Owner demographics and medical care for pets

I applaud the efforts of the authors in creating the recent study¹ on strength of the human-animal bond in Hispanic versus non-Hispanic pet owners. Given the extensive discussion of diversity in our profession, it is remarkable that such studies are just beginning to occur. The fact that the study was sponsored by Banfield also says something about which groups are motivated to gather this information.

The study includes an interesting mix of data and stereotypes. It is notable that when results defy stereotypes, they are questioned; when results confirm stereotypes, they are accepted. For example, even though the study found that respondents in Mexico City were more likely to describe their pets as family, the authors stated that this finding should be interpreted with caution, seeming to narrow the definition of “like family” to agreeing with the statement “quite often I confide in my pet.”

The authors conclude that “…appealing to a sense of responsibility pertaining to the pet might have a greater impact with Hispanic owners than appealing to a sense of societal responsibility.” I believe there is more than one study showing that social responsibility is not a major motivator for most people to spay or neuter their pets. The advice given about how to present the benefits of spaying and neutering to Hispanic pet owners applies to all.

The authors also suggest that the reason that Hispanic individuals may resist spaying and neutering is because of a sense of “machismo.” What, then, explains the lower incidence of spaying and neutering in Europe? Studying other groups with low spaying and neutering rates would provide greater perspective (eg, could it be that stronger concern for the animal's feelings contributes to the difference?).

The authors state that studies show those who identify themselves as their pets' guardians have a higher attachment to their pets and are more likely to have their pets spayed; the authors conclude that a pet's neuter status is related to owner attachment. Yet, this study showed Hispanics had similar attachment to their pets as did other groups. Again, a discussion of parallel groups with lower spaying and neutering rates, such as Europeans, might shed further light on the issue.

The authors concluded that the bond between Hispanic owners and their pets is similar to that of other pet owners. If that does not explain the difference in spay and neuter rates, then what does?

Focusing on clients' cultural stereotypes only perpetuates the notion of “them” being the problem. One avenue yet to be explored is differences in how veterinarians present their recommendations to their clients. Veterinarians' expectations of and stereotypes about their clients do influence the way they present recommendations. For example, they may change a recommendation when it appears the client lacks financial resources. Compliance studies^2–5 in the United States and Spain show that the main reason for lack of compliance is the veterinarian's communication.

A study of how veterinarians communicate with clients of different economic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds would be extremely enlightening. Similarly, studies of whether differences exist in how US, Mexican, and European veterinarians present their recommendations about spaying and neutering and, if so, what influences those differences would be interesting. That is, we should look to the source of the recommendation, not just the receiver of the recommendation, for the reasons why the recommendation is not carried out.

Carin Smith, dvm

Smith Veterinary Consulting, Peshastin, Wash

The authors respond:

We appreciate the letter from Dr. Smith commenting on our study and suggesting areas for future inquiry. It is gratifying to see colleagues in private practice demonstrating an interest in the topic of ethnicity and pet ownership. We agree that, given the demographics in the United States, focus on this topic is long overdue.

To address Dr. Smith's concerns, the definition of “like family” was based on the terms used by clients in responding to the interview question, “What role does your pet play in the household?” Responses were placed in this category when the client stated that the pet played the role of family, child, grandson, or other family relationship. Any association with questions in the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale is purely coincidental, as these data were not used to develop the household role categories.

In response to Dr. Smith's other points, we would like to begin with stating that the purpose of our study was to perform an initial exploration of the manifestations of the human-animal bond in Hispanic culture. Although spay-neuter status is certainly one indicator of the strength of this bond, there are many other manifestations of the relationship between humans and pets that determine an animal's status in the household and whether it is provided with necessary food, shelter, and veterinary care. Our aim was to begin examining these issues and elucidate whether there are any discrepancies in the level of medical care (in general) provided to pets owned by Hispanic individuals. As stated in our report, other factors, including cultural issues and, as Dr. Smith suggests, the form in which recommendations are made, must be examined in the future to develop an in-depth understanding of the observed differences in spay-neuter rates among different demographic groups. This is an important issue for animal welfare, and further investigation is certainly necessary. We hope our study serves as a catalyst to encourage diverse groups to join us in pursuing this important area of inquiry.

We thank Dr. Smith for her interest and clarification.

Regina Schoenfeld-Tacher, phd

Lori R. Kogan, phd

Mary L. Wright, dvm

Department of Clinical Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo

Additional thoughts on medical advances and the client's budget

The issue discussed by Dr. Detweiler in her letter to the editor¹ in the April 15, 2010, issue of JAVMA is familiar to anyone in general practice. Unfortunately, it is the result of a number of elements, none of which are easy to define and correct. It is interesting that we share with human medicine at least one factor in that the public considers both professions to be substantially overpriced and underregulated. Because there seems to be some loss of public responsibility and, at times, a question of ethics, it can be concluded that we may have reason to conduct some level of critical self-evaluation.

In defining the contributing factors, it is not possible to eliminate the issue of greed, which certainly has been an issue for some professions that have recently been subjected to public and political evaluation. In our evolution to public disdain, there are other contributions such as our love affair with specialization, educational misunderstanding of reality, a loss of professional standards, and unremitting ego.

Dr. Detweiler has courageously opened the door. And we must take a good look inside.

James E. Prier, dvm, phd, jd

Blue Bell, Pa

I commend Dr. Karen Detweiler for her letter¹ in the April 15, 2010, issue of JAVMA concerning clients' financial constraints versus veterinary care. I could not agree with her more. The public's trust is the most important thing we have in veterinary medicine. We as veterinarians are constantly bombarded with information from pharmaceutical, food, and laboratory companies promoting doing more for animals. How could we possibly be against that? Perhaps we should consider that what is in the financial best interests of these companies isn't necessarily in the client's or pet's best interest. Clients look to us to be the trusted professional who filters and decides what is a sales pitch versus what is truly important. If we lose that trust, we will just be seen as money-hungry pitchmen for these companies. Does every cat living in an apartment in a city need a fecal analysis and vaccines every year or a monthly dose of a topical pesticide or dewormer? Many clients see these things as unnecessary and lose trust in the veterinarians who promote them. I've also heard a number of people say a veterinarian made them feel guilty about a decision to euthanize their pet. Guilt and shame have no place in the image of a healing professional.

Cynthia Doyle Massey, dvm

Nipomo, Calif