Re: Question re: Spleen Cancer.
Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:51 pm
On that principle (small trouble goes away, and replaced by a worse one) I
certainly agree. The issue is whether it was "replaced", or not... The
situation as given doesn't seem to make it certain whether these two things
(one getting better and the other getting worse) were causally related, or
only temporally (i.e., coincidence of timing).
And, in the context of the "teaching" that comes out of this sort of case, I
guess I feel more comfortable about using it to "introduce issues", and
explain the concerns, e.g. the concept of suppression (and let the dog's
owner draw her own conclusion, or not), rather than saying, Yep, looks like
you gave your dog cancer!
Maybe she did, but as I said, I think it unlikely that a combo remedy would
do that. Perhaps not impossible, but unlikely; and I prefer to let her draw
her own conclusions about what may have happened *in this particular case*.
Without more info about e.g. the dog's prior state of vitality, how that
changed (or didn't) during the course of dosing with the combo, and
(importantly) for how long and how frequently the dosing was done...
Without all that at a minimum, I don't think we really have a basis for
coming to a decision, and I personally would prefer not to play "judge and
jury" on an issue such as whether a "parent's" (albeit different species!)
good intentions led to cancer. I just don't feel comfortable going there,
and I think we have done the necessary "teaching" already, without adding in
the level of guilt and blame.
Okay, there's my objectivity out the window...
Best wishes,
Shannon
certainly agree. The issue is whether it was "replaced", or not... The
situation as given doesn't seem to make it certain whether these two things
(one getting better and the other getting worse) were causally related, or
only temporally (i.e., coincidence of timing).
And, in the context of the "teaching" that comes out of this sort of case, I
guess I feel more comfortable about using it to "introduce issues", and
explain the concerns, e.g. the concept of suppression (and let the dog's
owner draw her own conclusion, or not), rather than saying, Yep, looks like
you gave your dog cancer!
Maybe she did, but as I said, I think it unlikely that a combo remedy would
do that. Perhaps not impossible, but unlikely; and I prefer to let her draw
her own conclusions about what may have happened *in this particular case*.
Without more info about e.g. the dog's prior state of vitality, how that
changed (or didn't) during the course of dosing with the combo, and
(importantly) for how long and how frequently the dosing was done...
Without all that at a minimum, I don't think we really have a basis for
coming to a decision, and I personally would prefer not to play "judge and
jury" on an issue such as whether a "parent's" (albeit different species!)
good intentions led to cancer. I just don't feel comfortable going there,
and I think we have done the necessary "teaching" already, without adding in
the level of guilt and blame.
Okay, there's my objectivity out the window...
Best wishes,
Shannon