What you're missing is the part where we schedule plenty of time in so that when people get there, we are ready to handle them "early". People don't wait. We're scheduling the ROOM/DR in OUR computer. We're scheduling the client's requested arrival 10 min prior to getting them in the room. However, since we schedule sufficient time for every appointment, and plenty of staff, too, clients/patients are seen when they are ready to be seen, even if they're early. One client arrived last week an hour early (by accident), smack dab in the middle of the lunch 2-hour "break". She was still seen, right then. We schedule 3 assistants/techs and 2 receptionists for one doctor . . . thus, there is (barring emergency) plenty of staff to get the clients into the rooms when they are ready. Similarly, we have 3 exam rooms for that one doctor, so clients aren't rushed in/out but also don't have to wait. (One exam room is usually empty, waiting the next client, or being cleaned, etc.) Anyway, the exact logistics of scheduling will vary greatly among various professional offices. I think the key is that the professional be committed to client convenience on some significant level. We also reserve 25% of our appointment slots for same-day emergencies/urgent visits. That allows sick-calls to be put in a regular appointment slot instead of running over or being double booked. We also schedule extra time for known long visits, not trying to cram every appointment into the same 10-20 min window. (We allow 20 min for "regular" appointments, 30 min for wellness -- lots of talk, lol, and 40 min for extended appointments.) Practices that are all about maximizing revenues may cram more appointments in per hour, or use fewer staff, or use other means to increase productivity at the cost of service and/or medicine. Anyway, I know we do it well for our practice, because clients never, ever complain about waits, and we track wait times (almost never more than 5 min at any stage of the appointment). What works for another office might not work for ours, and vice versa. FWIW, I attended neurology appointments for years with my mom who has Alzheimer's. Her DR is very well regarded, works insanely long hours . .. and we never, ever waited more than a couple minutes. My aunt and uncle see another neurologist, who practices in the same office (shared receptionist and physical space, but separate professional staff and businesses), and they have routinely waited HOURS for appointments. There is no good/acceptable reason why one neurologist there should typically run hours behind their "book" while the other runs on time . . . To me, it comes down to a commitment to provide good customer service in addition to good medicine. Not everyone cares whether they wait around in the reception area, and that's fine, but I care.

I agree it is annoying and silly. By alerting you that they are telling you to come "early", then it warns you not to expect to get right in . . . That means if you don't have any paperwork to do, or yours takes 60 seconds, you are conditioned not to complain or be irritated until (well after) your actual official appointment time, 15 minutes later. So, if you sit for 25 min in the waiting room, well they are only "10 minute" LATE getting you into a room, which you'd have to be an ass to complain about, right? To me, that's lazy scheduling, and it's obviously done for the convenience of the practice at the detriment of the clients. In our vet hospital, we simply tell clients that their appointment time is 10 minutes earlier than the one in our "books". The "books" reflect DR/room times, so if we tell people 4:00, and they meander in at 4:05 and have 5-10 min of paperwork to do, then they aren't ready for the DR/room until 10-15 min later than the room is scheduled for, creating mass confusion, lol. Instead, we tell the "4:00 appointment" that their appointment is for 3:50. When they meander in 5-10 min late, no problem, we can zoom them through paperwork with a smile, and still get them in the room on time or very close to it. Note, we also run a tight ship and allow enough time for appointments that very rarely does anyone wait around anywhere. Clients never complain about waits, because they don't wait. We get them through the waiting area and the room itself efficiently, while allowing plenty of time for small talk and extra issues that arise. It seems that few professional offices put much effort into keeping their clients appointments on time and smoothly running. A few weeks ago, I went to a routine dermatology appointment, first thing in the morning. (So, not much time for the office to be running behind for emergencies, and besides dermatology isn't a hotbed of emergency appointments . . .) After waiting 15 min prior to my time, and 30 min after my time, and still being in the waiting room, I went to the reception desk and told them I was leaving since I had to get home to my mom (who has Alzheimer's) since her caregiver was scheduled to leave in an hour, and obviously, I wasn't going to be able to be seen, check out, and get home in time if I wasn't seen yet. A few weeks later, I took ALL THREE of my kids in for their routine dermatology appointments at some God-Awful hour of the morning, at this same office, and again with a sitter at home with my mom ($$$). Well, apparently, they'd "conveniently" rescheduled my kids' appointments for a few weeks later, and notified me by mail to our new appointment time. No call, no confirmation with me, just some random piece of mail that was likely round filed. This private practice office sees me, my mom, and my 3 kids annually for exams and plenty of surgical procedures (we are mole-y people with lots of pre-cancerous moles, etc.) I loved the dermatologist, but I'd had enough. I let them know none of us would be back. There are plenty of other dermatologists in our doctor-saturated med-school/two hospital town . . . and hopefully, the next one will have somewhat better management.

