One point that has not been made. Microchips are not effective if the owner does not register with the microchip company. I am with a dog rescue, and I implant chips! After I implant one, I ruffle the fur to make sure it went in properly, and I scan to confirm.  If the dog is having a procedure that they are already under anesthesia, then we have the vet do it. In my opinion, local anesthesia hurts going in, and probably more than getting the microchip inserted.  Yes, it hurts, but the the momentary pain is worth the potential life-saving benefit.  The issue of human implantation of microchips is not pertinent to this discussion.

Anne: The point is that humans are being chipped. Also, according to corporate press releases, the human chipping company has estimated that the device has "multi-bilion dollar market potential." So, it looks like they are hoping to chip a lot of humans!

EWO- whether or not that's the case, i hardly think any of those people are walking in to my shelter to be scanned

Anne: Humans ARE being chipped. In fact, the FDA approved microchip implants for medical purposes in humans in 2004. Interestingly enough, some states (California, Wisconsin, Missouri, Oklahoma, and North Dakota) have even banned mandatory chipping of humans.

I believe that my cat had a reaction that was moderate and chronic from his microchip many years after the fact. It was taken care of and much better now. However even with this knowledge I would microchip him all over again. He has never "used" his microchip but, as a result of a momentarily lapse of focus, my dog got away from my husband just before coming in the house (she was down a driveway with a gate and he removed her collar and leash just as they were going inside- she turned around and ran and found a way out of the grounds of the apartment building- not easy but she is a border collie!). Because of her microchip, I was able to be contacted 15 minutes after the very lovely person her found that night brought her to the local vet to be scanned. Without that chip I believe she would have been lost forever- who wouldnt want to keep such a well-behaved dog!

It is always a cost/benefit analysis. I am a true believer in the usefulness of the microchip and recommend it highly despite any drawbacks.

Our record for reuniting a missing pet via their microchip- a cat that was gone for 2 years.

I had to laugh out loud at the human chipping comments.  Every once in awhile we get some sort of crazy person or conspiracy theorist in who swears they've been microchipped (either by the government, or in one case, by his friends while he was passed out drunk), and wants to know if we can scan them.  And we do- it's easier to scan a person than it is to tell a person you're not going to scan them.

Chips found in humans so far: 0

Dr. Khuly: Thank you for clarifying your position. And yes, you have probably been the most vocal veterinarian regarding some of the problems associated with microchip implants. I applaud you for sharing Leon's story with your readers. Having said that, however, how can anyone offer accurate stats if mandatory reporting of adverse reactions to microchip implants is non-existant? Also, as discussed in Leon's website, why is it so difficult to report adverse reactions? And, why is there legislation that requires animals to be chipped but no legislation to require the accurate reporting of adverse reactions to microchip implants; or to veterinary products?

Dolittler: How bizarre. Someone offers scientific and credible supporting references regarding legitimate health concerns associated with microchip implants, and instead of saying "thank you for providing important, factual data" you lash out and accuse the person of using "scare tactics" and "fear-mongering for political gain."

I am an animal lover and I am privileged to share my home with many wonderful animals. For a variety of reasons my animals are not chipped and I certainly do not want anyone to force me to chip my animals. If you or others want to chip your animals - or even chip yourselves - then so be it. However, anyone who allows their animal to be chipped has the right to be informed of the risks associated with this technology.

The fact that the microchip-cancer risk was covered up is inexcusable. The fact that chipped animals have died because of the intentional incompatibility of microchip-scanner technologies is inexcusable. The fact that the temperature-sensing microchip implant has been used in animals yet (according to company documents) does not provide an accurate temperature reading is inexcusable. The microchip companies have deceived - no, LIED to - the public on numerous occasions regarding microchip implants.

Pet owners deserve to know the truth about microchips. What one person considers "safe" and "useful" may be considered "unsafe" and "useless" by someone else. Stop the cover-up and allow each individual to make a decision regarding microchip implants (and all other products) based on the facts and on that person's lifestyle and beliefs.

Say "YES" to mandatory disclosure of the risks associated with microchip implants.

Say "YES" to mandatory reporting of all adverse reactions to microchip implants and all veterinary products.

