I think this bill sets a poor precedent for the safety of the pet consumer. For instance, while in a Walmart recently I heard the pharmacist state that ibuprofen is exactly the same as the NSAID Rimadyl (carprofen). This is patently untrue and chronic use of ibuprofen can cause serious GI damage and bleeding, while carprofen is much better tolerated and is more potent for pain. I also had a pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription for a drug for an owners pet because it contained Tylenol, and the pharmacist stated that "dogs cannot metabolize tylenol." Again, not true. Perhaps they were thinking of cats. The point being that human pharmacists are not trained to be making these type of decisions on pets health. I also don't think that if they take a weekend course on pet health (not even offered at this time) that this hardly makes up for the years of training that a veterinarian has. It becomes even more critical with the treatment of the myriad of exotic pets being presented that often require extra-label use (signed off by the client), or drugs being formulated to exact specifications. Secondly, it is a patent waste of time and effort to produce prescriptions to hand clients that intend to get their drugs on site. I do think clients have a right to be informed, but clients are already aware that they can get their meds elsewhere (online for example), so this just seems to be a strongarm attempt by the large drug outlets (Walmart, Walgreens, etc. to try to force the action. I have never been and will never be, in favor of legislation for something that is common knowledge already. I sincerely worry about the complications that will arise from untrained (non-veterinary) personel advising and distributing medications for our pets.
Request for Comments and Announcement of Workshop on Pet Medications Issues, Project No. P121201 #560891-00174
Sheep Draw Veterinary Hospital
Request for Comments and Announcement of Workshop on Pet Medications Issues, Project No. P121201