@bill, I hear how passionate you are about the wellbeing of dogs. I know from your long history of posts that you are a smart person. You really need to read the entirety of the actual studies and stare at the data for a while. It is simply incorrect that the Davis studies are consistent across breeds. I've just reviewed the data, as presented by the Davis researchers, and in the context of the additional as-yet-to-be-published data from the same studies, and it is clear to me that the data is not consistent across breeds (or sex). Specifically, S/N was not found to increase cancer risk for german shepherds of either sex, nor for labs of either sex. Technically, little to no increased risk for golden males (although the data looks to me like there is some increased risk, but not statistically significant, so likely needs additional study). The data shows a strong (3-4x) cancer risk with spay for female golden retrievers. This is just one example of the complicating factors in the current data sets. The data is far from conclusive for increased cancer risks for dogs at large. Joint disorders were more consistently found to be linked to early s/n. The studies themselves have limitations due to study design. Here is one publicly available actual study that goes in depth in the differences among breeds. There are more available if you search. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102241 My understanding is that small breed dogs show no increase in risks with s/n. Additionally, there is a great deal of work to be done on the impact of age of s/n. Research suggests that the joint disorder impacts of s/n is closely related to age at s/n, and that waiting to s/n until after the growth plates close is likely beneficial for large breed dogs from the perspective of joint disorders. Aggression is clearly increased without neutering for male dogs, but data suggest that neutering at older ages (2 years, etc) can be just as helpful in reducing aggression as neutering at an early age. So, for dogs with hormone-sensitive aggression (about a 30% increased risk of aggression with being intact), they appear to respond to late neutering. Since aggression is a primary cause of dog abandonment or euthanasia, let alone injury to the aggressive dog, people, and other animals, preventing aggression is a vital issue in optimizing dog health and protecting the public. This issue alone is a substantial health risk that is mitigated by neutering, and, since it seriously impacts human health and safety, I believe it is of vital importance. Many, many, many owned dogs are abandoned by age 1 or 2, most commonly due to behavior. Thus, it is a huge concern to me. I would love to see some good studies separating S/N impacts by age as well as sex. Much of the good data so far compares S/N at age 6 months vs intact. Including a class of S/N at several ages (1 year, 18 months, 2 years) would be very informative, as the theories/data so far suggest that waiting until a bit older to S/N might be optimum. This is an area that needs more research, and I am sure it is being done. There are many areas of medicine where early studies show incorrect results. I remember a smart, lovely, research oriented OB/GYN telling me in the early 90s that every woman should be on hormone replacement therapy for keeps once she hits menopause because the data was so clear that "normal" estrogen levels essentially prevented you from aging, protecting against dementia and a host of other ills. Not many years later, the big HRT study was halted in its tracks due to the overwhelming data that HRT was incredibly dangerous for most women. The norm since then switched from near-universal long term use of HRT post-menopause to very rare (and cautioned against) much shorter term HRT. Medicine evolves. Even in areas of study that impacts a huge part of the human population and gets millions and millions of dollars to study, with huge, huge data pools. Veterinary research is VASTLY more limited due to funding constraints. "Big" actual double blind studies might involve dozens of animals in each treatment pool. So, I would not take any early findings as gospel on any side of this issue. On vasectomies/tubal ligations. . . There are vets out there who will do them. Not many, as most vets are still confident that S/N is in the best interest of the pet. If you contact referral hospitals with boarded surgeons, I am sure you can find one that will do a vasectomy. Googling like mad might also find you one. These procedures will solve the reproductive risk, and, in my mind, that is the only risk that I am vehemently concerned about on a large scale. If you want to take the other risks of leaving the hormones intact, that is your call for your pet, just like I am OK with you taking whatever health risks you want for yourself. It's your dog, so it's your call, IMHO. I'm not a researcher in this area, and it's not something I plan to spend any more time on it in this forum. It is clear that you are not going to be swayed by my presentation of the research, and I don't have time or interest in preparing a thorough literature review for you. What I've presented here is just a sprinkling of data points from the research, and there are many more aspects and issues to consider and plenty of other studies to evaluate. I think you likely have the intellectual resources as well as the interest to do a thorough literature review for yourself, if you are inclined to do so. I would just urge you not to rely on literature reviews done by non-scientists. My background is in research science (MS in Ecology/Forestry) and my DVM husband also had a research-based MS (ecology) and a couple years into a PHD (ecology) before he moved to vet medicine, so I am very aware of the nuances of research studies, the frequency of game-changing research and the fluidity of scientific knowledge. Whatever is KNOWN now is totally subject to change a few years later. Period. Also, living through my husband's DVM education and professional life, I understand a little about how different medicine is from research science. There is a unique perspective in medicine as opposed to other research, and it takes some getting used to the inertia inherent in medicine. For others who come to this thread, I encourage you to find a vet whose judgment you trust and to discuss all these issues for yourself with the vet. I personally choose to make my medical decisions in concert with a trusted medical professional. Yay, dog lovers of the world! May every dog have a family who loves them enough to do their best to care for them.

