Amanda
All medicine is risk assessment. When treating an animal, we must as ourselves is the benefit of treating the animal worth the risk in side effects? Alternatively, is NOT treating the animal and letting it heal on its own worth the risk of the disease not being effectively eliminated? I truly believe that this dog was done a disservice by not being treated with the appropriate standard of care. You say that yourself that Ida "aborted her last flare up, on her own, without treatment." Yes...but wouldn't it be better if the poor creature didn't have to have these painful flareups in the first place? You're running the risk of doing permanent damage to this dog by choosing to not treat it with the accepted medical therapy. I'm not saying that we should just throw antibiotics at everything, but they are definitely warranted in this case. It would be really nice if we could use homeopathic medicines to "trick our brain" into ramping up our natural defenses, but sadly this is ineffective in many diseases (as peer-reviewed scientific research will tell you). You have treated this dog with homeopathy, and obviously it's not working as the dog continues to relapse. What does a good vet do when he realizes that his treatment isn't working? Does he hold steadfast to his ideologies and refuse to alter his course of action? No. He would re-evaluate his patient and his therapy, and do what is best for the patient. Obviously your treatment modality isn't working, as this dog continues to suffer relapses. Perhaps it's time to truly see the picture as it is.