Why Are So Many Dogs on Prozac?
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Too many people adopted dogs during the pandemic because they were stuck home and needed some distraction as well as realized they had the time to devote.
Now that things are returning to normal, people don't want to spend the time.
> Maisie howled at any stimulus. She paced all night and pounced on anyone who came to the house.
Your dog is some combination of bored and scared. You don't need a vet, you need a dog trainer.
Dogs can be incredible amounts of work. I probably spend on average 2 hours a day on dog work of some kind and I have a dog walker come twice daily too (30min/2x day).
There are times when I'll admit it's not convenient. The last vacation I took had an extra ~3k tacked on for a house/pet sitter, but, I (knowingly) made a commitment when I adopted/purchased them.
The whole concept of drugging your dog just seems, frankly, abusive to me.
People need to do far more research when adopting or buying dogs. Animal rescues are commonly not honest about a dogs history (to make it easier to adopt the dog out) and the vast majority of breeders are not honest about the amount of work required with particular breeds and particular dogs.
They are great when they’re great. Greatness requires investment.
Completely agree, but, without the opportunity to engage in meaningful activities together it doesn't matter.
Having two dogs in an apartment doesn't do anything.
I only have 3 small dogs now (all under 14, 20 and 23lbs about) because I realize as I age (I'm 39) and considering that a dog might live 15 years, I don't want to deal with a geriatric 60 lb dog at 50 years old. I've dealt with immobile dogs,t with a 40-50lb greyhound (twice) and a 18lb terrier mix and it's a world of a difference.
> adding another dog doesn’t “tire the other out”
No, it doesn't, but they definitely do provide each other companionship for each other especially when you're not there.
> Two dogs is >2x the work of one
Personally, 2 dogs was about 2.5x the work but adding the 3rd dog only brought things up to an even 3x the work.
Crucially, dog trainers don't just train the dog; they also teach the humans how to best take care of their dogs.
Dog trainers do MOST of their work training the trainer.
My much more raw take is that barring abuse or specific training to be aggressive, most dogs are actually predisposed to try to please people because they've literally been bred for hundreds of generations to be friendly and value human companionship. If a dog is acting out, it's much more likely to be fixable by changing human behavior because it's easier to communicate with them. If a dog acts out, it's not because of some deep, inscrutable reason; they act out because some need of theirs isn't being met, and their needs are straightforward enough that a good trainer will be able to see their environment and tell the humans involved what they need to do to rectify it.
Some breeds have different drives.
Virtually none of them have innate drives to attack or harm humans, but for some, they can definitely enter what I will call almost akin to a fugue state where they revert to much more primal instincts.
For example the greyhounds are like this if you wake them from sleep. My first greyhound slept on my bed precisely once -- when I kicked her in my sleep in the middle of the night I got woken up by a dog clamped on my leg, fortunately through a comforter so there was no real damage. Within seconds she was incredibly apologetic. But, it's a known thing with that breed.
Dogs absolutely want to please their owners. Most of the training I've done as a dog owner is around communication to let my dog know A) what I want and B) that they did it right. For the vast majority of dog owners, if they are just careful with selection, it's not a huge amount of work to train yourself and your dog.
One of my cats gets very feisty when she's playful, and she often will bite my hand somewhat hard once she gets into the "chase" mode (which sometimes can happen from her just noticing my hands move a lot when I type or something). She's extraordinarily sweet otherwise though, to the point where I can literally pick her up and hand her to people the first time she meets them, and she happily purrs and will continue to seek out their attention after they put her down, and I've continued learning in the few years since I adopted her how to avoid triggering her instincts like that (and to make sure to give her ample play time where she can direct her aggression towards toys instead of my hands). I think a lot of people would just see a cat who bites sometimes and assume she's unfriendly or mean, but she's so sweet the vast majority of the time that I know her temporary "reversion" to her primal instincts doesn't indicate any actual malice.
Think very hard before you get eg a cattledog, border collie, jack russel, or even a corgi, etc.
I actually have a Parson Russell Terrier (AKC breed standard name for a jack) and while mine is easily in the lower half of energy, it was only because of some very extensive pre-purchase work to find a dog with the correct temperament.
Perhaps inadvertently in many cases, but it’s incontrovertible to me.
Dogs are sentient creatures and plying any animal with drugs to get a desired result, especially if it’s completely under your control, denies them the moral and ethical alternatives they likely need to live functional and healthy lives.
I’m not criticizing dog owners who do this, though; I think the vast majority of them are in over their heads, made a huge mistake, and likely don’t have the resources to do better. It’s awful for everyone involved. I wish more people understood that dogs are complex creatures with diverse wants and needs, requiring a lot of thought and care on a frequent and ongoing basis.
