Vets Following The 3 Yearly Vacc Program

[Lily123]

Just as the title says. My vet wasn't interested in discussing it - said they follow the yearly vaccination program. Also, another issue that kind of fits in - if we do agility or obedience, how do I get on if my dog only gets vaccinated every three years? (when they require an annual C5 as minimum).

[Erny]

That'd make me switch Vets. Or if that were not possible, I just wouldn't return for vaccinations every 12 months. Your Vet can't make you agree to your dog receiving annual vaccinations - the choice is yours. It isn't about your Vet having to discuss it with you, or you changing your Vet's mind either. Although it is nice when they can and will discuss. Whether you might agree with them or not, it would at least show that they've thought it through, know about the research, and have considered before making their minds up.

As for Clubs and their policies? That's entirely their prerogative and whilst I don't agree with it if they insist, it is a matter of respecting it. Your choice is of course whether you join up with them or not.

Pro-K9 asks for C3 cover and will accept Titre Tests in lieu.

It is about time though that Vets; drug manufacturers; and for that matter, some govt legislations, caught up to speed and actually changed their protocols to suit latest ideas/research.

But when something is financially lucrative, it is very difficult to get people to change their minds about things. And IMO, as far as Vets, drug companies and year-in/year-out vaccinations go, it is about the money and most of everything else is just an excuse.

I have travelled 3 hours (one direction) to go to a Vet who wasn't into pushing drugs down my dog's throat or shoving them under his skin unnecessarily. I'd love it if just one of the Vet's in my area would change their ideals .... like Stormie's has.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Erny

[malsrock]

That'd make me switch Vets. Or if that were not possible, I just wouldn't return for vaccinations every 12 months. Your Vet can't make you agree to your dog receiving annual vaccinations - the choice is yours. It isn't about your Vet having to discuss it with you, or you changing your Vet's mind either. Although it is nice when they can and will discuss. Whether you might agree with them or not, it would at least show that they've thought it through, know about the research, and have considered before making their minds up.

As for Clubs and their policies? That's entirely their prerogative and whilst I don't agree with it if they insist, it is a matter of respecting it. Your choice is of course whether you join up with them or not.

Pro-K9 asks for C3 cover and will accept Titre Tests in lieu.

It is about time though that Vets; drug manufacturers; and for that matter, some govt legislations, caught up to speed and actually changed their protocols to suit latest ideas/research.

But when something is financially lucrative, it is very difficult to get people to change their minds about things. And IMO, as far as Vets, drug companies and year-in/year-out vaccinations go, it is about the money and most of everything else is just an excuse.

I have travelled 3 hours (one direction) to go to a Vet who wasn't into pushing drugs down my dog's throat or shoving them under his skin unnecessarily. I'd love it if just one of the Vet's in my area would change their ideals .... like Stormie's has.

Our vet told us that they were aware of the 3 year protocol on the basis of the latest research, BUT to do so is off label and contrary to the vaccine companies guidelines and should a dog contract a disease that the vaccination covers, they could be held liable for malpractice???

Fiona

[Tilly]

Check out the Australian Veterinary Association website - in June 2009 the AVA adopted a new policy on vaccination of dogs and cats to reflect the latest scientific literature recommending less frequent vaccination for adult cats and dogs ...

Linky

They also provide a list of vets who follow their guidelines/protocols ...

[Crisovar]

Our vet told us that they were aware of the 3 year protocol on the basis of the latest research, BUT to do so is off label and contrary to the vaccine companies guidelines and should a dog contract a disease that the vaccination covers, they could be held liable for malpractice???

Fiona

What did your Vet have to say about the Vaccines that are available that are registered for 3yr use???

[Erny]

Our vet told us that they were aware of the 3 year protocol on the basis of the latest research, BUT to do so is off label and contrary to the vaccine companies guidelines and should a dog contract a disease that the vaccination covers, they could be held liable for malpractice???

Fiona

Whether that's right or not .... I'll leave to those who 'know'. BUT - I cannot see how, if a dog's owner refuses to allow a vet to administer a vaccine, the Vet could be liable.

Apart from that - it sounds to me that what your Vet is telling you is that they might agree that over-vaccination is occurring but they can't condone anything less than annual vaccination. Not because of the dog's well-being as the priority, but because of the potential law-suit.

[Erny]

Check out the Australian Veterinary Association website - in June 2009 the AVA adopted a new policy on vaccination of dogs and cats to reflect the latest scientific literature recommending less frequent vaccination for adult cats and dogs ...

Linky

They also provide a list of vets who follow their guidelines/protocols ...

