Stupid Things Your Clients Say

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

NStarz

Ohio State c/o 2016
10+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
3,707
Reaction score
900
So I was at a seminar yesterday (about fears and phobias) and three separate people started their question for the speaker with this:

"I adopted my dog/cat/gerbil/giraffe/hippo from the shelter, and I don't know if he was abused or..."

Seriously?!? Not all shelter animals were abused! Maybe 1 in 10! Is that what the public thinks? And these are people that are going out of their way to seek behavioral help for their pets, nevermind the general public that may not be as willing to spend that kind of time/money.

I wanted to yell at everyone. That frustrates me to no end after spending three years in an animal shelter trying to dispel such myths.

Has anyone else heard something from someone in an animal setting that just drove you insane? (Don't get me started about the "spayeded!")
 
Well depending on the shelter - at least half of the dogs at mine came in as cruelty cases - that may not be such a stretch.
 
Trust TT to find all the old, good threads!

Recent fun ones:

-"How much do y'all charge for that flea shot?"

-Woman calls to ask if we can take her cat, because they don't want it anymore. We are a SA clinic, NOT a shelter, so we refer her to several local shelters and rescue groups.
5 minutes later, she calls back and says "my friend told me to call back and tell you that the cat is a (some rare cat breed no one actually owns)! Will you take him now?"
*headdesk* We are STILL not an animal shelter. And the cat is a DSH with some Siamese in him somewhere!
 
We had a man come in with a nasty cat and he asked if a distemper vaccine will make it more well behaved.

I thought that was funny but apparently that happens a lot.
 
5 minutes later, she calls back and says "my friend told me to call back and tell you that the cat is a (some rare cat breed no one actually owns)! Will you take him now?"
*headdesk* We are STILL not an animal shelter. And the cat is a DSH with some Siamese in him somewhere!

I know I shouldn't be surprised but... Really?? Someone tried this?? 🙄
 
We had a TINY little woman (seriously, like 4'11") come in in her huge SUV with three boys in tow and a massive bull mastiff. She walks right up to the front desk and says to the receptionist, totally serious, "I want you guys to cut off his balls, cuz I'm the only one in my family allowed to have balls". The receptionist sat there shocked for like 5 seconds before she could compose herself enough to properly talk to the woman.
 
I know I shouldn't be surprised but... Really?? Someone tried this?? 🙄

Yeah. Our poor receptionist. I was like....do you want me to talk to them? Because it's been a long day, I'm cranky, and I will TALK to them. 😡 It says "veterinary clinic" on our sign, not "animal shelter"!
 
Well depending on the shelter - at least half of the dogs at mine came in as cruelty cases - that may not be such a stretch.
I'm involved with rescue. A high % of dogs coming in, if not outright abuse, are subjected to neglect, multiple homes, unitentional cruelty through ignorance of owners, etc. We see a great deal of fears and phobias in these dogs as a result.
 
I'm involved with rescue. A high % of dogs coming in, if not outright abuse, are subjected to neglect, multiple homes, unitentional cruelty through ignorance of owners, etc. We see a great deal of fears and phobias in these dogs as a result.

Maybe it's just my personal shelter, or because I'm in the northeast (not sure where else you all are from), but we very rarely get cruelty cases in. Most of our dogs come from "dog didn't match the carpet," "son developed allergies even though he's had the dog for 10 years," "we're moving," etc. We do get a ton of strays. Most of our pits/pit mixes come in as strays but show some sign of neglect (dog fighting wounds, emaciated, what have you).

Even if it is the case, I think that's a very dangerous statement to be perpetuated to the public. Many people will not approach an animal shelter because they perceive something to be wrong with shelter animals. Yes, shelter animals are not perfect, but neither are my animals or my next door neighbor's animals. People perceive shelters as holding "damaged" or "broken" dogs and cats, which is just not the case. A family walking into our shelter can just as easily find a spaniel puppy from which the previous family didn't understand the responsibilty of having a puppy as they will an emaciated boxer.

Dogs and cats are incredibly resilient. Not every dog that has a phobia was abused, and not every abused dog will develop a phobia. The fact that people automatically link shelters to abuse is astonishing considering the progression that shelters have made over time.
 
A very large number of shelter animals (and pet animals too, since many shelter animals were once pet animals) are undersocialized and thus somewhat fearful of certain people and situations. This can lead to people thinking that they were abused when in fact many undersocialized dogs will cower or bark at new people.
 
A very large number of shelter animals (and pet animals too, since many shelter animals were once pet animals) are undersocialized and thus somewhat fearful of certain people and situations. This can lead to people thinking that they were abused when in fact many undersocialized dogs will cower or bark at new people.

Good point!
 
We hear stupid things on a daily bases. Recently a woman came in with a yorkie that was severely overweight- she said it always breathes really heavely and she doesnt know why.

