because of recent space limitations, her column and those by Dr. Alice Villalobos, Dr. Phil Zeltzman and Dr. Narda Robinson were published as online exclusives at VeterinaryPracticeNews.com. When putting their columns exclusively online, we point it out to readers in the What’s Online section on our Table of Contents page and from the pages where the columns usually appear.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Pressure
Editor:
Regarding blood pressure devices [Letters to the Editor, October 2009]: Why is it I can go to Walgreens and buy a blood pressure monitor for myself—one like those used in doctors’ offices—for around $80, while a similar veterinary unit goes for multi-hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars?
Jack Phillips, DVM
St. Peters, Mo.
Andrew Schultz Jr. replies. He is director of veterinary monitoring and critical care for Sharn Veterinary, a division of Midmark Corp., and brand manager for Cardell Monitors. While his answer is specific to his company’s products, rigorous standards apply to other brands as well.
“There are vast differences in quality, accuracy, durability and purpose. The human blood pressure monitor upon which the Cardell veterinary blood pressure monitor is based is a hospital-quality monitor that has been tested to meet the strict standards of the American National Standards Institute/Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. In the human market, this means testing on a full range of blood pressures, hypo- to hypertensive, on a full range of patients of all ages and sizes, and having the results correlate statistically with a reference measurement. In addition, monitors are manufactured to FDA and ISO quality standards and are designed to be durable enough to operate reliably under a wide range of clinical conditions, including the back of an ambulance. The Cardell monitor is the same hospital-grade monitor that has been specifically adapted for veterinary applications.
“Low-priced blood pressure monitors that can be purchased in the drug store are not tested or manufactured to the same accuracy and quality standards as a hospital-quality product and, as such, may not be statistically reliable on a range of patients and blood pressures. Though they may be adequate for home use, or even spot checking/routine screening in your doctor’s office, they most certainly would never be used in life-and-death situations in rigorous environments on multiple species. They wouldn’t include cuffs in the numbers or size ranges that would apply to veterinary patients; the heart rate ranges wouldn’t be wide enough to handle multiple species and hypertensive animals; they would lack the veterinary-specific algorithms that would make it even possible to obtain readings on cats and small dogs; and they wouldn’t hold up over time. Also, you wouldn’t get much help on the phone with your clinical or technical questions.
“Fortunately, with a nominal monitoring/screening fee, the investment in such hospital-grade equipment can be recouped in a relatively short time.”
 Give us your opinion on
November 2009 Letters to the Editor
Industry Professional Site: Comments from non-industry professionals will be removed.
|