Dogs for Diabetes

I was surprised to see this article in Diabetes Health as I have tried in the past to get information from Dogs for Diabetes, and have been totally ignored. I have had short communications with a couple of clients of Dogs for Diabetes (D4D) and both seemed very pleased with their service dog from D4D.

Generally if something seems too good to be true, it is. I am not sure about this trainer and the conditions outlined in this article. There may be good reasons to limit the area in which you will serve clients, but when excellent trainers can train from coast to coast, I have some concerns.

I have assisted a mobility dog trainer here in Iowa and he has dogs all over the Midwest. The dogs are well trained for serving the person and the person is trained to keep training up-to-date and refresh the dog on a regular basis. He is available for communications with clients and is always willing to take a dog back if a client becomes unable to use the dog. He has two periods during the year for anyone wanting to come back with his or her dog for refresher training.

Whether I am misunderstanding the meaning of what Mark is saying, or I have been taught differently, I cannot say. I think Mark misspoke in the following statement in response to Nadia's question. “Training a dog to provide an alert to a potentially life-threatening condition is a serious matter. It requires a clear understanding of the medical condition, as well as of dog behavior and training skills. Dogs have been known to assist their close human companions spontaneously, but the anecdotal information does not prove that it is due to scent recognition, or empathy the dog may feel from the onset of serious symptoms. Scent training has the potential to provide an alert prior to the onset of the condition, while in these cases the dog's recognition of symptoms is a reaction after the condition is present.”

The bold is my emphasis and the part I dispute. Yes, in a few instances, Mark is correct, but the dogs that I have witnessed that have been self-trained, generally alert to the onset of the condition, and not after the condition is present. I think it has to do with the service dog owner and the dedication to training. If the owner is not dedicated to the training, I can see Mark's situation being a fact. However, I will not make a blanket statement like Mark, as there are too many variables.

I am glad the rules they have established work for them. I have been told that the age of 12 should be the lower limit and most trainers try for 16 years of age, but will work with lower ages depending on the person and the dog. Some dogs trainers use are smaller dogs that do not weigh as much. Those in the mobility area are often much heavier and most trainers will not work with person younger than 16. The trainer I am familiar with has only made two exceptions in almost 20 years. One was 14 and the other was 12. Both already had the dogs of choice and had a good working relationship with the dog.

The guideline for having diabetes for one year sounds reasonable. I know that many organizations prefer that the person have type 1 diabetes and have hypoglycemia unawareness to be considered, but not in all cases. I am not aware of people with type 2 diabetes being eligible for diabetes service dogs from most organizations.

This has to be the exception to most diabetes service dog placement agencies. This seems unsustainable. “Nadia: What are the fees associated with getting a service dog? Susan: A D4D service dog is valued at approximately $35,000 to $45,000 by the time it's placed with its diabetic team partner. The total cost to the person with diabetes for a dog currently is $150, which covers an application processing fee and training supply costs.” I also wonder if there are other costs not mentioned.

Susan is correct in her following statement and it is a shame that a few of these businesses are not exposed for the frauds they are. “Susan: There's a growing number of organizations, as well as trainers, claiming to provide service dogs to assist people with diabetes. Some are successful, while many others are not. Training methodology, client services, including client training, follow-up and continuing care, and costs-up to $50,000 a dog-create a confusing variation in outcomes. At times there have been disturbing misrepresentations in the industry, resulting in broken promises to consumers. D4D's goal as an industry leader is to leverage its expertise to set and maintain standards and educate the public.”

I wish them success. I just hope that they would have included more information on their web site. It is there, but the information is minimal at best.

Dogs Again Prove They Are Better Than Technology

When are scientists going to realize that dogs are smarter than they are? German researchers have shown that highly trained dogs are more reliable than computed tomography (CT) scans. The scans for lung cancer were only 20 percent accurate and the dogs came in at 71 percent accurate.

What surprises me is the fact that many doctors totally dismiss dogs as being this capable and see them only as possible pets. Some doctors are waking up and reporting instances when a dog does identify cancer and the evidence is building about the effectiveness of dogs. Read my blog here about research on colon cancers and dogs detecting it in Japan.

When you read this article, make sure to read the last two paragraphs. Again the only thing medical researchers and doctors are interested in is discovering what the dogs are capable of and developing a new technology capable of duplicating what the dogs can do and relegating the dogs back to pets. Also read the fourth paragraph in this article.

I sincerely wish there was a way to determine to cost of the equipment they are trying to build to take the place of the dog and then annualize the cost of a dog and equipment to see if this would even be worth doing. Yes, some people can be allergic to dogs and a few people will have a fear or phobia of dogs, but dogs I feel can do a very good job even in a clinical setting.

Another variable mentioned in both articles is that the length of training varies and may have affected the results in some trials. This would create variables of unforeseen consequences and make some trials invalid from the start. Training costs can be high, but it would seem to get valid data, training should be the same for all trials.

The Use of Dogs for Early Cancer Detection

This is about another type of service dog. Researchers in Japan have proven that dogs are accurate detectors of cancer, colon cancer specifically.

Researchers used a Labrador retriever that was trained for several months to sniff out colorectal cancer in the breath and watery stool samples. They stated that in previous studies on dogs and cancer that the dogs can detect lung and breast cancer from breath samples and that there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that dogs can detect melanoma, bladder, and ovarian cancers.

The research took place at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan. The dog was used to detect colorectal cancer from patients and volunteers, some that had gastrointestinal problems such as ulcers and inflammatory bowel disease. The dog correctly identified cancer in 33 of 36 breath tests and in 37 of 38 stool tests.

The highest detection rates were among samples taken from patients with early-stage cancer. Samples taken from smokers and from people with other gastrointestinal diseases, which possibly might mask or interfere with cancer odors, did not seem to confuse the dog.

The most encouraging statement from the researchers is, “this study shows that a specific cancer scent does exist”. Then they go on to state that they are not suggesting using dogs in a clinical setting.

They are right that the training of the dog is expensive and time consuming. They also say that the ability and concentration varies between individual dogs and even the same dog on different days.
Of course then they state why the study is preformed, to determine whether there could be something that could be used to develop cancer detection tests based on “odor materials.” They are looking for cancer-specific volatile organic compounds that can be used to develop an early cancer detection sensor that would substitute for the dog.

Read about the study here.