I just responded on a thread where a young man was concerned because his two small dogs had eaten a bag of chocolate.
Carla urged him to call his parents and get the dog to an ER vet, and the young man seemed miffed because the vet decided the dogs didn't have chocolate poisoning and they could treat the vomiting symptomatically. The OP suggested that Carla's advice was reckless and faulty.
What is reckless is looking to an Internet forum, even an excellent one like this one, and expecting an emergency diagnosis. The advice to seek out an emergency vet for a suspected emergency is NEVER reckless. If someone you cared about was experiencing severe chest pain, would you wait and see in case it turned out to be gas?
Somebody a while back said something to the effect that the last thing they wanted to do was to go to a vet and discover there wasn't really anything seriously wrong. Say what? The last thing you want is to sit home, wait and see and have the dog die or suffer irreparable damage while you're trying to muster up the nerve to take some responsibility.
Parents who leave a minor in charge of animals, or in charge of themselves, need to have a plan in place in case of emergency. If the emergency turns out to be less serious than suspected, that is a cause for celebration.
I suspect (and this is coming from someone who has been a child and a parent) that an evening out was interrupted by a call about some sick dogs and everyone involved is annoyed.



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks



I gave peroxide to induce vomiting and got him to the vet to be checked out. Luckily he's never ingested enough to hurt him and I administered first aid, reccomended by my vet, quickly enough to keep it out of his system. This hasn't happened again, as the kids got teir buts chewed and grounded for a month for the incedent, plus the fact they were scared they were going to lose a much loved family member.