Ive also heard a couple of clients say that thier dog didnt need vaccines because it wasnt a purebred. >.<

Funniest was when one of our most calm- never a bad word- nurses came out of a room, slams the chart down and says "Idiot!" Apparently the guy was asking about neuturing his dog and if the process would turn it into a girl. After the doctor went it for an abnormal amount of time, she came out and pretty much said the client was the stupidest person she'd ever met. Kinda wish I knew what else the guy had said.
 
"How much do you charge for a euthanasia of a 14 y cat? I'm moving and I'm planning on just taking the dog with me"
 
Last week we had someone try to make an appointment for herself to see the vet because she thought she had ringworm. When she was told she couldn't do that we only saw animals she was like, "So I have to go see a people doctor?" Umm well yeh, you are a "people" aren't you?
 
"I read in your window you offer behavior counseling... I'm on anti psychotics and anxiety medication, can I set up an appointment?"

"No sir, we don't see people, this is an animal hospital."

I <3 it. 🙂
 
We had a TINY little woman (seriously, like 4'11") come in in her huge SUV with three boys in tow and a massive bull mastiff. She walks right up to the front desk and says to the receptionist, totally serious, "I want you guys to cut off his balls, cuz I'm the only one in my family allowed to have balls". The receptionist sat there shocked for like 5 seconds before she could compose herself enough to properly talk to the woman.

I think I want to meet this woman.
 
There was this one guy, that bred pugs (to be fair his dogs were all really well behaved and appeared health) and we had people coming in and telling us that he told him that flea meds were bad and rabies shots kill dogs among other gems.

Well anyway, we're pretty sure the guy started coming to our clinic. The first time he came he got the older vet and apparently interrogated her. The second time, he got the younger vet (who was only about 30, but appeared younger) and I was there to watch. The man had brought in a mother and her litter for first shots and such. The whole exam paraphrased was:

Man: So how old are you?
Vet: says age
Man: I've been breeding dogs longer than any of you have been alive. I know more about dogs then you do.
Vet: Well, I went to school for it.
Man: I know a lot about dogs, and I didn't need to go to school.
Vet: (Looking very angry), I know, I always recommend you to people.
(Goes to feel the puppies for abnormalities)
Man: What are you doing?
Vet: explains
Man: Well I already felt them, there's nothing wrong, you don't need to do that
Vet: I do this with everyone
Man: Well you don't need to do that with mine, they just need there shots, there fine, I checked them
Man: Interrogates vet more about education, how long he's been practicing etc... Don't worry, I interogated the other vet like this.

The whole time me and the tech are just looking at each other like "what the heck?" and the vet kept his head down the whole time. He told us after the guy left (and after a string of profanities) that he wanted to tell him not to come back.
 
Doc: So what kind of food are you feeding? *glances at the fattest chihuahua either of us have ever seen*
Owner: ...what do you mean?
Doc: What brand of dog food are you feeding her?
Owner: Oh! No, she eats what I eat. She's never liked dog food.
Doc: ...never any dog food? (the dog is six)
Owner: No, she doesn't like it!

Later, on the phone with same client...
Owner: She's all swollen and bumpy, I think it's a reaction to the vaccine like before.
Doc: Like before?
Owner: Yeah, this always happens. (and yet you never thought to MENTION it?) I can't come back in because I live in [town]. (about 1/2 hour away.) I have some children's Asprin, will that help?
Doc: No, you need an antihistamine, like Benadryl. *explains dosage etc.*

Owner calls back 15 minutes later...
Owner: So I have children's Asprin, how much of that should I give?
Doc: The Asprin will NOT help. *explains Benadryl again*

Another 15 minutes later...
Owner: But I have the Asprin! I would have to drive and get Benadryl! Where do you buy that, anyway?

Please note that this woman also brought in a collar she wanted to try on the dog, but would not put on the dog herself. I learned why... because the dog would bite her! If she tried to snap a collar on it! It snarled! I managed, but I wasn't scared of it - after 6 years of human food, what teeth it had left were probably rounded from the thick tartar coating.
 
My favorite of all time was when an old farmer called asking for a chastity belt for his dog because she was "whoring" around. When recommending he spay her he said he couldn't afford it... but yet he thought he could afford a dog chastity belt (which I imagine would be costly).

My 2nd favorite was when I was discharging a dog after a prostate biopsy and I had to explain to the GROWN man what the prostate's function is. YAAY me. Oh, I was also like only 18 at the time. Talk about blushing.
 
We had a woman come in one Saturday morning freaking out because she had "a bat in her car" and was frantically trying to get some help with it. I think, well a bat can't be much worse than holding on to some of the cats I've dealt with so why not.

