Submission Number: 560891-00473
Received: 9/14/2012 12:40:44 PM
Commenter: David Cohen
Organization: Glenview Animal Hospital
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Initiative: Request for Comments and Announcement of Workshop on Pet Medications Issues, Project No. P121201
Attachments: No Attachments
To the FTC and any other governing body involved in the Workshop on Pet Medications Issues, Project No. P121201
I have been a practicing veterinarian for over 31 years. I have, for well over half of my life, been devoted to the care of animals, and more specifically pets. I have never gotten involved politically in the profession. I feel this best left to those more experienced and intelligent than I. However, I feel now is an important time to voice my opinion.
The impending "legislation" involving animal prescriptions is at the least, disturbing. There is no question that there is redundancy, increased paperwork, and confusion generated by the proposal. However, that is not my major concern!
How can a human pharmacist be expected to counsel pet owners on the effects, side-effects and reactions of drugs in pets? Although doctors are expected and trained to discuss these issues with patients when writing a prescription, questions are often asked of the pharmacist. Human pharmacists and their technicians are not trained to answer these questions regarding pets.
What advantage does this proposal have for the pet owner other then trying to take away fees from the veterinarian and giving them to the pharmacy industry. Part of the income generated by veterinarians is in dispensing medications. If this income is taken away, the veterinarian will surely be forced to charge more for their time (as do the M.D's). This will not save the pet owner money. All that will be accomplished is time wasted by both the veterinarian and pet owner (in obtaining the prescription), and the inability of the human pharmacist to give educated information on dispensed drugs.