Veterinary Vaccine Injury Act

[~flower~]

Should there be a Veterinary Vaccine Injury Act?:

 http://www.geocities.com/kremersark/macy.html

 
  snippage:


    What is the veterinarian's liability in such a situation ?

If the veterinarian provided the owner with information regarding the potential of adverse events associated with vaccination prior to vaccine administration and there is evidence of such in the medical record, the veterinarian would not be considered liable for the adverse events caused by the vaccine. If the veterinarian, however, merely administered the vaccine without providing information regarding potential adverse events prior to the vaccination, the veterinarian may be considered liable for damages associated with that product.

The courts have held that "the veterinarian or physician is a learned professional and must act as an intermediary between the drug company and the client or patient". The failure to carry out this professional responsibility may be interpreted as professional negligence. It is not the purpose of this commentary to argue the merits of the USDA's federal preemption. However, one cannot help feeling that the owners of these pets, who are damaged as a result of the administration of a mandated rabies vaccine have been wronged since they never had any choice but to vaccinate their pet regardless of the level of risk of contracting rabies. This situation raises the question whether there is a more compassionate way for veterinarians and the bioceutical industry to meet their professional responsibility to protect human and animal health against infectious diseases.


  snippage:

The proposed program would only include mandated rabies vaccines where the veterinarian and clients have no real choice but to vaccinate their pet. Although serious adverse vaccine events occur with feline leukemia and leptospirosis vaccines, owners and veterinarians have a clear choice either to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, and thus the choice to assume or not to assume the risk associated with those individual vaccines. It is not the attempt of the proposed program to shift the responsibility for a choice, but rather to take responsibility when given no choice.

[Vet]

Should there be a Veterinary Vaccine Injury Act?:

 http://www.geocities.com/kremersark/macy.html

 
  snippage:


    What is the veterinarian's liability in such a situation ?

If the veterinarian provided the owner with information regarding the potential of adverse events associated with vaccination prior to vaccine administration and there is evidence of such in the medical record, the veterinarian would not be considered liable for the adverse events caused by the vaccine. If the veterinarian, however, merely administered the vaccine without providing information regarding potential adverse events prior to the vaccination, the veterinarian may be considered liable for damages associated with that product.

The courts have held that "the veterinarian or physician is a learned professional and must act as an intermediary between the drug company and the client or patient". The failure to carry out this professional responsibility may be interpreted as professional negligence. It is not the purpose of this commentary to argue the merits of the USDA's federal preemption. However, one cannot help feeling that the owners of these pets, who are damaged as a result of the administration of a mandated rabies vaccine have been wronged since they never had any choice but to vaccinate their pet regardless of the level of risk of contracting rabies. This situation raises the question whether there is a more compassionate way for veterinarians and the bioceutical industry to meet their professional responsibility to protect human and animal health against infectious diseases.


  snippage:

The proposed program would only include mandated rabies vaccines where the veterinarian and clients have no real choice but to vaccinate their pet. Although serious adverse vaccine events occur with feline leukemia and leptospirosis vaccines, owners and veterinarians have a clear choice either to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, and thus the choice to assume or not to assume the risk associated with those individual vaccines. It is not the attempt of the proposed program to shift the responsibility for a choice, but rather to take responsibility when given no choice.

I dont know.  I have problems with holding a veterinarian responsible when they are administering a vaccine that is mandated by law to be given to that species.   That shoudl be a lawmaker liability, not the veterinarian. 

[~flower~]

I dont know.  I have problems with holding a veterinarian responsible when they are administering a vaccine that is mandated by law to be given to that species.   That shoudl be a lawmaker liability, not the veterinarian. 

 Well I do too, but this commentary does say that the vet would only be liable if they didn't provide information on adverse affects prior to giving the vaccination.

I see this as potentially making vaccine manufacturers either coming up with a better product, or at least being held responsible for their product.  If I HAVE to give something to my pet, someone should be liable for adverse affects from that. I don't think the vet should be though, but I also see this as a way to ensure that people are given information. 

