My cat just got a cone due to an abcess(?) draining, how can I help him function normally?
Q. He keeps on licking the excess blood and won't really walk forward, just backwards.
A. If all he does is lick the wound, he will not cause any problem. Cats (and dogs) are thought to have substances in their saliva that actually helps a wound heal.
There is not much you can do to help him cope better with the collar on.
As you have learned, everything is difficult when a cat is wearing an Elizabethan collar (that's what those cones are called). Walking, eating, sleeping, using the litter box - everything is difficult and cats in those things are miserable.
If all he is doing is licking the wound, it is okay. We have had cats with bad wounds or injuries which developed abscesses and had to be opened and drained but we have never put an Elizabethan collar on any of them. They all licked at the wounds, for a while, but they did not damage the wound and, I think, they actually helped the wound heal faster.
I'm speaking from experience of having 26 cats over the past 23 years. We have had four diabetics (Simon was diagnosed 13 years after he joined our family and we adopted three other diabetics, knowing that they were diabetic). We have had 5 cats with CRF (kidney failure). We have had at least 4 cats with wounds that had to be drained and one cat who had to have his left eye removed. We have had 5 females spayed and 11 or 12 (I'd have count them off to be sure of the number) male cats neutered.
We have never put put an Elizabethan collar on any cat - regardless of wound, injury, or surgery. We have never needed to do so.
Marco, the neighborhood cat who literally moved in with us one evening, had a chronic ear infection that refused to clear up no matter what was done.
I drove him down the University of Missouri Veterinary school (about 120 miles from us here in St. Louis) and they diagnosed a polyp in his ear canal. They opened up his ear canal and removed the polyp. After the surgery, the put in a rubber drain tube which stuck about 5 inches above his head, entered his skin above the ear canal, and exited at his chin and hung down about 4 inches. They put a collar on him so that he could not scratch at the surgery site. He made no effort to scratch the surgical site and so they took the collar off of him and watched him for a while. They left the collar off after seeing that he was not going to harm the incisions.
Back to your cat - take the collar off and observe him for a while. If he is a lap cat, get him up on your lap and talk to him and stroke him and, in general, get him to relax. If he will sit next to you, get him to and lay some affection on him. If the wound is still draining, you might want to put a towel in your lap, the chair, bed, sofa, or such.
He's been through a lot and has had that horrible collar on and he needs some "loving" from his human mom - give him some attention.
If all he does to the wound is lick at it, if he does not tear at it, he will be fine with the collar off.
If you're not sure about it, at least give him some chaperoned time with the collar off.
Seriously, unless he is very different from the cats we have had/have, he won't damage the wound.
Some vets simply put collars on cats simply to cover their ass (that will be *** instead of what I typed because Yahoo does not like you using the "a" word for your buttocks :-)
Those vets assume the worst - that the cat will chew and tear at the wound and make it ten times worse than it was.
I always wonder how many of those vets have actually lived with a cat who had a wound because they don't seem to know how a cat will actually act after surgery or the treatment of a wound.
There is not much you can do to help him cope better with the collar on.
As you have learned, everything is difficult when a cat is wearing an Elizabethan collar (that's what those cones are called). Walking, eating, sleeping, using the litter box - everything is difficult and cats in those things are miserable.
If all he is doing is licking the wound, it is okay. We have had cats with bad wounds or injuries which developed abscesses and had to be opened and drained but we have never put an Elizabethan collar on any of them. They all licked at the wounds, for a while, but they did not damage the wound and, I think, they actually helped the wound heal faster.
I'm speaking from experience of having 26 cats over the past 23 years. We have had four diabetics (Simon was diagnosed 13 years after he joined our family and we adopted three other diabetics, knowing that they were diabetic). We have had 5 cats with CRF (kidney failure). We have had at least 4 cats with wounds that had to be drained and one cat who had to have his left eye removed. We have had 5 females spayed and 11 or 12 (I'd have count them off to be sure of the number) male cats neutered.
We have never put put an Elizabethan collar on any cat - regardless of wound, injury, or surgery. We have never needed to do so.
Marco, the neighborhood cat who literally moved in with us one evening, had a chronic ear infection that refused to clear up no matter what was done.
I drove him down the University of Missouri Veterinary school (about 120 miles from us here in St. Louis) and they diagnosed a polyp in his ear canal. They opened up his ear canal and removed the polyp. After the surgery, the put in a rubber drain tube which stuck about 5 inches above his head, entered his skin above the ear canal, and exited at his chin and hung down about 4 inches. They put a collar on him so that he could not scratch at the surgery site. He made no effort to scratch the surgical site and so they took the collar off of him and watched him for a while. They left the collar off after seeing that he was not going to harm the incisions.