Also check out :

APVMA Position Statement

So even the Government seem to support the fact that we are over-vaccinating our pets.

But isn't it the Government who have made it legislation that dogs/cats must be C5 (minimum) vaccinated within the preceding 12 months to be able to enter kennels?

I would say something's wrong with that picture.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Erny

[malsrock]

Our vet told us that they were aware of the 3 year protocol on the basis of the latest research, BUT to do so is off label and contrary to the vaccine companies guidelines and should a dog contract a disease that the vaccination covers, they could be held liable for malpractice???

Fiona

What did your Vet have to say about the Vaccines that are available that are registered for 3yr use???

I didn't ask about the registered 3 yearly vaccine, but I had the impression that the 3 yearly vaccine was a "hot shot" or high dose vaccine which I thought defeated the purpose a bit. The 3 year protocol from my understanding was to use the normal yearly vaccination strength at 3 year intervals???.

Fiona

[malsrock]

Our vet told us that they were aware of the 3 year protocol on the basis of the latest research, BUT to do so is off label and contrary to the vaccine companies guidelines and should a dog contract a disease that the vaccination covers, they could be held liable for malpractice???

Fiona

Whether that's right or not .... I'll leave to those who 'know'. BUT - I cannot see how, if a dog's owner refuses to allow a vet to administer a vaccine, the Vet could be liable.

Apart from that - it sounds to me that what your Vet is telling you is that they might agree that over-vaccination is occurring but they can't condone anything less than annual vaccination. Not because of the dog's well-being as the priority, but because of the potential law-suit.

I did have the impression that "cover thy backside" was their priority Erny

[Staranais]

Yeah, there are a couple of issues, I think - at least, if your laws are the same as ours. I'd guess the laws would be similar, although I don't really know.

1. A vet is not supposed to use a drug off label without a very good reason. "Off label" means giving it at a different dose rate, to a different species, via a different route, etc, than recommended on the packet - so deliberately using a vaccine less frequently than recommended is off label use. If you use a drug off label and the animal gets sick & the owner makes a formal complaint, you can get dragged in front of the vet council to defend yourself & try to prove that what you did was reasonable (apparently this is really not fun, even if you have a good case for doing what you did).

2. You're also not supposed to use one drug off label to do something, if there's another drug that is actually licensed to do the job. So, now that we have the option of buying a 3 year licensed one, you're not supposed to use the 1 year one off label every 3 years.

These are the law, vets didn't make them up. Some vets don't care - there are lots of little ways in which these laws are broken all the time by many vets. But in many ways I think the best option is to write to the vaccine company & try to get them to relabel the vaccines for being good for at least 3 years. I have no idea why they don't, the research is there - I can only presume it's too much bother & expense to do, or perhaps it is that they would end up selling less vaccine.

Like Erny says, a vet can't make you vaccinate your dog annually. But they're not necessarily going to recommend using the drug off label (less frequently than the label orders) either, for the reasons stated above.

[Erny]

I agree that Vets are in a bit of a bind - trying to abide the law -vs- animal welfare. Hey - I know what that's like. Been there, done that. BUT ..... do you think this means that if I decide to take my boy in for a 1 year vaccination the Vets would now have the right (and potentially - legally speaking) to say "no" we won't vaccinate? I don't. If that were the case, no-one would vaccinate rescues where vaccination history was unknown.

I'm not making sense because I'm trying to straighten out my tax records/papers/books for my income tax return and I've spent since first thing this morning tracking down receipts etc. My brain is feeling a bit frazzled.

I hate record keeping and it is not what I am best at.

[Staranais]

I agree that Vets are in a bit of a bind - trying to abide the law -vs- animal welfare. Hey - I know what that's like. Been there, done that. BUT ..... do you think this means that if I decide to take my boy in for a 1 year vaccination the Vets would now have the right (and potentially - legally speaking) to say "no" we won't vaccinate? I don't. If that were the case, no-one would vaccinate rescues where vaccination history was unknown.

If he's been given the 3 year vaccine, I think a vet would generally have not only the right but also an obligation not to give it more often than every 3 years, since to give it every year is more often than stated on the label. If he's been given the one year licensed vaccine, the vet can always refuse to give him another shot, but if he then caught parvo I'm pretty sure you could complain to the vet council about the off label use of the one year licensed vaccine & the vet would then have to defend his choice to use the drug off label. That's if it works like Aussie like it does here, anyway.

In the case of a rescue, no one knows what it has had in the past, so I can understand the decision to automatically boost if the rescue can't afford (or can't afford to wait for the result) of a titre test.

