When retired veterinarian Dr. Saint-Albans visits his granddaughter at her suburban veterinary practice, her office manager tells him that Dr. Mayhew will be with him shortly. While he awaits her in her office, he studies the collection of photos taken at their multigenerational family gatherings that began in the post-WWI era. A reproduction of a black and white photo taken when he was toddler that includes his great- and grandparents and parents and numerous other relatives makes him smile.
“It’s hard to imagine a time when all those people either lived under the same roof, on the same land, or within a few miles of each other, isn’t it?” he asked his granddaughter when she entered the room. “But that was the norm back then. Later when I worked in a similar area, I realized what communication challenges those multigenerational arrangements could create in food animal practices. You’re lucky that’s not an issue for you here.”
By “here,” he meant Dr. Mayhew’s busy suburban companion animal practice.
“Let’s talk about this over lunch,” his granddaughter laughed. “My practice is a lot more multigenerational than you might think! But I suspect that the problems I encounter might be quite different from those you remember.”
Over lunch, the older veterinarian described his practice where many of his clients could trace their family’s ownership of the land to the first settlers in the area. Consequently, livestock selection, husbandry practices, and each person’s role in realizing these often were passed down through the generations and became part of family tradition. Although this had its merits, it also created several communications problems for practitioners like Dr. Saint-Albans who practiced in the mid- to late 1900s.
One involved disagreement between members of the older and younger generations regarding the best way to care for their livestock, the land, and run the business. Admittedly such disagreements are so common among families that these would seem inconsequential. But because the veterinarian knew all the parties involved, the pressure on him to take sides could be great.
“Often a basic sequence would repeat itself,” he explained to Dr. Mayhew. “Younger members of the family would go off to college with the family’s blessing to get a degree in some field considered relevant to the family farm’s success. Then when those folks returned and wanted to implement the new concepts and techniques they had learned during their educations, some in the older generations would resist. Because they were all family, some of those arguments got pretty heated and personal. Eventually they’d work it out. But there was a period of instability during which I spent as much time and energy maintaining a neutral stance without alienating anyone as I did treating their animals.”
Toward the end of Dr. Saint-Alban’s career, disagreements regarding the future of his clients’ farms became more complex and contentious. The upheavals that occurred when the younger folk wanted to embrace technology at all levels paled compared to those generated when some wanted to sell the land and retire and others did not. In neither situation could he offer technical advice that applied to each family’s circumstances, but that did not stop them from requesting it.
Other times, economic and demographic changes precipitated emotional discussions regarding the viability of making the transition to organic, raising different kinds of livestock for specialty markets, or adding other services to diversify their offerings to provide more economic stability.
“Usually I could provide what I considered meaningful input in most of these situations,” Dr. Saint-Albans told Dr. Mayhew. “I’d share studies or articles on the changes under consideration as these related to their animals and their welfare. I also tried to provide those that covered the pros and cons to reinforce my objective position. But it seemed like there always was at least one person who wanted to perceive what I did as taking someone’s side.” He paused and looked at his granddaughter expectantly. “How does that compare to what you’re seeing in your companion animal practice today?”
“Some similarities, but some differences too,” replied Dr. Mayhew.
She then enlightened the older practitioner on the kinds of multigenerational households in her practice. Instead of the nuclear family with 2 parents and a few subadult children once typical in her area, more suburban and urban households could include senior parents who moved in with adult children or adult children who moved in with their parents or never left for some reason. Although sometimes these arrangements were mutually desired, many occurred in response to a combination of economic, health, social, or other concerns. In a few households, the homeowners were members of what some sociologists referred to as the “Sandwich Generation.” Not only did they have one or more elderly parent living with them, but also adult children.
“In my experience, people also tend to form more emotional and symbolic attachments to companion animals compared to livestock,” continued Dr. Mayhew. “And these unique attachments with their pets can be especially potent and important to those who find themselves sharing their homes with their relatives.”
For example, when family pressure caused octogenarian Ms. Erikson to move in with her son and his partner, she considered her cat’s presence vital to her survival. Consequently, she did not want to do anything she thought might upset him, even for his own good. When her son accused her of being silly and insisted on taking the cat in to see Dr. Mayhew for a check-up, the elderly woman became frightened and angry. When the two of them brought the cat in for a routine check-up, the friction between mother and son made it difficult for the veterinarian to get any kind of meaningful history regarding the animal. Additionally, his owner’s distress distressed the cat and made even a rudimentary examination impossible.
Dr. Mayhew also told Dr. Saint-Albans about her clients like recent college graduates Joe and Ellen Brown who moved in with her parents to save up enough to buy their own house. Naturally, the couple brought their beloved, but over-indulged and misbehaved dog with them. However, for as much as they loved the dog, they also were afraid of him. Unfortunately, the senior Browns did not share the younger generation’s tolerance for the animal’s aggression, marking, and recurrent diarrhea. Moreover, they found Joe and Ellen’s fear of their own dog incomprehensible. Whether embarrassed because their dog distressed the people willing to provide them with free housing or because Ellen’s parents forced them, the couple sought help from Dr. Mayhew.
“But Joe and Ellen didn’t want to make the changes necessary to correct the dog’s behavioral problems, any more than they wanted to change the treat-laden diet that contributed to his diarrhea,” Dr. Mayhew noted. “Instead, they tried to convince me he would be fine once her folks learned to love him as much as they did. It was frustrating because they were in total denial about the dog’s problems and it was obvious this was undermining his well-being and creating a lot of tension in the household.”
Ensuring a consistent response from everyone may be difficult to achieve in multigenerational households like these, regardless what kind of problems the animal has. Although sometimes family ties and concern for the animal’s welfare may lead all involved to settle their differences, this may not occur. Older folks with pets living with offspring may expect the younger generation to meet their demands regarding the animal’s care. Returning adults with animals may expect working or retired parents to take care of their pets for them. Meanwhile homeowners who looked forward to enjoying their homes alone may resent their new housemates’ animal-related assumptions and the animals themselves.
In situations such as these, arguments that begin over something the animal did or did not do may segue into tirades about past or present human behaviors that have nothing to do with the animal at all. Despite this, sometimes one or more members of the family may project their own failure to compromise for the good of the animal onto the practitioner and blame that person instead.
“I’ve only had a few cases like the last kind and ultimately suggested they seek veterinary care elsewhere.” Dr. Mayhew summarized her feelings about these multifaceted intergenerational communication conflicts. “I hated to do it, but those cases were energy vampires. Plus, the energy I devoted to them meant I had less for the rest of my clients and patients.”
Adapting to new living situations can be as stressful for people as it is for the animals involved. Unlike multigenerational disagreements regarding the optimum use or disposition of the animals or property in which all family members have a vested interest, those involving companion animal households may involve unique, highly personal symbolic components unrelated to the animals themselves. Focusing on animal well-being places practitioners above intergenerational conflicts. If those involved cannot cooperate to ensure the animal’s health, terminating the relationship may become a viable option.
Footnotes
Use of this article is limited to a single copy for personal study. Anyone interested in obtaining reprints should contact the CVMA office (hbroughton@cvma-acmv.org) for additional copies or permission to use this material elsewhere.