Supporting disabled dogs

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 02:50:31 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]You'd be thinking ramp, probably - but, no: there was a man at the end of the runway. With a stick.[/quote]

A pointy one?

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

james herriot lied — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:04:30 GMT

[quote user="bob lehner"]

Or wheel-chair basket ball for pit bulls ?

[/quote]

Already invented - they call it Murderball.

My favourite programme this year was The Last Leg, with Adam Hills; a kind of Match of the Day for the Parlaympics, only it was about real sport instead of football, and contained useful insights. They came up with wheelchair long jump. You'd be thinking ramp, probably - but, no: there was a man at the end of the runway. With a stick.

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

bob lehner — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 15:35:11 GMT

Or wheel-chair basket ball for pit bulls ?

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

Gerry Henry — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:47:13 GMT

What about para-olympic greyhound racing, good idea ?

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

james herriot lied — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:15:55 GMT

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

I'm the other way around: I'd need solid evidence that there aren't welfare issues before accepting this kind of management.

[/quote]

Yes, but you still haven't said why. What sort of welfare issues are you worrying about?

[/quote]

I think we need to establish, again, that I'm not seeking to restrict the use of canine chairs; I'm not suggesting that their use is unethical or cruel, as that would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. There seems to be a tendency towards reductive logic on the forum these days: that if you're not with me, you're against me; that if you don't agree with my views, then you must oppose them; that if I think you're wrong, then it must be so. My question was more about changing attitudes, and it's simply honest to state my own position. I recognise that within myself there's some conflict, and it may be that my attitude changes with time. I'm not arguing against the use of canine chairs.

But you're asking the questions, so I'll answer them.

With any non-ambulatory patient, there are a host of potential and actual welfare problems. These are broadly grouped into the physical and the mental, although most issues will involve a component of both. Physical problems relate to the effects of recumbency, the difficulty of adapting to prostheses or mobility aids and to the common loss of bowel and/or urinary system function. Mental problems are often due to residual pain syndromes, depression and anxiety, classical stress due to the loss of control over the immediate environment, and in humans the loss of a number of aspects of life which are generally regarded as essential to wellbeing (look at Roper, Logan and Tierney's 12 Activities of Living for expansion), such as loss of reproductive capability. These are the kind of welfare issues that I'd worry about, and it would be a long conversation should I need to go through them in detail.

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]

Again, provided the things are properly constructed, I really can't see any.

[/quote]

And are you able to demonstrate a required standard for their construction? Are there any regulatory or authoratitive bodies who will police their production and distribution? Are there any burdens or standards of proof required that they will contribute to a better quality of life for the patient? There are a number of anecdotes in circulation - and I'll watch Evelyn's vid later when I have time - but as the old chestnut goes, 'the plural of anecdote is not evidence'.

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]

I can see why, if you saw potential welfare problems, you'd want evidence accordingly; but I do not understand what they might be.

[/quote]

I'll be charitable and assume that either you phrased this badly, or I'm a dunce and am not understanding very well - weekend on call and all that. You do, of course, as a veterinary surgeon understand the potential welfare problems of taking a paraplegic patient and placing them in a cart. Please note again, that I'm not suggesting that these problems aren't often overcome, or even that they are idiomatic. But the potential for welfare problems must be obvious.

I'm not looking for an argument on the pros and cons of using a canine chair; I was just wondering, on a fairly draggy weekend on call, whether attitudes are changing and whether the paralympics may have had some bearing on this. Just this week, M and S announced that it would be using a little boy with Down's Syndrome in its clothing ads. I choose not to be cynical about this, but I would wonder if the impetus might have been there had not we hosted the games this year.

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

Lorna McHardy — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:38:46 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

But my question's more about changing of attitudes, rather than the attitudes themselves. Have the paralympics made any difference to the way any of us would now approach such cases? Perhaps more importantly - given our role as facilitators for this kind of management - do we think that owners' attitudes have changed?

[/quote]

No, my attitude hasn't changed, I've always thought the same way about this. You're right about a general tendency towards rejecting the idea, I think, and I don't see much change in that yet, either. Pity :0)

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

When I was in college, admittedly a good few years ago, the small animal medics were almost all of the opinion that chemo was a brutal and unnecessary intervention for dogs with cancer. Lymphomas should be treated with entirely benign preds, and dogs euthanased at a relatively early phase. Even during the course of my education, though, it was obvious that attitudes were changing, and it wasn't long afterwards that a radiotherapy suite was set up. Now, like most schools, mine has a strong oncology department which practices aggressive medicine. I still struggle with some of the more devastating treatments, particularly as rescue therapies, but like almost every vet in the country I have a steady trickle of lymphomas on chemo.

[/quote]

Actually, I think chemo and radiotherapy are far 'worse' things to do to a dog than supplying it with wheels. I have had occasion to consider this at great length and in some detail recently; and I decided that I would not put mine through that kind of treatment. The potential rewards were too uncertain, the potential side effects rather less so, and who are we doing this for, anyway? She died happy, and unlike a human, she didn't know what was happening, or that she might be missing out on something. It does depend on the tumour, of course - hers was a thyroid carcinoma so no chance of a cure anyway, just delay - but even with lymphomas, although I'll do it if that's the owner's decision, I have to say I'm not convinced of the results or entirely comfortable with the ethics of performing these treatments.