Back to your cat - take the collar off and observe him for a while. If he is a lap cat, get him up on your lap and talk to him and stroke him and, in general, get him to relax. If he will sit next to you, get him to and lay some affection on him. If the wound is still draining, you might want to put a towel in your lap, the chair, bed, sofa, or such.
He's been through a lot and has had that horrible collar on and he needs some "loving" from his human mom - give him some attention.
If all he does to the wound is lick at it, if he does not tear at it, he will be fine with the collar off.
If you're not sure about it, at least give him some chaperoned time with the collar off.
Seriously, unless he is very different from the cats we have had/have, he won't damage the wound.
Some vets simply put collars on cats simply to cover their ass (that will be *** instead of what I typed because Yahoo does not like you using the "a" word for your buttocks :-)
Those vets assume the worst - that the cat will chew and tear at the wound and make it ten times worse than it was.
I always wonder how many of those vets have actually lived with a cat who had a wound because they don't seem to know how a cat will actually act after surgery or the treatment of a wound.
-3.75 and -3.00 (my eyes) how much for lasik anyone?
Q. Im considering lasik eye surgery, Ive already been told I was a good candidate, and they quoted my around $3800. Anyone know where i can get it a little less than that around the St.. Louis area? Thanks
A. I have no clue around the St. Louis area. I do know where I got mine done here in Upstate New York cost me $999/eye and I have not had any problems. My eyes aren't red, sore or dry at all. Try to find out if anyone you may possibly know in your area may have had it done and where they had it done. That is how I found where to have mine done and the doctor is great. By the way, I now have 20/10 vision, so it does work.
Are natural eye vision exercise harmful to eyes or they are effective and miraculous as the report claim?
Q.
A. here is a article i found claiming it is not true.........
Promises that natural vision correction can improve eyesight without medication, surgery, or glasses have been around for years. The principle is that simple eye exercises can restore normal vision. It's appealing � but it�s just not true, say the professional organizations that represent licensed optometrists and ophthalmologists. In fact, most experts consider the claims of natural vision correction completely bogus.
WebMD talked to sources on both sides of this controversial issue.
What Is Natural Vision Correction?
Most practitioners of natural vision correction base their approach on the Bates Method, pioneered in 1919 by William H. Bates, MD, an ophthalmologist who wrote The Bates Method for Better Eyesight Without Glasses. Bates believed that the cause of nearsightedness, farsightedness, and other refractive errors was tension, and that relaxing the eyes would allow them to function normally.
Although practitioners have convincing testimonials from patients, natural vision correction is not recognized in the fields of ophthalmology or optometry. (Ophthalmologists are licensed physicians who specialize in refractive, medical, and surgical disorders. Optometrists are licensed healthcare professionals, but they are not physicians. They are primarily trained to evaluate vision, prescribe eyeglasses and contacts, and assess the health of the eye.)
Many of the people who offer natural vision correction have never attended an accredited medical school or optometry school. "The Bates Method is not taught in accredited schools of optometry and is not recognized by the American Optometric Association," says Susan Thomas, associate director of public relations for the association, located in St. Louis, Mo. "However some optometrists might be doing it on their own."
Followers of Bates claim that all the conditions normally corrected by eyeglasses can be eliminated, and some even claim to help or eliminate serious eye diseases, such as cataracts and glaucoma. However, as with many alternative therapies, there are few rigorous, randomized, controlled studies to back it up. Bates and his followers based their natural vision correction programs on observation, not research.
The Anatomical Fallacy
"The Bates Method is based on an anatomical fallacy," says Richard E. Bensinger, MD, ophthalmologist at the Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, Wash. and clinical correspondent for the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO). "He developed a system that has persisted as the basis for all systems that have been designed since. The fallacy it relies on is that external muscles that control the eye's movements control focus. But in fact, the eye has an internal focusing mechanism."
The ciliary muscles, attached to the eye's flexible lens, aid focus by creating or relaxing tension on the lens. In this way, the lens curves to accommodate close-up or distance vision. (Around age 40, the lens loses flexibility, a condition called "presbyopia." That's when many people discover their arms aren't long enough to hold a newspaper.) These internal muscles are separate from the external muscles that move the eye.
"When we put drops in the eye to dilate the pupil, they paralyze the focusing muscles," says Bensinger. "The evidence of the anatomical fallacy is that you can't focus, but your eye can move up and down, left and right. The notion that external muscles affect focusing is totally wrong."
Promises that natural vision correction can improve eyesight without medication, surgery, or glasses have been around for years. The principle is that simple eye exercises can restore normal vision. It's appealing � but it�s just not true, say the professional organizations that represent licensed optometrists and ophthalmologists. In fact, most experts consider the claims of natural vision correction completely bogus.
WebMD talked to sources on both sides of this controversial issue.
What Is Natural Vision Correction?