I wish society in general actually taught people this before they got the idea of adopting a dog. Instead, society and the media pushes the idea on people and make it look like it's easy and fun.
Honestly, there isn't a much I enjoy more in my life than my dogs. Family, Dogs, Work in that order.
I didn't want to be controversial and make the equivalency in my original comment.
People just get in over their heads and take bad advice on quick fixes.
It would help a lot it society didn't encourage people to adopt dogs, and normalize dog ownership. It's really something that only rich people should do, so they can show off their disposable income (e.g., 3k for a house/pet sitter to go on vacation, hiring a dog walker, etc.). Regular people have no business owning an animal that requires this much care and attention, when they're already busy with their work, social lives, their own kids, etc.
One thing that can help a lot is remote work. That means you can avoid expenses like hiring a dog walker or sitter because you can be there with your dog. As for the vacation part, my wife and I solve that by simply taking our dogs with us. That does restrict what you can do; we personally don't care because we don't take the kind of vacations where having dogs along would be a problem.
It would also help if society didn't encourage people to have kids. Then they could probably afford to take better care of their dogs.
They may board with friends. They may board the dog in a facility. There are many ways to reasonably handle that situation that doesn't cost 1000s of dollars but keep in mind I have three dogs (3x the cost), had a relatively long trip (3 weeks), was traveling internationally (needed someone who I had impeccable trust in), and I am determined to disrupt their lives as little as possible (so no boarding).
We should totally encourage people to adopt dogs (adopt, not buy)! We should just be totally honest about what they are getting into and what resources are required (mostly your time) to do it properly.
> It's really something that only rich people should do
Not at all, you don't have to do it how I did it, I am fortunate enough to be able to choose a path which optimizes my time (hiring a walker) and their lives (hiring a home pet sitter).
> so they can show off their disposable income (e.g., 3k for a house/pet sitter to go on vacation, hiring a dog walker, etc.)
Honestly, that statement just offends me for reasons I can't articulate at the moment. That so misses the mark of why I have dogs and why I wrote that comment.
I think it was 125/night for someone to spend 12-16 hours a day in the house with my dogs. Technically under minimum wage (15/hour in NJ!) for full time care of all 3 dogs.
I think I paid reasonably but generously, I didn't have any interest in hiring the cheapest possible person.
Edited to add that I just checked wag (pet walking/sitting app) to see how much I "over" paid.
Wag charges 40-60/night depending on location; I assume North NJ and wanting a highly verified and qualified sitter and 3 weeks and me generally being absurdly picky) would put me easily at or above that range, plus, they charge 25/night/extra pet so I'm at 110/night with Wag.
Not that I think the average Wag walker is bad, but, I'm much happier paying a bit more for someone I know and trust.
I walk my Golden Retriever an hour a day. I also put her into doggy day care for a day or two every week so she can have the enjoyment of non stop chaos for 8 hours. She comes almost everywhere with us.
I'm never worried leaving her on my leather couch unattended for a day. She knows she'll get a walk or run.
But you're totally right about picking the right breed. I see people picking collies and heeler breeds and I just feel sad for the dog because they arn't going to get the levels of work they really need from a household family.
It's really hard when it's someone I know and they either don't ask my advice or they ignore it. I know in 6 months or a year they will come ask and I'll have to explain to them how that aussie line was bred on a working cattle ranch where it would spend 6 days a week, 8-12 hours a day, herding cattle.
I babysit my friends Red Heeler when he goes on vacation. And he is a bundle of energy, they need a lot of stimulation and exercise.
This is the entire story right here, I don't need to read the article now.
Medicating dogs to ease their stress or pain (physical and mental) is not abusive when practiced appropriately but should be considered compassionate. No one balks at the idea of giving melarsomine to a dog with heartworm and appropriate treatment for diagnosed behavioral issues should be the same.
It is possible it’s overprescribed though I don’t have info on that.
I’ve had many Labrador Retrievers in my life, as hunting dogs in my youth and now as family pets. They’ve always been calm, and a big part of that is that we’re calm people.
Every dog is different, but their loyalty and empathy serve us in many ways. They are great at telling us things, if only we would listen.
My dogs (especially the Parson I raised from a puppy) knows when I'm stressed and is super affectionate and can also have negative behaviors sometimes too.
These drugs have life-altering - and often permanent - side effects to the extent they’re a case of the cure being worse than the disease for any but the most severe and otherwise untreatable conditions and hence run against basic ethical standards in medicine (“Do no harm.” for one).