I grab a trash bag and some welding gloves (we had them to handle unruly cats) and go out to her car with her. I'm not feeling too nervous because I don't see anything flying around in her car. Since it was the morning I figure it's sleeping and I'll just have to grab it quickly and shove it in the bag.

I open the car door and she tells me "it's in the seat". Ok, I'm not sure how it would get in there but I'll check it out. While I'm looking she's telling me about how this has happened before and that it always starts with the squeaking. The squeaking? Yeah, there's a squeaking coming from the seat. I tried to fight back the laughter. To humor her I looked around some more, even reaching between the fabric and skeleton of the seat.

I asked her, "does it squeak at certain times or is it just constant?" Her reply was great. "Oh no it only squeaks when I'm driving." So finally I tell her I can't find it and that if she takes it to a dealer or auto mechanic they can take the seat apart for her and get it.

I never asked how it would have gotten in the car without her noticing.
 
Someone called and asked me if their kids could give the dog chicken pox. It was an honest, sweet question. I giggled, but she was giggling too because she kind of knew it was ridiculous but wanted confirmation that everything was okay.

We had one lady who would come in with huge scratches and bite marks on her arms from her cat. I never understood how that happened, because the cat was half paralyzed and I could have bathed it with a firehose and it wouldn't have cared. We bathed it, shaved it, poked it, you name it, and this cat never made even a tiny fuss.

One guy asked me how long to give his cat pain meds after her declaw. We had given a few days worth, and I suggested giving what we had dispensed. He goes, "Right, but is she really going to need it?" .... Nooooo, we just ripped her claws off for giggles and that wouldn't hurt at aaaaallllll...
 
One guy asked me how long to give his cat pain meds after her declaw. We had given a few days worth, and I suggested giving what we had dispensed. He goes, "Right, but is she really going to need it?" .... Nooooo, we just ripped her claws off for giggles and that wouldn't hurt at aaaaallllll...
Oh or "Hey I'm gonna need some more meds, they didn't work the first time" "Really? Did you give them all?" "No no, she improved so we stopped giving them. Didn't want to overmedicate her you know" *face palm*

And describing antibiotic resistance, what it is and more importantly how it develops (see above) is like trying to push an elephant through a needle's eye.


Edit: Oh and speaking of bacteria/antibiotics, here's an interesting talk I found yesterday related to how they 'communicate' and draws in antibiotics at the end.
 
Last edited:
This happened just today:

Guy walks in: "Can I get some eye medication for my dog...it think it is that BNP something stuff."

Me: "What is your name I will look up your dog's history."

Guy: "Oh I have never been here before. I used to go to some other clinic I can't remember the name; but they gave it to me."

Me: "Well, if I could get the name of that clinic we might be able to fill it for you if we have your dog's records."

Guy: "Well, can't you just give me the medication?"

Me: "We would have to see your dog for an exam. We are offering new client exams at $28. I can set you up an appointment for today."

Guy: "Seriously!? You have to SEE my DOG!?"

Me: "Yes."

Guy: "Why can't you just give her the meds."

Me: "Because we have no clue what is wrong with your dog's eyes or what medication to prescribe. Some medications can actually worsen conditions."

Guy: "Well, I guess you answered my question." Walks out.
 
And describing antibiotic resistance, what it is and more importantly how it develops (see above) is like trying to push an elephant through a needle's eye.

I don't understand this! My mother explained the concept to me when I was a really young child (she's a nurse,) and I never found it difficult. However, when trying to explain it to my older, very intelligent but computer-not-biological-science-type SO, I spent like ten minutes on it. In the end it came down to me saying, "Just take all of your pills. All of them. Even if you feel better." and leaving it at that.
 
Here is another one I remember:

This is a phone call:

Me: "Thank you for calling xyz animal hospital. This is DVMDream how may I help you."

Lady: "Umm...I think my dog has a skin infection. Her skin is red under her front legs and all the way to her toes."

Me: "Ok. I can set you up an appointment to see the doctor."

Lady: "Well, I was in there a year ago...see my dog she had an urinary tract infection and so I was reading on the internet (*facepalm*) that sometimes the infection can spread to other places. So I was wondering if I could just get that same antibiotic filled again."

Me: Looking at history (it has been almost 2 year ago). "A urinary tract infection from that long ago is highly unlikely to cause a skin infection at this time. Actually, a urinary tract infection will not cause a skin infection on the dog's front legs. We would still need to see your dog for an exam to get some appropriate medication for her skin."

Lady: "Why can't you just give me the old antibiotic. They are all the same."

Me: *facepalm again* "All antibiotics are different. The antibiotic used for your dog's UTI may not work for her skin and vice versa. Also, we need to be sure your dog actually has a skin infection and does not have mange, allergies, etc.

Lady: "So you will not fill my medication again."

Me: "We can set up an exam for you and get your dog some medication for her skin."