And say "NO" to mandatory chipping!

Didnt' mean to rehash what the Doc said, but I was typing mine up before she posted hers....

Chrissy and EM, I don't really agree with your point of view.  If we were informed of all of the potential risks in life, we wouldn't live.  The chance of you having vomit inducing food poisoning when eating out is greater than the cancer risk from a microchip.  A sidenote, in the food service industry, 55% of patrons will suffer some form of food poisoning from the meal, at least that's what I was taught in my "food service" class in the military (we all got our turn in that barrel).  Shall we put that in all menus?  The risk of having a life changing injury from driving a car, due to an accident, is greater than cancer from a microchip.  Shall we put that on the dashboard of all cars, a picture of one being mammed?  Radiation damage from microwave ovens?  Infection from treating a small wound with a Band Aid?  The list goes on.

Risk is apparant in all of life.  I do believe that once the risk reaches a given threshold then the custodian of such procedures or devices has a responsiblity to warn you.  However, in this case, I just don't see the threshold being met, a handful of worst case scenarios out of literally millions.

Chrissy: Agreed! What happened to a client's right to know the facts about a product or procedure and be allowed to make an informed decision?

The problem I have with mircochips is that vets don't inform people of the risks.  When my cats were chipped, it was presented as harmless to them in every way.  I wasn't informed that there was a risk of cancer.  Yes, the risk may be slight, but how can I make an educated choice if I am not given all of the information? Vets seems to feel that the risk is small and base their decision not to mention it on their own personal belief that chips save more often than they harm.  It also bothers me that the needle used to implant the chip is almost always described as "just a little needle" or "a typical stick".  Bull.  The thing is huge and takes force to get through the skin.  As a pet owner, I expect my vet to give me all of the information and let me make the final call.  I don't think that's asking too much. I've seriously considered having the chip in one of my cats removed because his body tends to overreact to any insult, such as vaccines. I'm just not sure if taking it out would do more harm than good at this point.

Lis: I am appalled to learn that the law does not protect client information at vet clinics. I wonder how many other people are aware of this. I also wonder how many people are aware that microchip companies can access client and pet data if vets participate in the "expanded" service that you mention.

So, why do vets allow microchip companies (and perhaps others?) to access their databases? Let me guess ... data-mining and money!

EmilyS, no, there's a big difference, because you haven't stated the situation correctly.

The chip contains no information that actually identifies you. Unlike the RFID chips in the new US passports, which do contain personal information and have been successfully hacked.

If your pet has a chip, and your vet does not participated in the database sharing necessary for the "enhanced" service, the company doesn't have access to any information you don't choose to give them. They cannot access the patient or client information on file with your vet.

If your vet does participate in the database sharing for the "expanded" service, it doesn't matter whether your own pets are chipped or not. Even though you have not chosen to do business with the chip company, because your vet is participating in this program, your client information and your pet's patient information is available to them.

Whether your information is at risk or not has nothing to do with whether or not your own pet is chipped.

EWO, that is precisely the concern that caused Dr. Khuly to write that earlier post. However, legally, veterinarians are not covered by HIPPA, the law that protects your information in your own doctor's office. But on the third paw, they surely are covered by the same law that makes your credit card company, bank, and whatever stores you have credit with send you those privacy notices every year. Sarbanes-Oxley, I think, though I haven't had occasion to look it up in a while. Maybe Dr. Khuly could weigh in on whether vets realize they're covered by it?

Lis: Thanks for the information. This issue is even more disturbing than I realized. Isn't it a violation of veterinarian-client confidentiality to allow the microchip companies (or anyone other than authorized employees) to have access to the vet hospital computer?

Seeing as the number one cause of death in healthy young animals is being killed at a shelter, I have to imagine that a far greater number of animals have been saved by microchips than have been harmed by them. The author of the "in-depth microchip report" was the owner of a dog who died of a fibrosarcoma at the microchip site, so the source is certainly not neutral. Much of the "report" isn't about the medical concerns at all. In the conclusion, a stated goal is to "prevent people and animals from being chipped".