 I think even with human vaccines, not much info is given on the potential harm and the risks from the vaccines.   I do not think that is right.

[knny187]

I dont know.  I have problems with holding a veterinarian responsible when they are administering a vaccine that is mandated by law to be given to that species.   That shoudl be a lawmaker liability, not the veterinarian. 

I agree with that.

It does make it difficult on the Veterinarian Society

[~flower~]

I agree with that.

It does make it difficult on the Veterinarian Society

knny, and/or anyone else who gets their pets vaccinations, have you ever been given information or told adverse reactions to the vaccinations?

[Vet]

knny, and/or anyone else who gets their pets vaccinations, have you ever been given information or told adverse reactions to the vaccinations?

I always warn the owners of potential negative effects.  Obviously the most concern are acute anaphylactic type reactions, but longerterm ones such as feline fibrosarcs need to be mentioned.  I'd tell owners why I vaccinated their cats with a set pattern every time I did it and if I differed for some reason (like the cat wasn't cooperating) why i did it differently that time and I'd make sure they saw me note changes in the medical record. 


Its pretty much common sense.....    if you administer something---anything---the owners need to be informed of the benifits (why you are giving it) and adverse reactions. 

[~flower~]

I have never been told of any adverse affects accept for the immediate ones that might present.  Nothing about future problems from vaccinations.  Nothing about temperament changes, skin problems, etc etc. 

 But then again, most vets I have dealt with have no problem vaccinating an unhealthy animal, or vaccinating at the same time as surgery. 

 Of course most vets believe vaccinations are harmless, so how could they inform of adverse affects they don't think happen?  

[Vet]

I have never been told of any adverse affects accept for the immediate ones that might present.  Nothing about future problems from vaccinations.  Nothing about temperament changes, skin problems, etc etc. 

 But then again, most vets I have dealt with have no problem vaccinating an unhealthy animal, or vaccinating at the same time as surgery. 

 Of course most vets believe vaccinations are harmless, so how could they inform of adverse affects they don't think happen?  

yeah, thats really entering a grey area.  I warn ferret owners abut the possibilities of fibrosarcomas---because its been documented in that species.  The thing is there isn't a solid body of evidence (there is some, but I really think well designed conclusive studies need to be performed to confirm) about some of the other proported "negative" effects of the vaccine.  Warning about a side effect that then turns out to not be a side effect will come back at you.   If an owner asks questions, i'll discuss it with them.  But i dont' feel comfortable saying that giving a distemper vaccination will cause a dog without a doubt to develop autoimmune disease.  These things need to be further investigated.   

[~flower~]

But i dont' feel comfortable saying that giving a distemper vaccination will cause a dog without a doubt to develop autoimmune disease.  These things need to be further investigated.   

Are fibrosarcomas a without a doubt adverse affect?  No.  So why is informing someone of that possible side affect any different than any of the others? 

See that is deciding what the client should and shouldn't know.  I don't want to know what side affects you think are worth mentioning, I want to know all of them.  Anything less is negligence IMO. 

With the studies on duration of immunity, and that it is known that with every vaccination the risk of a health problem goes up, shouldn't a person be made aware of the increased chance of health risks?   Maybe they would go every 4 years instead of 3 for distemper and parvo or even longer?  Maybe they would chose to vaccinate for one and not the other?   Let them decide what risks they want to take. 

[Vet]

Are fibrosarcomas a without a doubt adverse affect?  No.  So why is informing someone of that possible side affect any different than any of the others? 

  LOL.  Flower.....   

No they are not without a doubt but there is a much, much stronger body of evidence that they are vaccine induced than any of the other problems you've mentioned as being possibly associated with vaccines.   That association is well know, is being well researched, and is often questioned.   That alone justifies mentioning it to clients---again, I follow a set vaccination protocol, meaning I give the vaccines in a certian area specific to that type of vaccine.  I always tell owners what and why I'm doing that.  As far as the other problems, I think we are both in agreement that they really really need to be studied more carefully.  There just isn't the same body of evidence with them that there are with vaccine associated sarcomas. 