Lady: "I guess I will have to."

I hate internet information. I swear some people think random people on google are smarter or more knowledgeable than the vet.
 
Google gives you what you want in a search - that's what makes it so effective. So I bet if you search for "dog front leg rash UTI" ... Well, you'll get some pile of crap post on a forum tying all of those (unrelated) things together.
 
This thread reminds me of my one major weakness - low (getting closer to zero with each passing day around here) tolerance for idiots. I think it's the main reason I have to stay in the Army. Army vets can call a client's boss and let them know that they need to keep an eye on them, or outright ban them from having a pet.
 
I LOVE when people don't give their animals the medication we've dispensed. Inevitably, I'll call for a PR on a dog the day after we spay her, and the owner says "Oh, she's doing fine. We didn't even give her those pain pills because she seems ok."

I'm sorry, but if you'd just had your abdomen opened and your uterus and ovaries cut out, I think you'd want some effing pain medicine. Then I have to go into the whole "yes, well, dogs and cats are very good at hiding pain because blah blah blah". Haven't people realized that animals do, in fact, feel pain?
My other favorite is when animals, especially cats, come in with HORRIBLE teeth problems. You know the kind - you can smell the infection in their mouth from the other side of the room when they hiss at you. And the owner is going "He needs oral surgery? That sounds expensive! He doesn't seem like he's in any pain, can't you just give him some antibiotics?" Yes, your cat's teeth are literally rotting out if it's head and there is pus dripping out of his mouth. Antibiotics sound great. So does oral surgery to remove the infected roots! And pain medicine!
 
We went to a farm a few weeks ago to see a new client. When we got there she explained how her horse had been suffering from 'bilateral disease' for over a year. When both the vet and myself responded immediately with 'bilateral what?' she got offended and weirded out that we had never heard of bilateral disease. It took a solid 30 mins of explaining the definition of bilateral and how it is not the actual name of a disease, simply a description of location. Turns out the horse had significant, bilateral navicular changes. We haven't heard from her in a while so I hope she's using someone/following our treatment plan b/c that was probably the worst navicular case I've ever seen.
 
Last edited:
I got my dog from the shelter and I am quite sure she wasn't abused. I think she belong to some little old lady/man who just showered her with love/attention all day. However, I think that there are a fair number of animals in shelters that while not directly physically abused were probably in situations of neglect or just really poor ownership. Direct physical abuse isn't the only thing that can cause behavioral problems, as I'm sure you've seen in your work with shelter animals 🙂

I've heard all kinds of stupid animal questions, even outside of a veterinary setting. I was hosing a horse off after a ride one day, and (the mother of another student) walks up and asks why I'm hosing the horse down. I responded that since it was really hot, etc, she was all sweaty. The lady looks at me funny and says, "Horses sweat?" No, ma'am, we just got rained on where the girth, bridle and saddlepad meet the skin. -facepalm-
 
A very large number of shelter animals (and pet animals too, since many shelter animals were once pet animals) are undersocialized and thus somewhat fearful of certain people and situations. This can lead to people thinking that they were abused when in fact many undersocialized dogs will cower or bark at new people.

Yes, same as with cats. There's a natural variation in response to socialization too, yet every time a cat is fearful of, for example, a man, people are like "oh the poor cat must have been abused by a man..."

Umm..no...
 
Oh or "Hey I'm gonna need some more meds, they didn't work the first time" "Really? Did you give them all?" "No no, she improved so we stopped giving them. Didn't want to overmedicate her you know" *face palm*

The same dude who didn't want to give his declawed cat the pain meds said to me, "Well, I think I can tell if my cat's in pain!!!" I said, "Well, cats often hide their pain very well, so I suggest giving her the pain meds." He was then incensed that I suggested he didn't know his cat so exceptionally well... and the funny thing was that he had adopted the cat like 3 days earlier. What's so wrong with giving your animal the damned drugs!?!?!

Also, my mother once asked me if horses eat meat. She really knows better, I swear.
 
However, I think that there are a fair number of animals in shelters that while not directly physically abused were probably in situations of neglect or just really poor ownership. Direct physical abuse isn't the only thing that can cause behavioral problems, as I'm sure you've seen in your work with shelter animals 🙂

Of course. However, many non-sheltered animals (those animals in homes and not in a shelter) can be neglected at times. If I have a big test the next day, am I running around in the backyard with my dogs? Probably not. Do I still love them and care for them and would do anything for them? Definitely.

True "neglect" I think (IMO, at least) is relatively rare (ie, leaving the dog outside with no food, water, shelter, medical attention as well as hoarding situations). People don't always know that puppies need to be socialized to the extent that they require, but that doesn't mean they were purposefully neglectful and that the dog is not in a good, loving home.