I had a cat which died from vaccine associated sarcoma, so I'm painfully aware that everything we do for our pets has benefits as well as risks. However, I've also seen animals die screaming in front of me from disease that could have been prevented by a $3 vaccine, and I've had a cat who killed a bat in my house (hello rabies). Cats can get fibrosarcomas at the site of injection of subcutaneous fluids, it doesn't mean we're going to stop giving fluids to cats.

[paraphrasing Lis] It's not the chip.. it's the number on the chip and the linking of that number to information in various databases...

Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference.  If there's no chip, there's no number, no information and no linking...

Lis: Actually I read Dr. Khuly's comment several times before posting it. And, like I said before, if she weren't concerned about the privacy issues associated with chipping, she would not have made that comment.

What you're missing is that the privacy issue she's talking about is not with the chip itself; there's no information on the chip except a number. The privacy issue involves the "enhanced" service that both AVID and HomeAgain offer, that means that, if you have subscribed to that enhanced services, a shelter or vet that gets your pet in, scans the chip, and reports it to the chip company, can immediately access your pet's medical information for any special medical needs your pet may have. This can in some cases be a huge benefit--but it also means that both the chip company and the shelter your pet is turned in to, has access to a lot more of your information than just how to get your pet back to you. But that's not because of the chip; it's about the program that gives them direct access to your vet hospital's records.

Also, are you saying that if the AVID or Home Again programs link to the vets' medical records database, these companies can access client and pet information???

Yes. That's the whole point. That's the privacy issue Dr. Khuly was talking about in that post. It's not the chip. It's not the chip that gives the companies access to your vet's patient and client records. What does that, is the vet hospital gives the chip company's computers direct access to the vet hospital's computer. And just as your pet having the chip isn't what gives them that access, not having the chip does nothing to protect you from it.

@Anecdote:  The problem with NAIS is that it's to be compulsory, and it will be overly burdensome for small-time farmers like myself.  Not to mention the privacy issues, which are less of a big deal to me personally.

Dr. K, NAIS would make an exceptionally good post coming from a vet's perspective.  Even if you're not a food animal vet, you do have goats, so NAIS affects you.

Me, I'm against NAIS, which I think will be relatively easy for big agribusiness to implement, but it'll put small-timers out of business.  This comes from a person who has insisted that all her dogs microchipped.

Lis: Actually I read Dr. Khuly's comment several times before posting it. And, like I said before, if she weren't concerned about the privacy issues associated with chipping, she would not have made that comment. Also, are you saying that if the AVID or Home Again programs link to the vets' medical records database, these companies can access client and pet information???

"We have a bit of an issue with how Shering-Plough would link its database to ours. Not only would they have access to all our microchipped pets' information, they'd also-effectively-have access to all our patients' records ... Data mining is an excellent source of income in online commerce ... Apparently the folks at Shering-Plough couldn't understand this. When we questioned them at length about this [obvious] ploy to take over our clients' information (and charge them for it, to boot!) they treated us like paranoid conspiracy theorists." (http://www.dolittler.com/2007/04/24/pet.vet.dog.cat.4.24.07.html)

EWO, as should be apparent when you reread this again, that's not a risk of having a microchip in your pet. That's a risk of your vet being part of the AVID or HomeAgain program linking to the vets' medical records database. If your vet is not a part of this, having a chip won't give AVID or HomeAgain access to your and your pets' information. If your vet is a part of it, refusing to chip your pets won't protect your information.

My dog has a chip, because he is a rescue and he came with one.  It has it;s advantages even if he never gets lost, I admit.  I wouldn't have hesitated to get him one because of health risks- heck, EVERYTHING has risks.  He could have some freak fatal allergy to heartworm medication, but that's not likely, so he takes it.  However, if he hadn't come chipped, I wouldn't have done it- it just seems so 1984.

EAB:

There is no need to be hostile. I am merely quoting Dr. Khuly.

If she weren't concerned about the privacy issues, then why did she write: "We have a bit of an issue with how Shering-Plough would link its database to ours. Not only would they have access to all our microchipped pets' information, they'd also-effectively-have access to all our patients' records ... Data mining is an excellent source of income in online commerce ... Apparently the folks at Shering-Plough couldn't understand this. When we questioned them at length about this [obvious] ploy to take over our clients' information (and charge them for it, to boot!) they treated us like paranoid conspiracy theorists." (http://www.dolittler.com/2007/04/24/pet.vet.dog.cat.4.24.07.html)

Forgive the misc. spelling errors.  It's early.  Steal is spelled wrong, that was the most obvious....<GRIN>.