See that is deciding what the client should and shouldn't know.  I don't want to know what side affects you think are worth mentioning, I want to know all of them.  Anything less is negligence IMO. 

Which is why you discuss it with your veterinarian--you also have to be willing to ask questions, not just sit there and pay the bill.   I can't possibly mention every single conversation with every client I have on this board.  the thing is if a client comes in and asks questions, those questions are answered to the best of my ability. 

With the studies on duration of immunity, and that it is known that with every vaccination the risk of a health problem goes up, shouldn't a person be made aware of the increased chance of health risks?   Maybe they would go every 4 years instead of 3 for distemper and parvo or even longer?  Maybe they would chose to vaccinate for one and not the other?   Let them decide what risks they want to take.  [/color]

Again, they have to abide within the guidelines of the law and the client needs to discuss the risk associated with contracting the disease vs vaccinating.   I'll freely admit i've advised clients against getting vaccines they came in expecting to get---which pissed my boss off, oh well---becuase the percieved risk to the patient was so low.  there has to be communication between the veterinarian and the client. 

[~flower~]

  LOL.  Flower.....   

No they are not without a doubt but there is a much, much stronger body of evidence that they are vaccine induced than any of the other problems you've mentioned as being possibly associated with vaccines.   That association is well know, is being well researched, and is often questioned.   That alone justifies mentioning it to clients---again, I follow a set vaccination protocol, meaning I give the vaccines in a certian area specific to that type of vaccine.  I always tell owners what and why I'm doing that.  As far as the other problems, I think we are both in agreement that they really really need to be studied more carefully.  There just isn't the same body of evidence with them that there are with vaccine associated sarcomas. 

I think they are the more agreed upon adverse affect.   Studies, schmudies.  It is pretty easy to dismiss a health problem showing up a few months after a shot as not being related.  The major Vet Health organizations do recognize a long list of possible vaccine related problems. 

Which is why you discuss it with your veterinarian--you also have to be willing to ask questions, not just sit there and pay the bill.   I can't possibly mention every single conversation with every client I have on this board.  the thing is if a client comes in and asks questions, those questions are answered to the best of my ability. 

 Most people are brainwashed to think vaccine = good, not harmful.  I even thought that 7 years ago.       I have heard many stories of people finding out after their dog got a health problem or even died, that there are risks with vaccinating and that vaccines are not as safe as water.   What adds insult to injury is the vet that denies the vaccination had anything to do with it.  People can wait for a study, but that won't change what is going on.  Why is it now projected that one out of 4 dogs will get cancer? And this is in young dogs, not older dogs that are living longer and therefore the cancer increase could be attributed to that. Could it be all the vaccinations and the preventatives that are now routine for most pets?  Could it be that generations of chronic disease brought on by these insults are being passed down to future generations, and so on?  If you read the package inserts for some of this stuff I don't think studies need to be done to correlate the rise in pet health problems with the increase in crap to inject, put on, or have your pet eat!

Again, they have to abide within the guidelines of the law and the client needs to discuss the risk associated with contracting the disease vs vaccinating.   I'll freely admit i've advised clients against getting vaccines they came in expecting to get---which pissed my boss off, oh well---becuase the percieved risk to the patient was so low.  there has to be communication between the veterinarian and the client.

 

 The only law is rabies. I don't think it would be that difficult to come up with a sheet(s) of information for each vaccine that lists both the benefits and the risks and known studies for both. 

This may shock you  , but I once had an agreement with a vet to disagree.  We had discussed my views on vaccinations and my reasoning (complete with scientific studies) for them, and he had initially agreed that we just wouldn't discuss those things, and if my dogs had to have a surgery they couldn't stay there overnight.  I even told him I would bring my dogs in twice a year for health checks.  I called up to make an appointment for something and I was told he would not see us.  I honestly believe that he wasn't upset with my decisions, but he was upset that I dared challenge him.  How dare I research, read studies, and educate myself and not just take whatever he said as gospel.

