A recent flurry of negative vaccine PR in the Sydney papers has this week brought a few concerned pet owners into the clinic. In the past 12 months, media interest in the subject of pet vaccinations and unhelpful sensational headlines seem to be cropping up more frequently.
Australia has, for some time now, been seen as a global laggard when it comes to vaccination policy with an annual re-vaccination policy against core diseases still being the norm for most practices.
Perhaps a desire to move things forward is the motivation for the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) and other industry players to be conspicuously ramping up their efforts to widen the debate on vaccination policy in the country.
In theory this is good, but both here and in the UK there is a real danger that between the media hype and the exclusive language of the specialists, pet owners will be left in a confused mess, unable to make a good decision.
It is into this paralysing void that practices must step, and quickly. We must act as the trusted bridge between the science and the daily reality so that pet owners will continue to trust us and do not disengage completely with the principles of vaccination to which we all owe so much.
The Two Big Issues of Pet Vaccination
In recent years both vaccine technology and research have advanced. We now have broad global consensus from the scientists about the best way forward for pets. Based on these recommendations there are two issues that in the coming decade we must address.
The first is that we are not vaccinating enough pets as kittens and puppies – in the UK figure sits marginally above 50% of the population once the puppy/kitten courses are complete*.
I must confess to not knowing the magic number of animals in a herd that have to be vaccinated to prevent significant and widespread outbreaks of robust viral disease like parvovirus, but given the patchy and persistent outbreaks around the UK and in Sydney’s western suburbs, it is probable that it is not far below where we currently sit. So addressing this low uptake of vaccines must be a priority.
The second issue is that many animals receive more doses of vaccine than is absolutely necessary to provide good protection. Evidence to support this statement is extremely strong. Modern vaccines provide ample protection against diseases like Parvovirus, Distemper, Hepatitis and Feline Leukaemia Virus – following a complete induction course and year one booster. So it seems perfectly reasonable to follow a triennial policy for these vaccines (licensing issues aside).
The side effects of vaccination on the other hand are for the most part mild and transient. With more serious reactions representing a tiny fraction of total doses administered.
The recommendation of the veterinary academic community is therefore that we should vaccinate more puppies and kittens, but look to reduce the number of doses of vaccine given to any one animal during its lifetime. Aim to increase herd immunity while minimising risk. Seems fair enough to me.
Enter Real Life
If the science is clear, the public debate is anything but. And therein lies the danger to the animals.
The media rehash this story on a regular basis. Unfortunately, they present a complex subject in an overly simple, sensationalised way. Stripping away the journalistic chaff leaves the kernel of a dangerous message, “Vaccines kill pets and aren’t necessary. And therefore aren’t vets evil, money-grubbing monsters for administering them to your beloved pets in the first place?”
This message is blatant nonsense designed to sell newspapers. In 12 years and well over 10,000 vaccine doses I have personally administered I can think of five animals that suffered serious side effects. None were lost due to these conditions.
On the other hand I’ve had to treat many, many cases of parvovirus, cat flu and viral leukaemia. On balance, I know which type of disease I’d rather see and treat.
It is almost certain that the reporters or pet zealots who write such sensationalist articles have never seen or had to watch an animal die from parvovirus. I’ve been lucky and won more than my fair share of fights with this disease. But I’ve never enjoyed the experience of watching the dogs suffer in the course of treatment.
Greedy Vets?
The belief that vets vaccinate in order to generate income doesn’t stack up well either. It always costs more to treat a disease than prevent it. A pet vaccine might cost £40-60 (Aus$60-90). The treatment of a parvovirus case could easily cost £1000-3000 (Aus $1500-4500), irrespective of outcome. If vets really wanted to make money then vaccines wouldn’t even exist.
Luckily for pet owners, what vets want to do is protect and care for pets. Money, whatever the public may believe, is almost always a secondary concern.
So Which Way Forward?
The problem we all face is that pet owners read papers and assume that the things written are true.
If you are lucky, this might mean a client comes in and challenges you about an annual policy. In the middle, it might mean pet owners go somewhere they can get triennial vaccines if you don’t do them. And at worst it will mean that some pet owners completely stop vaccinating their pets, leaving the animal wide open to infection and reducing overall herd health.
A Careful Plan
The issue of client trust in vaccines and practices is one that is grows daily. As usual, the reaction of veterinary practices is typically slow. Pet owners however are more empowered by the Internet (both in terms of information and connectedness) than ever before.
In order to maintain credibility vet practices must be seen to lead the way, not be dragged by market forces. Morally, if it is safer to vaccinate animals less then we must strive to do so. But let’s be very careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Yes, we should aim to reduce the number of doses of vaccine given, but this should not be the first step taken. The initial step for practices should be to boost compliance with current recommendations. Frankly, 50% is not good enough. If your systems for recall are poor, then clients will miss vaccines and herd health will drop.
If you don’t have a team who educate puppy and kitten owners to come back for their first year boosters then they will not develop the strong immunity they need to protect them in future.
Once these systems are in place, then, and only then should we move to increase the vaccine interval. To do otherwise risks a drop in herd health, which could have unpleasant consequences for pets and owners.
Dave’s Tuppence–worth
As a GP Vet in practice you are not often the emergency or specialist hero who repairs the compound fracture or untwists the bloated stomach.
You have a far more important role to play. You are the person who has most contact with pet owners each day. As such you are still the first port of call for excellent, independent and trusted pet health care advice.
It is down to practice owners and managers to ensure that this remains the case by updating our message, improving our compliance systems and broadcasting our position as widely and clearly as possible.
Success in doing so means that in the long run pet owners do not lose faith in the superb protection vaccines have provided their pet’s in the past, present and future. And they won’t lose faith in us either.
*MAI consolidated report to January 2010 – figures republished by J Sheridan. http://www.veterinarybusinessbriefing.com