EWO:  If you are truly worried about information privacy of the masses, you got a helluva lot bigger fish to fry than microchips.  Same goes for medical devices and daily encountered risks.  The doc is saying that in the whole scheme of things, the risk of a microchip is relatively small.  She never said it was nonexistant, but it certainly is in the getting struck by lightening, contracting deadly disease by eating fast food, or getting run over while walking on a sidwalk.  It's pretty darn low. 

As an IT professional, I am telling you that the "data mining" risk is minor as well.  The only data that can be aquired is an owner's contact information.  Thing is, there are much easier and more common ways to find that out.  No one who has an interest in compromising your privacy for "evil gain" would ever mess with a microchip implant.

Heck, let me tell you the latest way.  People are breaking into cars at the mall and taking the garage door opener and GPS.  They hit "home" and follow the directions, open the garage, and steel the loot.  And you are worried about a microchip?

VMDiva:

Humans are being chipped. As stated in "Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?": "American firemen, Mexican officials, Alzheimer patients, diabetics, bar patrons, employees, and others have been 'chipped.'" The extensive Reference section of the aforementioned document contains supporting documentation.

Also, due to their religious beliefs, the Amish oppose permanent identification in themselves and their animals. Some Christians also believe that the chip is the "Mark of the Beast."

If, as you say, "scientific studies prove nothing" then why have them? Although some of the terminology in the microchip-cancer studies may be difficult for the average person to understand, a statement such as: "Some masses were extremely fast-growing, enlarging as much as 1 cm per week. As a result, the size of the masses often necessitated early sacrifice of the animals" is very easy to understand. (Elcock: "Tumors in Long-Term Rat Studies Associated with Microchip Animal Identification Devices."

Also, as Dr. Khuly knows, a microchip in an animal can invade a person's privacy. Here's what she wrote in one of her articles: "We have a bit of an issue with how Shering-Plough would link its database to ours. Not only would they have access to all our microchipped pets' information, they'd also-effectively-have access to all our patients' records ... Data mining is an excellent source of income in online commerce ... Apparently the folks at Shering-Plough couldn't understand this. When we questioned them at length about this [obvious] ploy to take over our clients' information (and charge them for it, to boot!) they treated us like paranoid conspiracy theorists." (http://www.dolittler.com/2007/04/24/pet.vet.dog.cat.4.24.07.html)

I think the issue with micro chipping and farming has more to do with liability.  If there is a tainted animal, that is found to be tainted after slaughter the farmer does not want to have to fight the slaghter house over who is responsible.  Every farmer I know is positive that they are sending out uncontaminated products and fears what will happen if said products become tainted during processing.  It is a bit of a stickey widiget as we should be able to accurately track where any contaminant comes from but the reality is each party fights to show they didn't do it and which ever party fights best, well they win.

Dr Khuly wrote: Anesthesia is something I recommend even for my smaller/sensitive patients pre-chipping. If they hate the vaccines, you know the microchipping will be far more humane under general anesthesia.

After I had my greyhound microchipped, I asked to see the device used to insert it. I was astonished at the size! If I had known the size, I would have asked about local anesthesia. (Dr K, why general anesthesia?) That's a pretty big punch in someone's skin. i certainly wouldn't want that big a hole in my skin without anesthesia -- and maybe some pain meds afterward.

As for privacy, I'm with EmilyS. I was recently told that the most recent Photoshop can identify all one's photos with a given person in them. If common software can do that, I have this wary sense about the cameras at all the traffic lights -- where does that data end up?

But then, I grew up when U.S. citizens and residents actually had constitutional rights.  <sigh>

Dr Patty:  no, that's not my blog.

I'm not THAT paranoid.. but OTOH, I think concerns about privacy are extremely appropriate even if microchips aren't part of the system to allow our government, financial sector and merchants to know more about us than we might wish.  Though as others have noted, the horse has left the barn on that one.