I printed off every study, article in peer reviewed journals, statements from Schultz and Dodd, anything I had from a reputable source. I sent it to him with a note that maybe he should educate himself on the latest research.     

[Vet]

I think they are the more agreed upon adverse affect.   Studies, schmudies.  It is pretty easy to dismiss a health problem showing up a few months after a shot as not being related.  The major Vet Health organizations do recognize a long list of possible vaccine related problems. 

Of which vaccine associated fibrosarcomas are the number one.  The others are all listed as "possible".   

Most people are brainwashed to think vaccine = good, not harmful.  I even thought that 7 years ago.       I have heard many stories of people finding out after their dog got a health problem or even died, that there are risks with vaccinating and that vaccines are not as safe as water.   What adds insult to injury is the vet that denies the vaccination had anything to do with it.  People can wait for a study, but that won't change what is going on. 

This may shock you  , but I once had an agreement with a vet to disagree.  We had discussed my views on vaccinations and my reasoning (complete with scientific studies) for them, and he had initially agreed that we just wouldn't discuss those things, and if my dogs had to have a surgery they couldn't stay there overnight.  I even told him I would bring my dogs in twice a year for health checks.  I called up to make an appointment for something and I was told he would not see us.  I honestly believe that he wasn't upset with my decisions, but he was upset that I dared challenge him.  How dare I research, read studies, and educate myself and not just take whatever he said as gospel.

LOL.   The thing you need to consider is how much time were you taking from the veterinarian and how much was that affecting the other clients.   I have always encouraged my clients to bring me information---hell I might learn something from them.   The thing is I've also had to be short with some of them because I simply didn't have the time ---due to emergencies, other cases, surgeries, factors beyond my control-- and I've rescheduled those clients becuase I know how much of my time they were going to take up.  I've ahd a couple where i've told them they were taking up more time than I had and I billed them for a second office call----which believe it or not, they cussed me, but they didn't argue the billing because I sat in the exam room and we discussed all of their problems until they were happy.   it pissed off my boss, but oh well.  As far as you as a client.... well, i'll be honest, you'd probably drive me completely crazy because you make up your mind and God with dynamite can't change it.  thats fine, they are your dogs.  If you don't like me, go someplace else.  If you do like me, then we'll work together to try to give the best health care we can to your dogs. 

Did you ever ask that vet why?  I've never fired cleints without telling them exactly why I was firing them. 

Why is it now projected that one out of 4 dogs will get cancer? And this is in young dogs, not older dogs that are living longer and therefore the cancer increase could be attributed to that. Could it be all the vaccinations and the preventatives that are now routine for most pets? 

yes it could be.   Do we know for certian?  No.   It seems to  me that you have this certianty in your mind that you just cannot conclude based on the evidence there is.  I'm not saying its not possible, and yes it needs to be investigated, but what are you doing to do when we stop vaccinating dogs and they still have allergies, bad skin, hip dysplasia, AIHA, and what not?  And not only that but parvo and distemper are killing puppies like wildfire?   Like I've said again and again, the vaccinations administered toa  pet should be based on risk assessment of the pet by the owner and veterinarian.   Could it be other factors such as the environment, such as better determination/diagnosis, genetics of the animal?  Absolutely. 

Could it be that generations of chronic disease brought on by these insults are being passed down to future generations, and so on? 

so you are saying that there is a genetic component?  So doesn't that imply poor breeding?   Perhaps that is part of the problem and it needs to be considered.   

The only law is rabies. I don't think it would be that difficult to come up with a sheet(s) of information for each vaccine that lists both the benefits and the risks and known studies for both. 

wrong. Rabies is the most commonly required.  there are counties and cities in the US that mandate distemper/parvo vaccinations for dogs.   

[~flower~]

The vet wouldn't speak to me, he had the receptionist tell me that he couldn't see me if I didn't keep my dogs "up to date" on all vaccinations.  I didn't personally give him all the literature I printed, I mailed it after he fired me.   
 