Feeding that type of drug to a poor dog, who can neither decide for themselves nor know what’s happening to them, takes a special kind of unethical.
On the other hand, it’s not like the standards around SSRIs for treating humans are ethical either.
Their side effects often are downplayed or kept from patients, who will take those drugs at their doctor’s recommendation, not knowing the full extent of what they have subscribed to.
I have been taking them for decades but stopped recently since my life hasn’t really improved after all those decades.
Additional potential long-term side effects include, but are not limited to, weight gain, feeling emotionally numb, and increased suicide risk.
Furthermore, there's the SSRI discontinuation syndrome.
Discontinuation syndrome I assume are the side effects when you suddenly stop. I believe those are also temporary for most people.
We all have stories of having to give our dogs some form of medication that they don't want to eat and having to sneak it into their own food.
If my dog indicates they doesn't want to eat the flea or worm medication that's fine, but I am going to make sure they get it because I know they're better off with it so they don't itch themselves raw.
Also, most people who use SSRIs do not experience permanent side effects once they get off them (though some do). The thing about SSRIs is that, at the end of the day, the data is based on whether patients like them and they largely do.
I'm also not sure I buy your argument about dogs. Dogs can't consent to any medical intervention and they certainly can't consent to being neutered and euthanized, both of which are widely practiced. SSRIs seem less egregious than that.
The prior owners had decided to kill it. On the advice of the dog's psychiatrist. We convinced them to give the dog to us instead.
The prior owners both take prozac. The dog was on prozac. I suppose they figured what's good for them is good for the dog too.
(The dog is doing very well. No prozac)
that's the kind of story that makes it upsetting that 'dog psychiatrist' is a title, a real psychiatrist would never eventually resort to 'Well, how about euthanasia?'
i'm glad the dog is doing well.
This is where I started scratching my metaphorical head. This is what makes me think the reason for high Prozac prescriptions is that there exist such a thing as a "dog's psychiatrist" as a profession.
he tells me much of the pet care industry immitates the human care industry, e.g., fad diets and medical trends. i can't help but notice this whenever i go to a pet store now. the labeling on foods and the push for "CBD for pets" - can't help but feel the pet care companies co-opt marketing strategies for people
Yes, dogs require training, but it doesn't fix the root issue, which is not living up to their intended purpose. To serve, protect, and piss on everything another dog has pissed on.
We do not want him to be on prozac long-term. But our vet has suggested that if he learns what it is to be calm, we should eventually wean him off and he should be in a better place as he understands that this house is safe for him. The behaviours we worry about are not the barking, but the shaking in terror.
We know he will always be a somewhat more nervous dog than the last one (the last one was a 90 pound king shepherd cross; this one is a 23 pound terrier mix known as a potcake or coconut hound). But he’ll get there.
I don't know what the lesson is, exactly. Every dog is different. If I get another dog, though, I will make sure they have an environment with constant opportunities for mental stimulation even if we aren't home, which will probably means an accessible window with a good view.
Other than that, she is doing well, a loved and happy dog. We are grateful for the opportunity to show this creature what it's like to be loved by humans over the long term. We hope to get her in front of a behaviorist to figure out how we can ease her anxiety further -- without drugs.
This really irks me and maybe it's related to the problems. I have no idea. I love dogs, but have never owned one.
Dogs aren't human. You are not their parent.
Stop treating them as toddler substitutes. I'd argue that the excessive coddling of pets is abuse.
That said, I tried to research the recycling effect mentioned in the article and was disappointed to see first that there were no actual links to the listed sources, and second, upon searching for the articles I found that they are all blog posts. I couldn't find a single peer reviewed paper on the effect that is supposed to be so dangerous.
I’ve literally seen a puppy come back that was “scared of its own shadow”, that I’ve taken out to loud chaotic environments with out a reaction from the dog.
I’ve seen a perfectly stable pup go out, and become fearful of the world.
The wife no longer sells pups to service dog homes where the potential owner has anxiety issues, shepherds are very emotionally sensitive and pick up on the owners anxiety, it imprint it.
I’ve also seen dogs that weren’t the most stable goto solid homes and come out rock solid.
Perfectly well adjusted and happy in places without lots of people just don’t like crowds.
I mean that sounds crazy but look at the amount of money spent on pets per year - and then look at the trend line.
First US state to allow pre-tax dollars towards pet insurance will be in 10 years. That's my prediction.
Old dogs love mental stimulation, and many of them can indeed learn new tricks.
My dog hates to sleep alone. Could that be an issue?
Also, being old. Subject to the ails of that. Can raise your anxiety level. Maybe that's what's going on.