Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick
You're missing the point. It's a matter of logic, simple math. It's an if-then statement. I use them often on CD, so I'll simplify it here:
IF you want to wait a year before trying a substance on a cat, and advise people not to try it until it's been out a year
AND IF
Cat owners actually heed this advice and keep their cats away from the substance
THEN
In a year, there will have been no progress. It will be a year later, with no idea whether or not this substance is safe for cats, because there weren't any cats who had tried it.
Also, one of you mentioned that of course catsmom and others would let their cat try it, if their cat was older and infirm, or in severe pain.
This particular medication is -intended- for cats that are in severe pain. It isn't intended for cats who are just a little grouchy. So now we have a conflict: catsmom WOULD give it to a cat who was a prime target demographic of the medication, but catsmom's vet recommends -no- cats get it for another year AND catsmom supports this vet's opinion.
The entire statement makes no sense. There's no logic in it. Either it's approved by the FDA, or it isn't. Either it's buyer beware, or it isn't. It can be approved AND buyer beware, but saying "approved but don't touch it for a year" is irresponsible. And, it makes no sense.
|
Simple math would tell you that even if every last person who read catsmom's message heeded it, progress would still be made on the drug because every last cat owner in the country does not read city forums.
Simple logic would tell you that catsmom or any other member here is here to do what people do on forums...share their thoughts and advice. They did not say 'you should not allow your cat to take it for a year'. They said 'this is what I would do, and this is what I've heard.'
Even if they had said 'don't touch it for a year'...that's their opinion. Others are free to take that advice or not. If every cat owner in the country did read city forums and obeyed, and no data was collected for a year, catsmom would not be responsible. They don't have that kind of power. They are sending words into the ether, and everyone who reads those words is responsible in the end for their own actions. If catsmom posted tomorrow 'thou shall paint your cat blue' and people did it, would they be responsible or would the people who reached for the paint be responsible?
FDA approval is not fool proof. It is entirely possible for a person to be of the opinion that they would not touch an newly approved drug for one year...or even longer. The FDA has failed on numerous occasions to protect customers. There is nothing illogical about this stance.
You also missed the point that as pet owners we are responsible for protecting our pets. If I'm making a choice for JJ, I'm not going to make it based on what's best for all cat-kind. If I feel something could be dangerous, I won't expose him to it to prove that it is so other people know better for their own cats.
I would have no issue with anything you're saying if it had been framed as a counterpoint. If you had said, for example, that you would be willing to use the drug for your own cat, because you believe that some people have to be the first to test new drugs and that new drugs are generally safe, fine. But trying to police other forum members and tell them what they may or may not share based on some amorphous level of respect is putting a great deal more pressure on people then they need and assigning them power they simply do not have.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