As far as genetics, I think dogs with chronic problems produce other dogs that are inclined to chronic problems.  I think it could take one insult to set off a problem.

I guess I do have a certainty in my mind that vaccine and other preventatives can cause harm.  Even water can be harmful, so to think that substances put into the body could never be harmful would be foolish.  And I do believe we don't give the body itself much credit in protecting itself if we allow it to with the right things that build it up, and not tear it down. 

I would like to see proof of someplace in the US where it is a law that Distemper and Parvo must be current, and what current is.  If you happen to know a county/State I could probably verify it if you know one off the top of your head. I am really surprised I have never heard that.  I belong to a few groups for vaccination awareness and I have never heard that.  Believe me, there would be an uproar!!

[Vet]

The vet wouldn't speak to me, he had the receptionist tell me that he couldn't see me if I didn't keep my dogs "up to date" on all vaccinations.  I didn't personally give him all the literature I printed, I mailed it after he fired me.   
 
As far as genetics, I think dogs with chronic problems produce other dogs that are inclined to chronic problems.  I think it could take one insult to set off a problem.

I guess I do have a certainty in my mind that vaccine and other preventatives can cause harm.  Even water can be harmful, so to think that substances put into the body could never be harmful would be foolish.  And I do believe we don't give the body itself much credit in protecting itself if we allow it to with the right things that build it up, and not tear it down. 

I would like to see proof of someplace in the US where it is a law that Distemper and Parvo must be current, and what current is.  If you happen to know a county/State I could probably verify it if you know one off the top of your head. I am really surprised I have never heard that.  I belong to a few groups for vaccination awareness and I have never heard that.  Believe me, there would be an uproar!!

off the top of my head... .check on Boone County in Missouri.  Specifically Columbia, Missouri.   I may be wrong, its been nearly a decade since I lived there, but I 'm pretty sure the City of Columbia requires all dogs to get a rabies AND a distemper/parvo vaccination to get a city license. 

there are others, but thats the one that pops into my head as the one where you are most likely to find information. 

[~flower~]

Nope, or they don't anymore.  So far my query on the vaccine groups have turned up that nobody has ever heard of that being required by any state or county, only that a veterinarian has told people it is required (lied basically), or told them it was required if they wanted to go to that vet office.   

  That vet who fired me also was not happy with the fact that it was probably the diet I put Addie on after I rescued her that brought her feet back to normal.  I almost called her flipper because all 4  feet resembled flippers.  I asked him if he thought they would tighten up and he said no.  He thought a raw diet was all wrong for dogs.  The older vet that was retiring had no problem with my decisions, he didn't necessarily agree with all of them, but he did think that I was making an informed decision and I did have reputable evidence to base them on.  It was after he left and it was the younger vet in charge that younger vet got huffy.  

http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Finance/Services/blanimal.php

Animals Tags & Licenses

The Columbia ordinance requires that cats and dogs over the age of three (3) months must be licensed. Dogs are licensed for periods up to three (3) years. Cats are normally licensed for one (1) year. The Boone County ordinance does not require licenses, however, it does require that all dogs or cats over three (3) months of age be vaccinated against rabies by a veterinarian.

[Vet]

Nope, or they don't anymore.  So far my query on the vaccine groups have turned up that nobody has ever heard of that being required by any state or county, only that a veterinarian has told people it is required (lied basically), or told them it was required if they wanted to go to that vet office.   

  That vet who fired me also was not happy with the fact that it was probably the diet I put Addie on after I rescued her that brought her feet back to normal.  I almost called her flipper because all 4  feet resembled flippers.  I asked him if he thought they would tighten up and he said no.  He thought a raw diet was all wrong for dogs.  The older vet that was retiring had no problem with my decisions, he didn't necessarily agree with all of them, but he did think that I was making an informed decision and I did have reputable evidence to base them on.  It was after he left and it was the younger vet in charge that younger vet got huffy.  

http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Finance/Services/blanimal.php

Animals Tags & Licenses

The Columbia ordinance requires that cats and dogs over the age of three (3) months must be licensed. Dogs are licensed for periods up to three (3) years. Cats are normally licensed for one (1) year. The Boone County ordinance does not require licenses, however, it does require that all dogs or cats over three (3) months of age be vaccinated against rabies by a veterinarian.