For me, it boils down to a deceptively simple question... how much harm are we doing? I can't see any harm in fitting wheels. Chemo and radiotherapy are another matter.

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

Lorna McHardy — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:27:25 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

[quote user="robloxley"]

My experience was that owners were already more than happy to accept 3 legged, one eyed, deaf, rostrally mandibulectomised, blind, bilaterally pinnectomised but happy pets with a good quality of life.

[/quote]

What was its name; Lucky?

[/quote]

LOL

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

Lorna McHardy — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:26:30 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

I'm the other way around: I'd need solid evidence that there aren't welfare issues before accepting this kind of management.

[/quote]

Yes, but you still haven't said why. What sort of welfare issues are you worrying about? Again, provided the things are properly constructed, I really can't see any. It's horrible to put to sleep dogs that are perfectly happy, with no systemic symptoms, simply because their back legs won't lift them.

I can see why, if you saw potential welfare problems, you'd want evidence accordingly; but I do not understand what they might be. And so far, whenever I've asked anyone this question, I've either had no answer at all, or something really vague like "well, it's just not right; dogs should be able to run". So they should... did you watch Evelyn's video? :0)) So what, exactly, is the barrier to acceptance that this is a valid treatment option?

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

james herriot lied — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:02:21 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]

[/quote]

What was its name; Lucky?

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

Rob Loxley — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:18:53 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"] But my question's more about changing of attitudes, rather than the attitudes themselves. Have the paralympics made any difference to the way any of us would now approach such cases? Perhaps more importantly - given our role as facilitators for this kind of management - do we think that owners' attitudes have changed?[/quote]

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

james herriot lied — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:03:52 GMT

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]

- and I'd need solid evidence to convince me there's any fundamental reason to believe otherwise.

[/quote]

I'm the other way around: I'd need solid evidence that there aren't welfare issues before accepting this kind of management. It's not enough to try it and change one's mind when it turns out to be a bad intervention: I'd rather see some EBM - that holy chestnut again - in favour before commiting to it. Unfortunately, much of what is available - particularly to owners - is anecdotal (often highly dubious) youtube-tastic fluff.

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

james herriot lied — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:00:30 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]

As far as the original post goes - if the dog's happy, who cares?

[/quote]

Well, we need to, of course. But my question's more about changing of attitudes, rather than the attitudes themselves. Have the paralympics made any difference to the way any of us would now approach such cases? Perhaps more importantly - given our role as facilitators for this kind of management - do we think that owners' attitudes have changed?

Will we look back and see an increase in dog and/or cat wheelchairs from this point? Life is full of tipping points(see Malcolm Gladwell's book on this), and is this to be one of them?

The point is, we change. Our patients and the available treatments don't necessarily alter, but our approaches do. And are they doing so now?

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

Lorna McHardy — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 09:33:41 GMT

[quote user="Virginia Campbell"]

As far as the original post goes - if the dog's happy, who cares?

[/quote]

In a nutshell. Well, the owner also needs to be happy, of course.

I think the question's being asked the wrong way round, myself... assuming the wheels are well constructed and cause no pain/rubbing/irritation/ongoing orthopaedic problems etc; what, exactly, is the problem? Why would anyone object? I'm neither 'for' nor 'against' myself; I think it's a personal decision on the part of the owner in discussion with the vet dealing with the case - pretty much like any other case - and I'd need solid evidence to convince me there's any fundamental reason to believe otherwise.

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

Virginia Campbell — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 00:34:21 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

But the most contentious of issues is probably still the wheelchair.

Is it still the elephant in the corner of the room? Should we be tackling the debate as a profession, or as individual and autonomous clinicians?

[/quote]

Individually.

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

Virginia Campbell — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 00:32:09 GMT

Evelyn, I've seen plenty of collies on quad bikes, didn't know you could turn them into one!

By the way, I once saw one of your patients when I was locuming on Anglesey a few years ago. I'd been to see a horse and was having a cup of tea afterwards and saw the owner's nice big old lurcher in the kitchen. He'd had a bilateral maxillectomy a goodish while ago. Looked a bit like an elephant seal; happy as a clam. Owners delighted with him. I thought of him when I read in JSAP or somesuch a while ago about vets being more likely to recommend euth in cases where radical surgery would alter the look of the dog's face vs cases needing other types of surgery.

As far as the original post goes - if the dog's happy, who cares?

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:43:48 GMT

This is one of my patients (working sheepdog):

www.youtube.com/watch

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:34:19 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]I am still somewhat baffled at the level of vehement anger[/quote][quote user="robloxley"]why such an issue with a wheeled support device?[/quote]

The dog's fine except that his hind legs don't work properly. So why should caring capable owners not provide him with wheels? I'm surprised that anyone should be just plain "against it".

Depending on the disease of course, sometimes the use of the wheels enables the dog to recover the use of his legs.

Re: Supporting disabled dogs

Rob Loxley — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 22:59:58 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]But the most contentious of issues is probably still the wheelchair[/quote]

I am still somewhat baffled at the level of vehement anger the "anonymous troll" feels? As you say we deal with blind, deaf, ataxic etc. animals and will happily amputate legs and can replace joints and bolt on prosthetic limbs so why such an issue with a wheeled support device? I'll admit I've not had first hand experience of a patient in one, so maybe I'm missing something?