Is that what you're asking?

[malsrock]

I agree that Vets are in a bit of a bind - trying to abide the law -vs- animal welfare. Hey - I know what that's like. Been there, done that. BUT ..... do you think this means that if I decide to take my boy in for a 1 year vaccination the Vets would now have the right (and potentially - legally speaking) to say "no" we won't vaccinate? I don't. If that were the case, no-one would vaccinate rescues where vaccination history was unknown.

If he's been given the 3 year vaccine, I think a vet would generally have not only the right but also an obligation not to give it more often than every 3 years, since to give it every year is more often than stated on the label. If he's been given the one year licensed vaccine, the vet can always refuse to give him another shot, but if he then caught parvo I'm pretty sure you could complain to the vet council about the off label use of the one year licensed vaccine & the vet would then have to defend his choice to use the drug off label. That's if it works like Aussie like it does here, anyway.

In the case of a rescue, no one knows what it has had in the past, so I can understand the decision to automatically boost if the rescue can't afford (or can't afford to wait for the result) of a titre test.

Is that what you're asking?

Is the 3 year vaccine an anuual vaccine re-labeled or a higher strength vaccine??? I don't like the idea of giving a big hit of vaccine to last 3 years if it equals the same amount of vaccine exposure as 3 annual shots.

Fiona

Edited September 13, 2010 by malsrock

[Erny]

Is the 3 year vaccine an anuual vaccine re-labeled or a higher strength vaccine??? I don't like the idea of giving a big hit of vaccine to last 3 years if it equals the same amount of vaccine exposure as 3 annual shots.

To my knowledge it is a higher strength vaccine. I don't like nor agree with it. But Staranais and others would know more of it than I.

[stormie]

Is the 3 year vaccine an anuual vaccine re-labeled or a higher strength vaccine??? I don't like the idea of giving a big hit of vaccine to last 3 years if it equals the same amount of vaccine exposure as 3 annual shots.

To my knowledge it is a higher strength vaccine. I don't like nor agree with it. But Staranais and others would know more of it than I.

The registered 3yearly contains a newer strain of parvo. Yes, there are a higher amount of virus particles in the triennial but after speaking with a good vet friend who now works closely with the company who makes the 3 yearly, we were assured that the extra virus particles aren't a significant amount and is not the equivalent of giving 3 annual vaccines.

We have made the switch from using the annual vaccines triennially, to using the registered vaccine. Obviously those who still wish to use the annual are more than welcome to, but by using the registered one, we're covered and so are the clients for things like boarding and training schools. Everyone's happy

[Lily123]

Thanks for the link Tilly - I couldn't see the listing for vets though. I've printed out the info.

Crisovar - said they were "thinking about them". However I'd prefer the yearly vaccine given every three years.

Fiona - that was my understanding too.

Staranais - thanks for your input.

Erny - it would be nice if kennels/obedience/agility clubs would come in line with current recommendations (not to mention vets). Yes, I can respect their policy but then we miss out on these activities. I've already decided not to re-vaccinate my older dog (no obedience or agility so no worries there) and cats (indoor cats only). Good luck with the tax stuff - I procrastinated for so long and then when I finally sorted the receipts etc I felt sooo much better (but procrastination is my middle name, maybe my first!!).

I think I might do some ringing around the area. Of course that still leaves the obedience/agility problem. It's not a worry now, he's only a pup so I guess I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

[malsrock]

Is the 3 year vaccine an anuual vaccine re-labeled or a higher strength vaccine??? I don't like the idea of giving a big hit of vaccine to last 3 years if it equals the same amount of vaccine exposure as 3 annual shots.

To my knowledge it is a higher strength vaccine. I don't like nor agree with it. But Staranais and others would know more of it than I.

The registered 3yearly contains a newer strain of parvo. Yes, there are a higher amount of virus particles in the triennial but after speaking with a good vet friend who now works closely with the company who makes the 3 yearly, we were assured that the extra virus particles aren't a significant amount and is not the equivalent of giving 3 annual vaccines.

We have made the switch from using the annual vaccines triennially, to using the registered vaccine. Obviously those who still wish to use the annual are more than welcome to, but by using the registered one, we're covered and so are the clients for things like boarding and training schools. Everyone's happy

I wonder why there are more virus particles in the registered triennial vaccine for what reason...........they are not confident that an annual vaccine will be effective for 3 years???. justification to increase the price???, or perhaps was necessary for a triennial vaccine to be officially registered???.

