Not that I would pay any attention to so absurd a suggestion
Why is it necessarily absurd? I would have thought it was worth doing for at least a while to see if symptoms improved, then you could turn around and go "Actually, no, doesn't seem to be a problem" or "Hmmm, you're right, the hamster does set me off when it is not cleaned every day". What with asthma having a combination of triggers (not all of which are allergic), it's not like they can do a completely reliable test on you and give you the all-clear or say that something will definitely cause you asthma :-(.
What I thought was absurd was the expectation of the allergist who told me I was going to have to stay away from everything with "chemicals" in, even if it was clear that the word wasn't being used in a scientific context :-).
I think it's absurd when worded as you suggested, as a blanket prohibition. There are very few people who live so closely with animals that they are never away from them, so serious reactions tend to be very easy to spot.
I have lots of pets, and am keener than most on taking them everywhere I go, but even I have significant periods when I am not around animals. There are people who holiday with their pets, sleep with their pets, and never leave them, but those people are very rare.
The question : do you have pets, and is this still a problem when you aren't around them? is valid, but a blanket ruling on all species without evidence seems to me daft when there are so many other possible triggers which are much harder to spot.
Plus, a blanket ruling on furry species is almost as silly as your 'avoid chemicals' ludicrous instruction : most people who react, react to dander or saliva, not fur, and there is no particular reason to suppose that someone who gets a rash from cat saliva will have breathing problems when he meets a rat, for example.
There are huge health benefits to pet ownership, and many people who have mild sensitivities to animals find that these benefits outway the problems anyway. Often, if there are problems, they can be kept happily in order with management and antihistamines.
I suspect that our asthma may be of a rather differing variety here from the way you are discussing things. Either way, a disclaimer that I'm reporting on what I get told (much of which annoys me), rather than what I believe to be A Good Thing.
In the case of the allergists suggesting to stay away from furry animals, I gather that, much like the similar suggestion to stay away from feathers, that the mechanism involved is a non-allergic* one. They tell you to avoid things even if your skin prick tests come back negative. (*Or, in some cases, it's an indirect allergy reason (e.g. if things cause an increase in dust mites).)
I, too, find it intensely frustrating that specialists have to make their best guesses based on their experience rather than more rigorous scientific methods. But *shrug* their best guesses have kept me from dying, and that's the important thing to me :-). "Do you have pets?" is a common question which they *all* ask, so I figure that it's not just one person's personal ideas (even if they are a specialist).
There are huge health benefits to pet ownership, and many people who have mild sensitivities to animals find that these benefits outway the problems anyway. Often, if there are problems, they can be kept happily in order with management and antihistamines.
I have to express my surprise at this point that anybody can manage to get to see an allergist if their condition is kept under control with antihistamines! I have to admit that I thought it took at least two or three inpatient stays or to be on at least five different relevant classes of drugs for a year before they'd even say hello to you :-).
No, mine is not that serious - I should have been clearer about that in my first comment when I said 'absurd' - I mean 'absurd given that the level of reaction is unpleasant rather than really dangerous'.
My last paragraph that you quote does say 'mild sensitivities', and I'm thinking really there of the painfully large number of animals that are surrendered under the banner of 'allergies' when at most what is being talked about is a minor reaction. Life threatening conditions are a different kettle of fish, I accept.
I agree that there are many demonstrable benefits to having pets (to some people some of the time at the very least). BUT something controlled by having to take antihistamines a lot (ie. regular drugs) isn't ideal and some people would rather not do that - and might therefore prefer to simply not have furry pets (and doctors might thus recommend it for the same why take drugs when there's another way).
I have not yet established whether it is cats or some pollens etc that they have brought in which have given me allergy attacks, but I can't see how I could test this without having to house a cat who I might then have to get rehoused, I think it might be more responsible to not get one in the first place for the sake of the cat and possibly the humans as well. It would be even unkinder to am asthmatic/allergic child who might be very upset if the animal had to go (and have less understanding than an adult of why). And I like cats so I'm not against them at all...(although this is hypothetical at the mo as our housing doesn't allow pets).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 03:20 pm (UTC)Why is it necessarily absurd? I would have thought it was worth doing for at least a while to see if symptoms improved, then you could turn around and go "Actually, no, doesn't seem to be a problem" or "Hmmm, you're right, the hamster does set me off when it is not cleaned every day". What with asthma having a combination of triggers (not all of which are allergic), it's not like they can do a completely reliable test on you and give you the all-clear or say that something will definitely cause you asthma :-(.
What I thought was absurd was the expectation of the allergist who told me I was going to have to stay away from everything with "chemicals" in, even if it was clear that the word wasn't being used in a scientific context :-).
no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 03:59 pm (UTC)I have lots of pets, and am keener than most on taking them everywhere I go, but even I have significant periods when I am not around animals. There are people who holiday with their pets, sleep with their pets, and never leave them, but those people are very rare.
The question : do you have pets, and is this still a problem when you aren't around them? is valid, but a blanket ruling on all species without evidence seems to me daft when there are so many other possible triggers which are much harder to spot.
Plus, a blanket ruling on furry species is almost as silly as your 'avoid chemicals' ludicrous instruction : most people who react, react to dander or saliva, not fur, and there is no particular reason to suppose that someone who gets a rash from cat saliva will have breathing problems when he meets a rat, for example.
There are huge health benefits to pet ownership, and many people who have mild sensitivities to animals find that these benefits outway the problems anyway. Often, if there are problems, they can be kept happily in order with management and antihistamines.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 05:05 pm (UTC)In the case of the allergists suggesting to stay away from furry animals, I gather that, much like the similar suggestion to stay away from feathers, that the mechanism involved is a non-allergic* one. They tell you to avoid things even if your skin prick tests come back negative.
(*Or, in some cases, it's an indirect allergy reason (e.g. if things cause an increase in dust mites).)
I, too, find it intensely frustrating that specialists have to make their best guesses based on their experience rather than more rigorous scientific methods. But *shrug* their best guesses have kept me from dying, and that's the important thing to me :-). "Do you have pets?" is a common question which they *all* ask, so I figure that it's not just one person's personal ideas (even if they are a specialist).
There are huge health benefits to pet ownership, and many people who have mild sensitivities to animals find that these benefits outway the problems anyway. Often, if there are problems, they can be kept happily in order with management and antihistamines.
I have to express my surprise at this point that anybody can manage to get to see an allergist if their condition is kept under control with antihistamines! I have to admit that I thought it took at least two or three inpatient stays or to be on at least five different relevant classes of drugs for a year before they'd even say hello to you :-).
no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 05:18 pm (UTC)My last paragraph that you quote does say 'mild sensitivities', and I'm thinking really there of the painfully large number of animals that are surrendered under the banner of 'allergies' when at most what is being talked about is a minor reaction. Life threatening conditions are a different kettle of fish, I accept.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 07:54 pm (UTC)I have not yet established whether it is cats or some pollens etc that they have brought in which have given me allergy attacks, but I can't see how I could test this without having to house a cat who I might then have to get rehoused, I think it might be more responsible to not get one in the first place for the sake of the cat and possibly the humans as well. It would be even unkinder to am asthmatic/allergic child who might be very upset if the animal had to go (and have less understanding than an adult of why). And I like cats so I'm not against them at all...(although this is hypothetical at the mo as our housing doesn't allow pets).