23 Nov Risk management: ticks, cats Lyme disease, and sketchy vets
“Pookie,” out on a tick-gathering mission. (Not exactly as illustrated.)
A discerning Toronto friend, a woman with exceptional research skills, recently discovered a tick on her pet cat, “Pookie*.” After taking Pookie to a vet, she posted the following PSA on Facebook.
Make sure to check your pets—both cats and dogs—for ticks! [Pookie] uses monthly, topical anti-flea medication, but it does not have any effect on other parasites. In Ontario, the tick population is, apparently, especially high this year and [Pookie] had one on her neck. I’m hoping her blood tests come back clean and that she’s happy and healthy now that it’s been removed.
So she found a tick on her cat and took it to a vet who removed the tick and subjected Pookie (and my friend’s pocketbook) to a battery of blood tests. Total bill: $380.
This got me thinking about my childhood summers on Cape Cod, 150 years ago, when tick-finding was a weekly occurrence, veterinary intervention unheard of. We simply picked off the ticks—using something hot, like a cigarette, to be sure the tick released its mandibles, lest they break off and remain behind to infect the site of the bite.
Of course, this protocol predated the 1975 discovery of Lyme disease, an unpleasant infection that can linger for months if not treated promptly. But is it really necessary to rush off to the vet, Visa card in hand, at the first sighting of a tick on a cat? Google “Lyme disease and cats,” and the top two hits provide strikingly different advice.
The first, from PetMD, a website whose veterinarian-authors profit from treating household pets, acknowledges that Lyme disease is “uncommon in cats,” but adds that it is, “one of the most common tick-transmitted diseases in the world.” A lurid litany of potential symptoms follows.
The second hit, from the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, whose academic authors do not profit from treating household pets, is headed, “Lyme Disease: A Potential, But Unlikely, Problem for Cats.” It goes on to say:
Lyme disease is probably not a concern for cat owners. Although the bacteria that cause Lyme disease is capable of infecting cats, the disease has never been seen in a cat outside of a laboratory setting. However, because Lyme is potentially quite severe and is common among humans and dogs, it is wise to know how the disease is transmitted and what the signs of infection are in your pets.” [Emphasis mine.]
Whoa! $380 to test a cat for a disease that has never been found in household cats? I have to think if Pookie’s vet had revealed this detail, my friend might have taken a pass. Instead, the vet told her the test would look for three tick-borne diseases that can infect cats.
According to the website Know Your Cat, the other two arecytauxzoonosis, which it describes as “fortunately still rare,” and feline hemotrophic mycoplasmosis, a bacterial infection that can cause anemia, but is relatively rare and readily treated with antibiotics. This last infection can be transmitted by ticks, but also by mosquitoes and fleas. So unless you are willing to put your pet through $380 worth of blood tests after every flea, mosquito, and tick bite, a $15 antibiotic—or no treatment at all—might be the rational choice.
Unfortunately, too many vets are not in the rational choice business. They’re in the guilt-inducing, risk-exaggerating business.
It seems to me an ethical vet would have used the office visit to (1) educate my friend how to safely remove ticks herself, (2) describe any symptoms she should look out for, and (3) advise against tests whose only real purpose is to pad the bill.
Comments from vets welcome.
* The name of the cat has been changed to protect the gullible innocent.