Microchipping is not an option in all pets, and the process itself can involve more risks.  For example, smaller mammals may experience a lot of pain with such a large needle.  In parrots the microchip is inserted into the breast muscle, so many vets will only perform the procedure under general anesthesia.  I am not willing to make my conure undergo general anesthesia for what is essentially an elective procedure with no improvement in her daily quality of life and the possibility of complications instead. 

My titanium implant in my low back doesn't seem to be causing me any problems in MRI's. Not all metal and not all implants are problems in MRI's :)

Right!

Pacemakers and other electronics turn off in the magnetic field, which is why they ask you about those.  Tiny sharp metal fragments could migrate (metal filings in eyes, for example), and ear tubes probably the same thing.  Some eye makeup is metallic and can cause artifacts, and so can dental fillings, piercings, some tattoos (if metallic ink)...

As for your credit cards, they weren't magnetized in your pocket, but if you had run them through the center of the magnet, run an actual scan on them, or reversed the direction of those cards while you were in there, that might have wiped them.  A lot of it also depends on magnet strength.

For screening, we take chest radiographs before anesthesia and if BBs are seen, we factor that in to where we need to look.  They create big black holes on an MRI, but if they're not recent and they're well-anchored (walled off in muscle) they don't seem to affect the patient.  We also have the option to CT that patient instead if we're unsure about the metal situation. 

The last 3 patients that we adjusted for metal were: 1) dog with PDA coils in her heart that appeared to be metal on an x-ray.  We looked it up, and couldn't find enough info about it to say for sure.  She got a CT instead.  2) dog with gold acupuncture beads in her lumbar area - got a CT because we would not have seen anything diagnostic on an MRI of that area.  3) dog who had a zipper in her colon and we found it by accident on an abdominal x-ray.  I guess she had it for breakfast.  We had to do poop patrol to wait for that one to pass, then she got an MRI.  :)

Anyway, rambled on long enough.  People ask me about MRI all the time so I thought I'd share a bit about it.

My cats are chipped, as is every kitten that goes out of my house into it's new home! Ever since Hurricane Katrina...

I've had more MRI's than I can count, at this point...every time I have one, we go over a checklist: Do I have a pacemaker?  Do I have (whatever tubes they put in your ears when you have chronic ear infections)?  Have I ever been in an accident that left metal lodged in my body?  Etc etc etc etc.  Don't they do the same review for animal MRI's?

I have two dogs with bullets in their bodies.  One is a BB, the other is a 22.  (I have no idea how they got there--surely they should have had some PAIN after being shot?  Surely there should have been some way to know?  Unless it happened before I adopted them...I just really don't know.)  The vets tell me they see that reasonably frequently: dogs with unexplained bullets that show up on X-ray.  I'd think that would be a concern with an animal MRI...

Incidentally, I've accidentally left my wallet in my pants pocket when getting an MRI of my head, and to my surprise it didn't demagnetize my credit cards.  (I wouldn't do it again, though.)  My titanium implant in my low back doesn't seem to be causing me any problems in MRI's.  Not all metal and not all implants are problems in MRI's :)

And I'm pretty sure I've said this here before, but I've been a firm believer in microchips ever since Tessa backed up to avoid a falling display in a Petsmart...backed right out of her collar (and tags), and out the door into the parking lot!  It was astonishing how easily she pulled right out of her collar, that fit her well.  My Tessa was loose in the Big Wide World with no ID.  ACK!  Fortunately that lasted all of about 2 seconds, but it was still enough to shock me to my senses.  She got a microchip and a harness for walking ASAP.

Tripawds, regarding MRI & microchips:

I'm an MRI tech at a veterinary clinic and we've never had an issue.  I've scanned 500+ patients a year for 4 years!  The chips do continue working after an MRI procedure (we don't check them all, but the last patient I checked has had two MRI scans within a year, on two different scanners, and her chip still worked fine). There is an image artifact at the chip location, but it very rarely obscures what we need to see.  If it does, we can run a different type of scan that isn't affected as much.  We don't ask owners if the pet has a chip because it doesn't influence our procedure at all.

I suppose if you injected a chip and immediately did an MRI, the chip could possibly migrate because it wouldn't be encapsulated by scar tissue...but then we would be aware of that and would delay the procedure.