I'm sorry, Bill, but you are vastly oversimplifying the medical issues around S/N. There is some new data, and some as yet unpublished (submitted already) but discussed in conferences and vet-only discussions, that will, in coming months and years, help illuminate the complexity of this issue. It appears that the medical benefits/risks of S/N vary dramatically between breeds (particularly size), with time of S/N, and between females and males. Current thinking is indicating that S/N around age 1 (or slightly later, after growth is complete) may be ideal from a health perspective for (some, not all) large breeds, but small (tiny) breeds may be better off with early S/N. Since many/most dogs are of unknown breed, translating the breed-specific data will be very complicated for a long time. Informed, intelligent people disagree about the best protocols for individual dogs. The studies you reference have problems, as do many such studies. Good studies are being done, have been done recently, and presumably will continue to be done. Data from Europe and other places where S/N is rare is also helpful. I would guess that in the next decade, the data will become clearer, and the options more clear. All that said, I have to say that you are in the rare minority to be able to be certain your intact dogs haven't procreated. :) Most dogs get loose occasionally or are regularly let loose on purpose. In other places, vasectomies and/or tubal ligations are done for dogs. That is something one could consider. All that said, my priority is preventing breeding. Beyond that, if someone wants to make a decision for their own dog, then I'm OK with that. I just hope they will all remain responsible for their pet despite the potential outcomes of their decisions. I.e., if the dog roams and gets hit by car, they are ready to pay the vet bills. If their dog gets a pyometra, they are ready to pay the vet bills (thousands). Etc, etc. I am sure you, like the OP, are a responsible and loving dog owner. Unfortunately, the *vast majority* of dogs in the US do not belong to such owners.

I love you, Bill, and I often Like your posts, but I think you are anthropomorphizing. I LOVE dogs, too. Love, love, love. (We have 3 right now, big spoiled beloved babies, all rescues, all very happy despite being nut-less since 6 months of age.) But, no matter how much we love them, dogs aren't men. They are dogs. They are domesticated animals -- animals who only exist because they serve a purpose to humans. They don't have the same moral rights and needs as a human being. Dogs are around because they are nice pets and/or working animals. If they aren't nice pets, they get euthanized or abandoned to an ugly life and rapid death on the streets. If dogs in general aren't nice to have around, they would cease to exist at all. Dogs only exists because of their interactions with humans. I don't believe in tail docking, declawing, ear cropping, or any of the other cosmetic procedures commonly done on dogs. In fact, one of my husband's first changes upon buying a practice was to end the offering of those operations and his practice has not done them for the last decade, long before it was at all socially acceptable in our WV community to not offer those procedures (and so he took a substantial financial risk by doing this). It's not that I don't have sympathy with the argument not to s/n pets for various reasons. HOWEVER, the medical benefits are (very truly) significant, and, more so, the cruelty of over-population is so harsh that the benefits of preventing this disaster of unwanted puppies and kittens HUGELY outweighs any potential negative to the individual pet, IMHO. When there aren't thousands of puppies and kittens being tossed on the roadside and dying in shelters every day, then I would be more open to the idea that individual pet owners can freely make this choice for their pets based on the risk-benefit to their own pet. Sadly, that's not likely in my lifetime. So, as far as I am concerned, I think everyone has a moral responsibility to prevent breeding of cats and dogs, with rare exceptions for specific working breeds. The only real effective way to make certain your pet doesn't contribute to the next generation's gene pool is to S/N. I honestly have nearly no patience for breeders of any sort. There are just so many pets that go unwanted, and every "well bred" pet takes the place of some other that got the pink juice today. I can see a place for a few careful, thoughtful, breeders here or there, but I think 99% of intentional breeding should JUST STOP and reckless accidental breeding should likewise JUST STOP. If that happened, then soon the demand for pets would begin to meet the available pool, and then it could be a matter of increasing intentional breeding to meet demand. This is my dream. IMHO, it is a moral duty to be kind to our domesticated animals, but the greater kindness is preventing overpopulation which not only is tragic for those who die very early and/or suffer homelessness, but also tragic for all the other owned pets who are treated as disposable because they are simply so easy to replace.