Example:

My next door neighbors got a puppy (*facepalm*) a few years back. I went to dog sit while the mom was at work. This dog did not understand what a toy was. He gave me the oddest look when I wanted him to fetch. His mom walks him at least 5 times a day, rain or shine. Bad owner? Not necessarily.

Few things are as black and white as we (myself included) often make them out to be. True abuse is rare (thank goodness), at least in my area. Are there questionable practices by owners? Definitely. But that doesn't necessarily equate them with being "neglectful."

Most people love their dogs (and cats!) and would never puprposefully abuse or neglect their animals. At least in my opinion, a dog in a home is usually (barring abuse or true neglect) 100% better off than a dog in any shelter. Just because the home is not perfect does not mean they are neglectful.

I do agree that there are animals in shelters that are undersocialized, reactive, etc. I would venture to say (feel free to disagree!) that the average dog owner does not understand the responsibility with regards to obtaining a dog from a young age. A puppy is a holiday gift or a means to keep a struggling marriage intact or to a means to "teach children responsibility." I think most of the behavior problems we're actually seeing in animal shelters is the result of a (usually) average dog/cat that cannot handle the stresses of the shelter. Who could blame them?

Furthermore, I would say that the shelter (if anything) creates more problems for the average dog than the previous owners did (barring extreme cases, as stated above). A dog that would do just fine in a home cannot held the uprooting and emotional turmoil that the shelter
creates.

So....

That brings me back to the original issue. Are there phobias in shelter dogs? Absolutely. Are there dogs that don't fit that criteria that have phobias? Absolutely (including both of mine). Is it fair to assume that EVERY dog that passes through shelter doors was abused, neglected, or the result of bad ownership? Heck no. At least not in my circumstances. When we adopt a dog out, we thoroughly explain the dog's history (ie, little old lady had Fluffy for 14 years when she passed away, dog found as stray, dog is part of ongoing cruelty investigation). We give the owners as much information as possible to ensure success of that animal in his new home (if any shelter DOES NOT do that, I would consider that as being neglectful). Any known abuse/neglect is disclosed (of course, with strays we have little information).

Of course anything can cause behavioral problems. One of my dogs has an anxiety disorder that we only diagnosed when he was around 5 years old. We obtained him as a puppy, did all of the right things, went to puppy kindergarten, etc. When people came into our home, he would run away and hide (because of his anxiety, presumably). Through the help of a veterinary behaviorist, we have him regulated on medication (woohoo!). Now when people come to the door, he jumps, barks, and carries on like a mad man. This situation did not arise until he was older and was not (at least, we believe) a result of anything we did or did not do. Now we have a behavior problem that needs to be fixed (and in another family, may have resulted in him being released to a shelter) that was not the result of neglect or even undersocialization.

This dog of mine is also undersocialized, because when we went to puppy classes (of which the most important part is socialization with other dogs to learn bite inhibition, proper play technique, etc.), he would hide behind my mom's legs when given the opportunity to interact with other dogs. Now he is completely inappropriate with other dogs (he hits them on the head with his huge paws). Again, undersocialization not due to neglect or abuse but another issue entirely.

Yes, this is a personal anecdote, and I'm sorry for going into crazy tangentials. However, I would like to point out that the number one reason we get animals into our shelter nowadays is because of the economy. Loving families can no longer afford to take care of their loved animals.

From pet-abuse.com:

Myth: Shelter pets are obviously not good pets, or else their original owners wouldn't have gotten rid of them


If the main reason why a pet gets brought to rescue shelters was because they were a *bad* pet, there would be thousands of empty shelters across the country. Animals are brought to shelters for a large variety of reasons, some of which are...
  • Their owners have passed away
  • An irresponsible owner didn't get their pets spayed or neutered so they found themselves with a litter of babies that they could not keep or did not want
  • The animal's owners were abusive to the animal, so the authorities have removed the pet from the harmful environment
  • An animal was purchased or adopted by someone who did not take into consideration all of the responsibility that caring for that pet would entail. A good example of this would be someone who adopts a pet in an apartment complex that does not allow animals and then is subsequently forced to get rid of the pet.
This is the biggest reason I've seen in my experience. There are, of course, other reasons.

Read more: Pet-Abuse.Com - Dispelling the Myths About Shelter Pets http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/animal_adoption/adoption_myths.php#ixzz0qULMzxCa


Sorry, that was really long. I would like everyone else's input on what I've written, as I am always looking to expand my knowledge base and love a friendly debate 🙂

~NStarz
 
Last edited:
I think it really depends on the location of the shelter.