Has anybody heard of an issue?  I'm always looking into safety & patient considerations as a tech.

EmilyS, wonderful examples of the irrational scare tactics being used to oppose microchips! Thank you.

Tripawds, the Mythbusters (Discovery Channel, Adam Savage and Jamie Heineman) tested a microchip implant in an MRI machine, with no pain or trauma to the patient. <a href=http://mythbustersresults.com/episode87">Mythbusters Episode 87</a>

Recently while I wss petting my medium haired cat, I found her microchip stuck to her hair on her neck.  It seems that it worked it's way out.  At some point I'll have her rechipped because I agree they save more lives then not.

Stefani, I'm guessing earrings for pets wouldn't be the best thing because they could be easily pulled out by the animal scratching their ear or getting the ID caught in something (I'm thinking this would be a problem for cats, especially.) I've worked with mice identified with small ear tags and can tell you that, while many mice do fine with them, many still manage to get them caught in things and rip them out (ouch!) or pull them out of the ears of their buddies. And this is with mice who're carefully monitored and put into very specific conditions - not with the dog who lives in the back yard or the cat who lives in a busy house. Plus, what happens when my big, floppy eared dog shakes his head and flips those heavy ears with attached tags around? The tag could be damaged easily or fly/rip out. Seeing a mangled ear wouldn't be any proof of a stolen pet - I could just as easily pull out your pet's ear tag and say "Oh, he scratched it out himself" and who would know?

We just updated our Microchips and Cancer discussion topic with a link to this post. Of most important note was that reference to MRI scans. Sounds like a potentially scary situation.

Jerry was chipped but never had an MRI. Many of our amputation candidates have magnetic resonance imaging for bone cancer, but I rarely hear of the owners being asked if the dog is chipped!

As an IT expert of many, many (MANY MANY!!!) years, I can speak to this one point.  Anyone that is worried about privacy issues in regards to microchips needs to continue their life of ignorance.  My mother in law refuses to use Amazon because it transmits her information over the internet.  I told her that the scanner at the brick and morter's cash register does the same thing.  If anyone gives me their full name, I can find out where they live and where they used to live.  Unethicah hackers can gather more information on a person that would scare the @*&^ out of you if you knew about it.

Yes, folks this day in age should be concerned with information privacy, but not because of a pet's microchip.

http://www.dogpolitics.com/my_weblog/microchips_data_privacy/

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

Our two kittens were microchipped at the shelter though I would have had it done later if it wasn't standard procedure.  We're in earthquake country and I can easily see how they could get outside after one.  Prettycat is happy to wear a collar and tag but Smartcat will work for days to get hers off.  We've given up on the collar and will have to hope she gets scanned if found on the loose.

I don't see any serious privacy issues with getting a pet returned and the occasional horror story can be found when looking into any activity no matter how usually benign.  Did anyone else see the recent news item about some teachers getting a kid's insulin instead of the flu vaccine because the school nurse didn't read carefully?

Microchips are widely used in agriculture and just as farmers & ranchers may do their own vaccinations and blood draws, they'll implant the microchips themselves.  I suppose dog breeders do the same, they are not restricted to being distributed by vets.

I agree that microchipping has benefits that far outweigh the possible risks, I'm glad my pets are all chipped.  I think the privacy concerns for individual pet owners have more to do with who has the information linked to the microchip, but for farmers it's paranoia about the government tracking and keeping tabs on your livestock from birth to death - a lot of farmers are not fans of government anything.

When I tell people about microchips they sometimes laugh, or think it's strange, newfangled high-tech thing that shows how crazy we've gotten about our pets - but I tell them I've I've seen/heard of countless pets reunited with their owners this way, and I know a couple of people whose pets went missing a long time ago and realize that if they'd had a microchip, they might have gotten them back.

"Also, as stated by the FDA, other serious health concerns associated with microchip implants include: 'adverse tissue reaction; migration of implanted transponder; compromised information security; failure of implanted transponder; failure of inserter; failure of electronic scanner; electromagnetic interference; electrical hazards; magnetic resonance imaging incompatibility; and needle stick.'"