Most practitioners of natural vision correction base their approach on the Bates Method, pioneered in 1919 by William H. Bates, MD, an ophthalmologist who wrote The Bates Method for Better Eyesight Without Glasses. Bates believed that the cause of nearsightedness, farsightedness, and other refractive errors was tension, and that relaxing the eyes would allow them to function normally.
Although practitioners have convincing testimonials from patients, natural vision correction is not recognized in the fields of ophthalmology or optometry. (Ophthalmologists are licensed physicians who specialize in refractive, medical, and surgical disorders. Optometrists are licensed healthcare professionals, but they are not physicians. They are primarily trained to evaluate vision, prescribe eyeglasses and contacts, and assess the health of the eye.)
Many of the people who offer natural vision correction have never attended an accredited medical school or optometry school. "The Bates Method is not taught in accredited schools of optometry and is not recognized by the American Optometric Association," says Susan Thomas, associate director of public relations for the association, located in St. Louis, Mo. "However some optometrists might be doing it on their own."
Followers of Bates claim that all the conditions normally corrected by eyeglasses can be eliminated, and some even claim to help or eliminate serious eye diseases, such as cataracts and glaucoma. However, as with many alternative therapies, there are few rigorous, randomized, controlled studies to back it up. Bates and his followers based their natural vision correction programs on observation, not research.
The Anatomical Fallacy
"The Bates Method is based on an anatomical fallacy," says Richard E. Bensinger, MD, ophthalmologist at the Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, Wash. and clinical correspondent for the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO). "He developed a system that has persisted as the basis for all systems that have been designed since. The fallacy it relies on is that external muscles that control the eye's movements control focus. But in fact, the eye has an internal focusing mechanism."
The ciliary muscles, attached to the eye's flexible lens, aid focus by creating or relaxing tension on the lens. In this way, the lens curves to accommodate close-up or distance vision. (Around age 40, the lens loses flexibility, a condition called "presbyopia." That's when many people discover their arms aren't long enough to hold a newspaper.) These internal muscles are separate from the external muscles that move the eye.
"When we put drops in the eye to dilate the pupil, they paralyze the focusing muscles," says Bensinger. "The evidence of the anatomical fallacy is that you can't focus, but your eye can move up and down, left and right. The notion that external muscles affect focusing is totally wrong."
Has anyone recently had a lifestyle lift or threadlift procedure. If so, would you do it again. Problems?
Q. Thinking of having it done and would like to know if you would recommend or not. Too many negatives on the internet and not enough positives for me to make a decision.
A. I had it done one year ago. I have had 2 problems since with what they call "rope" scarring (behind my ears). My doctor has corrected them both without additional charge or any further problems.
I have been told MANY times that I look 35 (I am 46). I look at pictures of myself that my family had (not just the doctor's office photos) and can't believe I looked like that a year ago. I feel like I have been given my confidence back...my new life.
I would definitely do it again however, not every doctor is the same. My doctor is in St. Louis and he has studied nothing but plastic surgery throughout his career. I advise you to research the doctor you intend to visit. Any doctor can be a "board certified" plastic surgeon with little training. It may not be their specialty as mine is.
I needed 3 weeks to recover as well. The advertisement and most of the "sales" people leads you to believe otherwise. If you want a "realistic view" into what you may go through, here is the website that helped me make my decision.. Before you view is, I did not have my eyes done and my incisions are in front of the ear, around the lobe http://www.llvideojournal.com/
I am in NO way advising you to go through with the procedure. I am just answering your question with my own experience. This is a personal decision. Research the doctor you are considering. Neither I nor the woman in the video can not guarantee you the positive results that I we have had.
Good luck and God Bless
I have been told MANY times that I look 35 (I am 46). I look at pictures of myself that my family had (not just the doctor's office photos) and can't believe I looked like that a year ago. I feel like I have been given my confidence back...my new life.
I would definitely do it again however, not every doctor is the same. My doctor is in St. Louis and he has studied nothing but plastic surgery throughout his career. I advise you to research the doctor you intend to visit. Any doctor can be a "board certified" plastic surgeon with little training. It may not be their specialty as mine is.
I needed 3 weeks to recover as well. The advertisement and most of the "sales" people leads you to believe otherwise. If you want a "realistic view" into what you may go through, here is the website that helped me make my decision.. Before you view is, I did not have my eyes done and my incisions are in front of the ear, around the lobe http://www.llvideojournal.com/
I am in NO way advising you to go through with the procedure. I am just answering your question with my own experience. This is a personal decision. Research the doctor you are considering. Neither I nor the woman in the video can not guarantee you the positive results that I we have had.
Good luck and God Bless
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: My cat just got a cone due to an abcess(?) draining, how can I help him function normally?
Rating: 98% based on 3217 ratings. 4,8 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 98% based on 3217 ratings. 4,8 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
0 comments:
Post a Comment