The Quahog
Forums Enthusiast
There was some discussion by several members on a recent thread about obtaining waivers to avoid rabies vaccination in animals where vaccination posed particularly severe risks.
You guys can Google better than I and see discussions on the topic, including the official AVMA position (which recommends they be available) - here is one recent one that seems fair and balanced, for example.
http://www.hsvma.org/exemption_rabies_vaccination_030711
As the discussion suggested some confusion, and I do have some experience here, as I was on the executive board of the RI VMA when we last visited the subject and ensured that waivers were available, I thought I would make a couple of points.
Exemptions are for animals who have a specific medical situation which makes vaccination problematic. Some are listed in the article above, though I would worry about, and avoid any language of 'severe allergies', as that is pretty vague. Probably a third of my canine patients have allergies.
One problem, and we wrestled with this, is that people who simply do not want the vaccine will go shopping around for a waiver. I know of one veterinarian, a common anti-vaccination voice on many many (many) boards, who has publicly proclaimed that he would give a waiver to anyone as there is medical justification because of the health risks of vaccination. That is one argument for why many states do not offer waivers.
Needless to say, all this will do is get the opportunity for waivers removed. The law was made because legislators, rightly or wrongly, want pet owners to get all dogs vaccinated for rabies as a public health measure. An analogy would be a physician who disliked seat belt laws so he gave a medical exemption to everyone from seat belt laws. Deliberately defying the intent of the law will not end well.
So medically necessary waivers are absolutely in order. But misusing them because an owner does not want vaccination is improper and will not work. - Dr. Mac
You guys can Google better than I and see discussions on the topic, including the official AVMA position (which recommends they be available) - here is one recent one that seems fair and balanced, for example.
http://www.hsvma.org/exemption_rabies_vaccination_030711
As the discussion suggested some confusion, and I do have some experience here, as I was on the executive board of the RI VMA when we last visited the subject and ensured that waivers were available, I thought I would make a couple of points.
Exemptions are for animals who have a specific medical situation which makes vaccination problematic. Some are listed in the article above, though I would worry about, and avoid any language of 'severe allergies', as that is pretty vague. Probably a third of my canine patients have allergies.
One problem, and we wrestled with this, is that people who simply do not want the vaccine will go shopping around for a waiver. I know of one veterinarian, a common anti-vaccination voice on many many (many) boards, who has publicly proclaimed that he would give a waiver to anyone as there is medical justification because of the health risks of vaccination. That is one argument for why many states do not offer waivers.
Needless to say, all this will do is get the opportunity for waivers removed. The law was made because legislators, rightly or wrongly, want pet owners to get all dogs vaccinated for rabies as a public health measure. An analogy would be a physician who disliked seat belt laws so he gave a medical exemption to everyone from seat belt laws. Deliberately defying the intent of the law will not end well.
So medically necessary waivers are absolutely in order. But misusing them because an owner does not want vaccination is improper and will not work. - Dr. Mac
just doesnt seem smart or logical for society as a whole.