Prescribing A Flea And Tick Medicine

My dog has Credelio Plus oral flea and tick tablets due to it being impossible to administer spot on without him going into a frenzy. I have asked my vet for a written prescription for 6 months but is it now the case, since the law change around POM-V, that my dog will have to be seen at the end of of those 6 months, before they issue another half year written prescription? Previously I coincided the request when he had is booster.

Hello!  It sounds to me as though your vets' translation of those rules may be correct.  I can see why some owners feel angry and inconvenienced by the new regs, having been in the habit of going to the vets very rarely for treatment.   If you head over to our blog, David Harris has written an article exploring the controversial change in legislation.  It's called:  New Prescribing Rules for UK vets.  I'm afraid that the forum doesn't like me to post links, but you can find the article by going to our blog and using the search-bar.  Do let us know what you think.

Many thanks for prompt response, but I am still confused having read blog. I recently moved to a new vet in April. My previous practice prescribed Credelio Plus due to my dogs reluctance to take a spot on treatment. My new vet, having had my dogs records transferred over, has just experienced my dogs flight behaviour due to a foot injury, so they know what we are dealing with. He has been on Credelio over a year, and in all likelihood, will take this oral form of flea and tick treatment for the rest of his life. The vet has happily drawn up a 6 month prescription so that we may purchase this medication online to help us financially at this time. He is at the top end of the weight range for prescribing, so I am at a loss as to why my vet will want to see him after my 6 month prescription has run out other than to get a consultation fee and then a written prescription fee out of me. We are not talking about an ongoing medical condition that needs a justifiable review - it is flea and tick treatment. We feel that we will be penalised because we require an oral medication, yet could pop into Just For Pets for a packet of Frontline without any real bother. So, the question is, is my vet being unreasonable in this instance, albeit operating within the guidelines set out?

Hello - and here is the point at the nub of this - it is not an ongoing medication that needs a review.... it is (just?) a flea and trick treatment.  Of course, flea and tick treatment are medications that do influence things profoundly.  Over the years Im afraid that we (as a profession) have tended to think of flea and tick treatments as being less important to restrict than antibiotics, where we have seen a very necessary revolution in attitudes.  As happened with antibiotics years ago, vets are now changing our approach to antiparasiticides.  As a philosopher once said, Do what you know.... until you know better, then do better.  Control the things you can control first.... get your own house in order etc.    Thus our regulatory body has now changed the way that we deal with flea control and I have now done some CPD to try to stay up to date.  The rest of the market is outside vets' control at this time, and needs government influence, which may be slower to acheive. The disparity is resulting in frustrated voices across the profession.  I am still not sure what the best solution would have been and am interested to see how the situation evolves.   Meanwhile, I am a member of the Royal College and if I were to be asked to prescribe a flea treatment, I would be following the guidelines.