For example, I did a little behavior project at a large shelter (30k+ animals/yr) in San Jose, CA where I looked at risk factors for dogs to become "kennel crazy". One of the things I looked at in surrendered animals was how these animals were housed before they got to the shelter. An overwhelming majority were housed exclusively in the garage or backyard. Most of these animals were indoor dogs as puppies until they started getting hyper/mouthy and then they were booted outdoors forever until the owners got annoyed that the dog jumped and barked every time someone went out to feed him, which is when they were dropped of at the shelter. No vaccinations, ticks everywhere, skin probs, severe flea infestation, filthy, etc... sure they got dry kibble every day, but that's about all they got. You don't see this kind of thing nearly as often in New England. Stupidity is everywhere, so there are plenty of idiotic owners that surrender their animals for a host of reasons but generally dogs are part of the family.

In San Antonio, TX, there are soooo many stray dogs wandering around (I'd never actually seen stray dogs in city streets anywhere else in the US that I've been to except for a couple of escapees). These dogs are mangy, emaciated, super goopy eyed, and they pretty much just run around busy streets in semi-feral packs. I've seen multiple cars purposely try to run them over.

not sure if these fit your criteria for neglect, but there are shelters out there that are filled with dogs from these types of situations and sometimes in these cases, dogs surrendered by loving but stupid owners are a minority.
 
I have noticed that the more "northern" states (esp. New England) have owners that are OVERWHELMINGLY great owners, and no hang ups about having them spayed and neutered. I wish that attitude towards pets would trickle down south a bit more.
 
Last week we had someone try to make an appointment for herself to see the vet because she thought she had ringworm. When she was told she couldn't do that we only saw animals she was like, "So I have to go see a people doctor?" Umm well yeh, you are a "people" aren't you?



My mom (who is a vet) has had people just start to take off their pants while she was in the room and ask her if she thought stuff on their bodies looked like ringworm to her.
 
I LOVE when people don't give their animals the medication we've dispensed. Inevitably, I'll call for a PR on a dog the day after we spay her, and the owner says "Oh, she's doing fine. We didn't even give her those pain pills because she seems ok."

I'm sorry, but if you'd just had your abdomen opened and your uterus and ovaries cut out, I think you'd want some effing pain medicine. Then I have to go into the whole "yes, well, dogs and cats are very good at hiding pain because blah blah blah". Haven't people realized that animals do, in fact, feel pain?
My other favorite is when animals, especially cats, come in with HORRIBLE teeth problems. You know the kind - you can smell the infection in their mouth from the other side of the room when they hiss at you. And the owner is going "He needs oral surgery? That sounds expensive! He doesn't seem like he's in any pain, can't you just give him some antibiotics?" Yes, your cat's teeth are literally rotting out if it's head and there is pus dripping out of his mouth. Antibiotics sound great. So does oral surgery to remove the infected roots! And pain medicine!


I went to a lecture last night given by veterinary dermatologist specialist and she was talking about the different antibiotics and such that are used to treat skin problems. Anyway, she started talking about the big issue with client compliance and she referenced two studies done in human medicine (and compliance in veterinary medicine depends on the humans) on compliance. I wish I had the link to the article on me but I can't find it. I will come back and post it later once I find it. But basically, I remember the summary of the one of the studies and here's what it was:

They had like 101 smokers (who couldn't breathe) as their subjects and they told them they were testing this new drug that would help them breathe. They were told to take two puffs from the drug dispenser 3 times a day. They were also told that they needed to come back (I can't remember exactly how often) periodically so they could monitor the volume of the drug left in the dispenser to make sure they were taking it. What they didn't know was that there was also a device on the dispenser that measured how many and WHEN puffs/squirts or whatever were dispensed. It turned out that 30% of the people would dispense over a 100 doses (or puffs or whatever) of the medicine in one sitting, usually right before their check-up appointment time.

So here you have people that CAN'T BREATHE and they/re given a drug that might help and they still can't manage to take the drug as instructed. Not only that, but they knew they weren't doing it and they didn't want to get caught so they purposely wasted a bunch of the drug just to make it look like they were using it properly.


Now since I don't have the study in front of me, I'm running off memory here so some of those details may not be exactly right but still that describes the jist of it.....Compliance is a big issue.
 
Alright, well, I'm not going to go into too much detail since I don't want to get too specific since these posts show up on google all the time...

but try saying this sentence really fast and consider what else the last word could sound like: "Well, your dog may be scooting on the ground because of his anal sacs...."

then imagine spending five minutes listening to a client try and explain how his other dog is too short for that - all while you stare at him blankly trying to figure out what in the world he is talking about. Then it hits you...."OHHHHHH. 😱"

*cue flushed face and a hurried explanation of the fxn of anal GLANDS which empty into anal SACS....*
 
I went to a lecture last night given by veterinary dermatologist specialist and she was talking about the different antibiotics and such that are used to treat skin problems. Anyway, she started talking about the big issue with client compliance and she referenced two studies done in human medicine (and compliance in veterinary medicine depends on the humans) on compliance. I wish I had the link to the article on me but I can't find it. I will come back and post it later once I find it. But basically, I remember the summary of the one of the studies and here's what it was:

They had like 101 smokers (who couldn't breathe) as their subjects and they told them they were testing this new drug that would help them breathe. They were told to take two puffs from the drug dispenser 3 times a day. They were also told that they needed to come back (I can't remember exactly how often) periodically so they could monitor the volume of the drug left in the dispenser to make sure they were taking it. What they didn't know was that there was also a device on the dispenser that measured how many and WHEN puffs/squirts or whatever were dispensed. It turned out that 30% of the people would dispense over a 100 doses (or puffs or whatever) of the medicine in one sitting, usually right before their check-up appointment time.

So here you have people that CAN'T BREATHE and they/re given a drug that might help and they still can't manage to take the drug as instructed. Not only that, but they knew they weren't doing it and they didn't want to get caught so they purposely wasted a bunch of the drug just to make it look like they were using it properly.


Now since I don't have the study in front of me, I'm running off memory here so some of those details may not be exactly right but still that describes the jist of it.....Compliance is a big issue.

I can think of a pretty good alternate scenario to explain this behavior that has nothing to do with people unable to take instructions.

Most of these studies are "paid", people need the money but want nothing to do with dangerous experimental drugs. Don't want to get kicked out so you make sure it "appears" you are complying. I would guess this is more an indictment of medical studies than of patient compliance (but I certainly agree humans are not very good at following instructions).

Now, I am not saying I was an unscrupulous undergrad who tried to "scam" their way out of a few bucks from a study, but I do know for a fact it occurs!
 
Last edited:
Watch Animal Cops Philadelphia if you want to see some northeastern pet owners. That's where I work! Embedded collars, animals lit on fire, dogs thrown out of cars, cats duct taped head to toe... welcome to the city of Philadelphia.

Like I said, whether an animal was abused depends on the shelter it's coming from. If it's coming from a shelter that does cruelty work, and it came from a cruelty intake (which is right on the cage card) then you can bet it was abused.
 
Most of these studies are "paid", people need the money but want nothing to do with dangerous experimental drugs. Don't want to get kicked out so you make sure it "appears" you are complying. I would guess this is more an indictment of medical studies than of patient compliance (but I certainly agree humans are very good at following instructions).

Do you mean are not very good at following instructions?

This looks like an abstract mentioning the study that Risika is talking about. Here is an older one discussing the same study. It looks like the "dumpers" weren't informed that the use was being measured at all, though another group who was informed that the use was being monitored did not exhibit this behavior. All participants were enrolled in a very long term COPD study.

Being skeptical is great, but being that skeptical without looking for more information first just makes you look like you ASSume too much. 😉
 
Do you mean are not very good at following instructions?

This looks like an abstract mentioning the study that Risika is talking about. Here is an older one discussing the same study. It looks like the "dumpers" weren't informed that the use was being measured at all, though another group who was informed that the use was being monitored did not exhibit this behavior. All participants were enrolled in a very long term COPD study.

Being skeptical is great, but being that skeptical without looking for more information first just makes you look like you ASSume too much. 😉

Sorry for typo. I have corrected that.

Read your comments and scanned the study and still think my comments apply. Not surprising that those who are being monitored are less inclined to "cheat". Like I said, I have seen the behavior. It is a troubling aspect that is hard to account for, and in my opinion, the evidence here supports it.
 
Sorry for typo. I have corrected that.

Read your comments and scanned the study and still think my comments apply. Not surprising that those who are being monitored are less inclined to "cheat". Like I said, I have seen the behavior. It is a troubling aspect that is hard to account for, and in my opinion, the evidence here supports it.

But those studies weren't paid and they weren't using any scary experimental drugs, so your comments are actually completely, 100% irrelevant. 😕

The natural conclusion from the studies is that lack of patient compliance is an issue that complicates this kind of treatment. These people needed this treatment and still didn't comply for whatever reason (forgetfulness, didn't like some side effect but didn't want to mention it to the doctor, laziness, felt "fine" so they didn't feel that they needed it, whatever...).
 
Last edited:
Not a client, but a gem from a maintenance type worker at my new job:
Me, holding up a complex apparatus of tubing and jug: "Any idea what this is used for?"
Guy: "I think they use it to massage mares."
Me: "Errrrr, huh?"
Guy: "You know, to wash out their lady bits."
Me: 😕"..." :idea: "Oh, LAVAGE!"
 
But those studies weren't paid and they weren't using any scary experimental drugs, so your comments are actually completely, 100% irrelevant. 😕

The natural conclusion from the studies is that lack of patient compliance is an issue that complicates this kind of treatment. These people needed this treatment and still didn't comply for whatever reason (forgetfulness, didn't like some side effect but didn't want to mention it to the doctor, laziness, felt "fine" so they didn't feel that they needed it, whatever...).

