It never ceases to amaze me how much correspondence I receive from dog owners with various stories regarding their dogs and cancer. With my limited knowledge on the topic, time after time I see dog owners desperate to save their dogs, but the diagnosis has not been made as it should have to start with. The chances for the dog are probably not good.
As dog owners we rely on our vets and what they tell us and when it comes to cancer in dogs, we seem to forget this is a specialised area just as it is for humans. We assume our vet can look at and feel a lump and tell us what it is. Why? Because we believe if the vet tells us something they are right.
Would we go to our own GP and expect them to know all about cancer and make a diagnosis the same way? No of course not. We would expect our doctor to take a sample and send it off for pathology. Would we want our own doctors to cut corners and not do the proper testing so that an accurate diagnosis can be made and the correct treatment given? No of course not. Then we would want a referral to an oncologist if it is cancer. Why is it so often we don't apply the same rules for our dogs but we would do anything to save them?
The one thing that seems to astound dog owners is to learn that a vet can't tell by looking at a lump whether or not it is cancer. This is the role of the pathologist who's training is in the study of cells. They assume if the vet tells them it is cancer or it isnt cancer, it must be. Many oncologists are openly coming out telling dog owners that they cant tell by looking and feeling if it is cancer or not. The honesty of these oncologists is probably saving many lives. If you get it wrong at this point it is potentially game over if the vet is wrong.
If oncologists who only deal with cancer patients can't tell by looking and feeling, how is it possible our GP vets know and therefore have more knowledge in cancer than an oncologist? Our vets have to learn so much in so many different areas to keep our pets healthy, We expect them to be experts in all different areas. Is it fair they should be expected to be able to keep up with a specialised field like oncology? The changes in oncology and treatments are so ongoing, it is hard for the oncologists to keep up with them.
As dog owners we all want the opportunity to be able to save our dog if the diagnosis is cancer, but we should not be relying on our vets to tell us a diagnosis without pathology. It is not fair on the vets and it isn't fair on our dogs. The sooner we all understand that vets just cant tell by looking and pay the extra to insist on pathology, the more dogs that will be given a chance to beat cancer if caught early.
Vets also need to play their part and be more upfront with owners. They should not just assume that owners wont pay the extra. Sure some probably wont want the cost, but if they were told bluntly "I can't tell if it is cancer and if it is and it is missed you could end up with a dead dog," I am sure many more owners would get the pathology done. It should be the choice of the owner based on bluntness and truth.
My own dog Frodo lived for 4.5 years because of pathology. The extra financial investment on my part for the pathology was well worth it. I had the opportunity to get treatment for him and that would have been taken away from us both had I relied on my vet. He would have been dead within weeks and most people are stunned to hear it put to them as bluntly as that. The usual response is, "Omg I assumed the vet knows, I didn't know that."
If your ever in this situation, give your dog the same chance I gave Frodo. Take the onus off the vet and don't expect them to know when the experts in the field openly admit they don't know.
.