I would NOT consider the following serious health concerns of microchip implantation: failure of implanted transponder; failure of inserter; failure of electronic scanner; electromagnetic interference; electrical hazards; magnetic resonance imaging incompatibility; and needle stick. Needle stick is a serious health concern? I disagree. How many people and animals have blood drawn and vaccines given everyday? Discomfort, yes. Serious health concern, no.

Certainly we know microchips can migrate following implantation and that an unskilled implanter can fail to place the chip correctly leading to it falling out (much more common than the aforementioned tragedies). I suppose in a severely inept handler, implantation into the spinal cord could occur but I can't even imagine how any person who is familiar with subcutaneous injections could ever implant a chip into a spinal cord. Perhaps it's not so much of a microchip issue as a user issue and lack of proper restraint of the patient.

'there are also serious privacy, legal, ethical, agricultural, religious, and environmental concerns associated with these implants"

And how exactly does a microchip in a dog or cat invade on a person's privacy and compromise your religious views? Is there a religious group who opposes permanent identification? Seems like a cosmic leap from animals to people made by conspiracy theorists. In my mind, these topics aren't even comparable. People are not being implanted. Microchips only provided numbers that are linked to names, addresses, and phone numbers of the pet owner. They are not GPS devices, files with your SS#, Driver's licence #, and DOB. You give as much information to the pizza delivery guy.

Scientific studies prove nothing, they show evidence that needs to be interpreted in light of material/methods/analysis/results. Scientific studies in the hands of an unqualified reader can lead to misinterpretation. As list of every article from PubMed that contains the words "microchip" and "sarcoma" doesn't build evidence unless there is interpretation and analysis of the actual results. I will be reading these articles from noble-leon.com myself. The microchip-associated sarcoma is certainly interesting from a clinical perspective. I believe more research needs to be and will be done in the future so we veterinarians can adequately inform clients of the risks and benefits of microchip implantation.

I'm not denying there are adverse reactions, poor implantations, and tumors associated with implantation. I do believe these events to be very infrequent, which is no consolation for Leon's owner.

I don't doubt that the chips are safe, but what blew my mind with these chips, and I could be wrong, is that it seems they are pretty lax on who can put them in. We went to a dog show when we got Tina's put in, and the person that installed it wasn't a Vet, and I doubt if she was even a Vet tech. Nope, she was a volunteer with some pedegree organizations. They had a box of the chips, all the official paperwork, etc, so I figure they know what they are doing. To date, the chip works (just checked it last week prior to the Therapy Dog International test SHE PASS!!!!!) and the dog hasn't died yet. Go figure.

As far as odd occurances, we have a friend that has had dogs for years and refuses to get them altered. Seems she had one dog off to be neutered and the dog never woke up from the anesthetic. Imagine trying to convice her how minimal the risk is with that procedure. Same goes for my aunt. She lost her husband due to a blood clot after knee replacement. In each case, it was determined that the procedures were not performed correctly. In the first case, obviously, the anesthetic  was not administered correctly.  In the second case, watching for bloodclots is a standard deal with knee replacement and yet the hospital dropped the ball.

What I am saying is that with anything, the expertise of the human involved always feeds into the percentages.  A car is at much less risk with someone that has never had an accident at the wheel.  now my 73 year old father in law that knows his auto insurance agent by first name?  Not so much.

My cat's microchip migrated to the scapula. The first time I found it while petting him, I was a little alarmed - but it still works and it doesn't bother him. 

The same problem is present in agriculture with the proposed National ID system. It's not about "spying" on people and their animals (and invading their privacy), it's about protecting our livestock from Foreign Animal Diseases and keeping the food supply safe.

All pets must be chipped by law in Germany.  There is another solution; don't have pets.  Just like driving a car, riding a motorcycle, or having children; there are responsibilities that go with rights and privileges.  I only wish that there could be one international standard; both my dogs have U.S. and European chips.

OK, dumb question coming:

Why can't we have little earrings for our pets? 

True, people who wanted to steal them would just cut them out.  But little ear studs or something of that nature sounds much safer, and they could be put in a location where if it was cut out, it would make it totally obviouis the pet was stolen (as oppoesd to the standard way/location of ear tipping ferals -- you could use a different location)