What I remember from columbia was on the forms that had to be filled out there was a box that had to be checked for distemper/parvo vaccinations.....

Now again, this was 10 years ago.  Things may have changed or I'm not remembering things correctly.  I need to look back at the city tags I've got for my dogs (I think my wife has them in a box somewhere) and see exactly what the forms read.  This was also during a severe---SEVERE--- distemper outbreak in the wild raccoon population so it may have been something that has since changed. 

The other one to check is Lexington Kentucky.  Its been 8 years since I lived there, but I vaguely remember discussion of requiring ALL vaccinations for pets---meanind FELV/FVRCP or DAPP + rabies.   I don't think this was enacted, as a law though. 



It sounds like you encountered an asshole veterinarian.  I'm sorry...   

[~flower~]

http://www.lfucg.com/aboutlfucg/animallicensing.asp

Lexington-Fayette
In Fayette County, it is the law for all dogs and cats to be annually vaccinated for rabies by 4 months of age and licensed by 6 months of age. Licenses are good for 12 months from the date of issue and can be purchased at the Lexington-Fayette Animal Care & Control (LFACC) office or at most local vet offices. On May 4, LFACC will also issue licenses at the Health Department’s Annual Rabies Vaccine Clinic at the Third Street Fire Station from 6-9pm. The cost for the annual license is $8 for an altered (spayed or neutered) dog/cat and $40 for an unaltered dog/cat. Remember: not having a license for your pet is a citable offense.

In accordance with LFUCG Code of Ordinances Section 4-12.3(a) effective April 21, 2005, all DOGS and CATS must be licensed annually starting at 6 months of age and rabies vaccinated at 4 months of age. Proof of rabies vaccination is required for the city license.


  They could of been considering it, but passing a law for vaccinations for non human communicable diseases can be tough to do.  That is the real purpose behind the rabies vaccination requirements, not to protect the dogs/cats, but to protect people. 

  As for that vet, I do think he has a right to decide what is best for all the animals he sees in his practice.  I think it is going overboard to say the pets must be "up to date" on all vaccinations or can't be seen, but I still see the right in making that decision.  Now how he went about it with me, and the flip flop and attitude, I did not appreciate. 

 I had another vet get downright belligerent with me and told me "I could look in the mirror when they got sick" this was in reference to what I was feeding and my not choosing to have Addie further vaccinated.  I told him "could I look in his face when she was damaged from a vaccination and would he take responsibility for it?".  Of course not.  Addie had been vaccinated possibly before she was dumped at the shelter and definitely after she was there because they had no records.  So I felt that she was adequately protected based on current scientific evidence and studies and told him so. 

 I have learned that the best thing I can do is to not say anything and just say they are "up to date" if asked.  And they are because besides rabies there is no definitive on what being up to date requires.   

  I don't think all vets are assholes 

[Vet]

http://www.lfucg.com/aboutlfucg/animallicensing.asp


  I don't think all vets are assholes 

Thanks dear.   

[~flower~]

1 point to Vet!! 

Washington DC!!   That probably wasn't one you were aware of but you said some places require distemper and one does!!   

http://doh.dc.gov/doh/cwp/view,a,1374,Q,584349,dohNav_GID,1818,.asp


Dog owners must show proof that their pets have had rabies and distemper shots and renew their dog’s license each year.

Now looking at the application you check off one or three years for the rabies, but distemper you put a date down.  It doesn't say anywhere what is considered an uptodate distemper vaccination?   Based on the wording "have the dog vaccinated" I would tell them even if it had been 5 years what the date was 5 years ago, and that my dog had been vaccinated for distemper like it says they have to be.     I would definitely fight them trying to make the dog get another one ever.  Or I would just put a recent date in.