Warning: completely derailed thread posting appears. Feel free to avoid if you are not Nyanko or SOV.

I will take your word that they weren't paid, although from the abstracts it is not clear.

Still, you too are missing the point. Their conclusion was "Deception among noncompliers occurs frequently in
clinical trials, is often not revealed by the usual methods of monitoring".

The authors warn of drawing conclusions from studies because participants "cheat" and are "deceptive". It was this deception that caught my eye and I came up with a possible explanation rather than just patients don't use their meds.

How this translates into a clinical environment is still up for debate!

For this particular study "are nicotine addicted smokers a good model for patient compliance"? I still don't think so. And I don't think the authors intended that to be the case.

For other studies "are paid subjects a good model" ? Again I don't think so.

I feel your attack is kind of misguided and off the point. I never claimed to know this study but brought up a point I felt was worth sharing. It is still a good point to think about.

I am happy you posted the link because I completely agree with the AUTHOR's conclusion about non-compliance in studies, and am unconvinced of any generalization about how that that translates to the degree of compliance of every-day patients generally with their meds.

Sometimes things just don't add up, and you don't always need the details (and usually you can't always know the details). That is the difference between life and a laboratory (cue violin music in background for the unwanted preachy life lesson 😛)
 
I can think of a pretty good alternate scenario to explain this behavior that has nothing to do with people unable to take instructions.

Most of these studies are "paid", people need the money but want nothing to do with dangerous experimental drugs. Don't want to get kicked out so you make sure it "appears" you are complying. I would guess this is more an indictment of medical studies than of patient compliance (but I certainly agree humans are not very good at following instructions).

Now, I am not saying I was an unscrupulous undergrad who tried to "scam" their way out of a few bucks from a study, but I do know for a fact it occurs!

I do agree with you that many people will participate in studies just to get the money. Whether or not that [articular study was a good indicator, I think we can all agree there is a big issue with compliance in both human and veterinary medicine. With that being said, I didn't mean to start an 'argument' by posting about that study. I'm sorry, especially if some of my 'summary' was not the most accurate description.
 
Warning: completely derailed thread posting appears. Feel free to avoid if you are not Nyanko or SOV.

I will take your word that they weren't paid, although from the abstracts it is not clear.

I don't think it's completely derailed, we're still on some level discussing client mistakes and such.

It doesn't mention financial compensation on clinicaltrials.gov or any of the other sites that talk about the Lung Health Study (a very, very large and well known study that yielded a high number of publications and a lot of data).

Still, you too are missing the point. Their conclusion was "Deception among noncompliers occurs frequently in
clinical trials, is often not revealed by the usual methods of monitoring".

I tend to largely ignore the interpretation sections of a lot of articles and draw my own conclusions from the results, methods and cross-checking information presented in the intro/review, so I do confess to not really knowing what the author's conclusion was. I don't believe in being spoon-fed how I should feel about a particular set of results. Often, I feel that researchers tend to overextend and overexaggerate their results - but that's how you get noticed in science, unfortunately.

How this translates into a clinical environment is still up for debate!

For this particular study "are nicotine addicted smokers a good model for patient compliance"? I still don't think so. And I don't think the authors intended that to be the case.

For other studies "are paid subjects a good model" ? Again I don't think so.

Perhaps there is a confirmation bias at play here, but I still say that if a treatment is targeted at nicotine addicted smokers, then nicotine addicted smokers are a great model of compliance for said treatment whether they're on a study or not. Perhaps you're right and I'm overreaching in saying that it's necessarily a model for general patient compliance but experience tells me it's on the right track, hence the possible bias.

Sometimes things just don't add up, and you don't always need the details (and usually you can't always know the details). That is the difference between life and a laboratory (cue violin music in background for the unwanted preachy life lesson 😛)

I'd argue that a person who didn't have a desire to dig deeper and try to figure out the details shouldn't be practicing any sort of medicine, honestly.
 
I worked for awhile at a small mixed practice clinic in po-dunk/hicksville 🙂 this toothless crabby old farmer comes in with his dog on a leash in one hand and a goat in a headlock on his other arm. He explains to my vet that he thinks his goat is pregnant and he wants it aborted because it's unnatural. When the vet asked for clarification the man said--the dog had sex with her and now she's pregnant. The vet says: it's highly unlikely, probably impossible, that a baby would develop. The man says, well, the dog mounted her and now she looks fatter and she acts hungry and I know what pregnant looks like. The man then goes on to say, I paid all that money to have him fixed and it's still a problem. The vet responds oh, he's neutered? Then he definitely can't get anyone pregnant. The man then said well, then how come my cat keeps having babies?
 
Top