|
NBC Bay Area reporter Vicky Nguyen recently aired a piece about Non-Anesthetic Teeth Cleaning. See the original story here.
Now, as licensed veterinarians, we KNOW that scraping the tartar off the visible tooth surface in an awake animal has three problems:
- It provides no health benefit (either treatment or prevention) whatsoever,
- It carries risk of significant injury (to the handler or patient-including death), and
- It damages the enamel surface of the tooth, accelerating plaque and tartar buildup.
Yet the owner of Canine Care, Inc, Cindy Collins continues to perform and teach others to conduct this practice on "thousands and thousands of animals every month" and claims that there have been "no problems" associated with this service. Of the two deaths out of 68,000 clients, well she dismisses those as not the fault of her hygienist. Unfortunately since she isn't a veterinarian, you have NO ONE to complain to when there are problems.
Yet, compare this to 50 million annual veterinary visits by dogs and cats in California alone, with only 600 or so complaints to the Veterinary Medical Board per year. Ms Collins death rate (.00003) would appear higher than the rate of annual complaints filed against veterinarians (.00001).
So why does she keep doing this? Well for starters she frequently and loudly claims that she "won" the case against the Veterinary Medical Board in 2004 to justify her practice. It is true: the Administrative Law judge dismissed the citation against Ms Collins and her hygienist, Linden Clark because no one actually witnessed Mr Clark applying the tooth scaler to the patient, Rowdy.
Rowdy's owner noticed blood in his mouth and that he wouldn't eat or drink the night he came home from Mr Clark's cleaning. The next morning x-rays by her veterinarian revealed that Rowdy's jaw was broken in three places. The judge ruled that although the evidence was circumstantial, Rowdy most likely received his injuries during the teeth cleaning.
The judge also made a ruling that "Respondent Collins clearly aids and abets the practice of veterinary medicine. There is no doubt the method she teaches for pet teeth cleaning falls squarely within the statutory definition of a dental operation set forth above. She should be permanently enjoined from this practice." Read the full judge's decision in the attachment below.
So, why does she keep doing this? Money. Ms Collins and her protege's (who are under contract) charge $110 for the first cleaning. The pet store gets a 20% commission. Not bad considering all they do is provide a small closet or other private space to perform the cleaning, where no one can "witness" the procedure. The hygienist makes $20 per hour. (Probably without benefits or payroll taxes being paid on their behalf) If Ms Collins own estimate of 68,000 clients is accurate, she is grossing almost $7.5 million dollars a year. Not bad for someone with no professional education conducting an illegal enterprise.
Sadly, in this modern age, some veterinarians, having never received formal training in dentistry might actually offer or advocate for a teeth cleaning without anesthesia. The American Veterinary Dental College expressly states that non-professional dental scaling "on an unanesthetized pet is inappropriate. " Further, the College of Veterinarians of Ontario states: "The cleaning and scaling of the teeth of companion animals must be performed with general anesthesia with the use of an endotracheal tube with an inflated cuff in order to meet acceptable standards of practice for veterinarians in Ontario."
It is clear that the CURRENT standard of care requires anesthesia for proper assessment, diagnosis and treatment of dental conditions in companion animals.
A veterinary dentist, Dr Brett Beckman, recently posted a blog which demonstrated the devastating effect of this unlicensed practice. http://veterinarydentistry.net/blog/2010/12/20/anesthesia-free-dentistry-dogs-pet/
Unfortunately more the rule than the exception this dog regularly had his teeth scraped by a non-anesthetic cleaner. When Dr Beckman saw the patient, the teeth were clean and the gums showed no evidence of inflammation. But x-rays revealed "the profound destruction of bone due to periodontal disease." One can only imagine how awful the pet owner felt, having been misled into thinking they were doing the right thing for their pet.
|