Something there with the triennial doesn't quite fit with me

Fiona

[Erny]

If he's been given the 3 year vaccine, I think a vet would generally have not only the right but also an obligation not to give it more often than every 3 years, since to give it every year is more often than stated on the label. If he's been given the one year licensed vaccine, the vet can always refuse to give him another shot, but if he then caught parvo I'm pretty sure you could complain to the vet council about the off label use of the one year licensed vaccine & the vet would then have to defend his choice to use the drug off label. That's if it works like Aussie like it does here, anyway.

In the case of a rescue, no one knows what it has had in the past, so I can understand the decision to automatically boost if the rescue can't afford (or can't afford to wait for the result) of a titre test.

Is that what you're asking?

I don't think your post targets my point (not your fault ...... remember, I have been "accountancied" today, LOL).

I agree that a Vet would have the right and I expect the obligation to not give the "registered 3-year vaccine" any more than 3 years. Just as I'd expect the Vet to have the right and obligation to not give the registered annual vaccine any more than once in a year. I get that and would expect nothing less (and would be horrified if the Vet over-vaccinated beyond manufacturer's label).

What if I refused to allow my Vet to give annual boosters to my dog (who was previously vaccinated with the "12 month" vaccine) and a couple of years went by. I then went in and asked my Vet to give my dog a 12 month booster. From what you've said in an earlier post, are you saying that because the manufacturer's label says "annually" that the Vet could somehow carry the risk of a liable suit should something go wrong, because the Vet was not vaccinating the dog in accordance with the label? IE Gave the booster on the 3rd (or whatever) year rather than the following consecutive year.

I just can't see how this could be the case if it was the owner who had refused the vaccine on an annual basis.

Also, what law suit if the Vet refused to vaccinate (booster) the dog at the client's request?

Edited September 13, 2010 by Erny

[OSoSwift]

Erny I don't think that would be a problem as the vet would see the dog as unprotected, then vaccinate him with a 12 monthly vaccine and then consider him up to date- for the next 12 months anyway.

If they sign off on a 12 month vacc for 3 years and the dog gets parvo, then they could get in the poo as they have signed off on something that is "off label" use.

I do not think they would refuse you a 12 months vacc purely because you haven't had it given for the previous 2 years

[malsrock]

If he's been given the 3 year vaccine, I think a vet would generally have not only the right but also an obligation not to give it more often than every 3 years, since to give it every year is more often than stated on the label. If he's been given the one year licensed vaccine, the vet can always refuse to give him another shot, but if he then caught parvo I'm pretty sure you could complain to the vet council about the off label use of the one year licensed vaccine & the vet would then have to defend his choice to use the drug off label. That's if it works like Aussie like it does here, anyway.

In the case of a rescue, no one knows what it has had in the past, so I can understand the decision to automatically boost if the rescue can't afford (or can't afford to wait for the result) of a titre test.

Is that what you're asking?

I don't think your post targets my point (not your fault ...... remember, I have been "accountancied" today, LOL).

I agree that a Vet would have the right and I expect the obligation to not give the "registered 3-year vaccine" any more than 3 years. Just as I'd expect the Vet to have the right and obligation to not give the registered annual vaccine any more than once in a year. I get that and would expect nothing less (and would be horrified if the Vet over-vaccinated beyond manufacturer's label).

What if I refused to allow my Vet to give annual boosters to my dog (who was previously vaccinated with the "12 month" vaccine) and a couple of years went by. I then went in and asked my Vet to give my dog a 12 month booster. From what you've said in an earlier post, are you saying that because the manufacturer's label says "annually" that the Vet could somehow carry the risk of a liable suit should something go wrong, because the Vet was not vaccinating the dog in accordance with the label? IE Gave the booster on the 3rd (or whatever) year rather than the following consecutive year.

I just can't see how this could be the case if it was the owner who had refused the vaccine on an annual basis.

Also, what law suit if the Vet refused to vaccinate (booster) the dog at the client's request?

Our vaccination cards have the vaccination date and the next one due 12 months later maked down by the vet. If you didn't take the dog back for 3 years and missed two annuals, the owner is who ignored the vets advice. If the vet did a 12 month vaccination off label and marked in the card that the next one due was 3 years later and the dog got sick in the meantime, then the vet could be liable in that case.

What annoys me with this situation trying to have an intelligent discussion with the vet about the vaccination schedule, I am not asking them to read to me what's written on the vaccination packet, I am asking them for their opinion on the latest vaccination protocol in the best interests of my dog's health

Fiona :p

Edited September 13, 2010 by malsrock