FWIW, I'd be peeved if someone took my kid's phone without my advance notice/permission. When my kids are out of my sight and not in the direct care of someone I know well, I like for them to have a phone on them so I can get ahold of them if I need to, and so they have an immediate access to their phone in any emergency. I wouldn't be OK with their phones being taken out of the reach without my advance notice. I know they take the phones away in a basket during AP and SAT testing, and I'm fine with that. In a coop or similar situation, I'd be irritated. I'd suggest teaching the kids to turn them on silent and to not touch them during class. That's mature behavior, and that's what I'd expect. I agree that internet access is a risk and can be a problem. I've faced issues myself with internet access with my son (even on the computer in a public area of our house . . .), and we had a virtual arms race in tweaking internet filtering / nanny ware to keep up with his ability to get around the filtering. Not long ago, I literally smashed his laptop into little pieces (and have not yet replaced it, although I will probably allow him a hand-me-down laptop later this summer, pending his continued good behavior on internet devices). So, I totally am on board with protecting our kids from the unsavory elements in the internet and the world at large. I agree with requiring kids to grant parents access to all accounts and all devices at all times and to share passwords, etc. However, when your kids are teens, smart phones are virtually a necessity for "normal" social interactions. My 15 (almost 16) year old was finally granted a smart phone a couple months ago, and I have to say it has been *great* for his social life -- with good kids, smart kids, nice kids -- he finally has the social circle he has craved, and it is a really good thing -- social isolation being the driver of the vast majority of homeschooling teens entering public high school in our area . . . but the teens *all* have smart phones and that is how they communicate -- snap chat, texts, etc. not to mention social media. This son is on a robotics team that travels a lot, and during competitions (in big convention centers), they use a smart phone app to communicate team-wide. Without a smart phone (he would have been the ONLY kid without one on a team of 30+ high schoolers), it would have been very hard to work with his team smoothly. That's why we finally got him one in advance of his 16th birthday, because they were going to be 100s of miles away, in a large city, taking public transport back and forth from the hotel to convention center to down town eateries . . . and I wanted him to be able to communicate seamlessly with both the team there and me at home. Also, one of the main reasons I went ahead and got the nearly-16 year old a smart phone is that I want my driving teens (16 year olds can get their licenses here) to have and be able to use a smart phone with GPS/cellular based navigation. Having a reliable navigation system is a safety feature, IMHO. Also, we have enabled FindMyFriends so I can locate them at any time, which is also a nice safety feature and great for my peace of mind. Additionally, your kids have to grow up and make their own decisions at some point. I don't want them to face ALL possible temptations at the same moment when they go away to college. So, I believe it is important to gradually give them more freedom, more responsibility, and more independence over the years. Some kids are more ready sooner than others . . . My now-18 year old has had unfettered internet access since she got her computer at 14 (and has had some filtering some years when I am able to make it work in my arms race with my younger son, but other years there was no active filtering at all). She's never had a problem at all with doing inappropriate things (I have checked periodically), other than a minor short lived obsession with FarmVille on Facebook the first few months she got Facebook (and the computer, at the same time). My son, on the other hand, has been a handful. The smart phone he got a few months ago is the first unfettered (somewhat) internet access he has had -- since he can use data cellularly and thus evade the OpenDNS filtering built in to our router . . . So far, so good, but that is largely probably because he has matured somewhat in the past few years and also because I have put the fear of Mom's wrath into him and he does NOT want to lose the phone (and he knows now that I will not hesitate to take it). My daughter required no effort on my part to learn to use the internet safely and reasonably. My son, on the other hand . . . So, I don't think there is one universal right way to go about this transition to independence, but I do believe you are responsible to teach your kids how to navigate the internet safely, and you can't do that if you never allow them to learn with your back up and supervision. It's like never letting your kid drive until they move out and get a license. The need a "learners permit" and a "graduated drivers license" for the internet, with staged growth towards independence. You have to provide that training, not just hand them the keys to a Hummer when they turn 18. So, anyway, 9 is very different from 16. I don't know how old your oldest kids are, but I predict that when they hit their mid-teens, your tune will change. Not only because of the reality of their lives and needs, but also because you do grow yourself and start to let them go out into the world, swallowing your fear, because you know that is what is best for them -- to be in the world, and to learn to safely navigate it on their own.

I am sorry that your earlier research didn't educate you about this problem with not neutering. Sadly, the "leave your dog in its natural state" camp doesn't educate about all the downsides of not neutering. This is one of them. :( (FWIW, the vast majority of pet relinquishments and deaths in the first year(s) of life are due to behavioral problems, and spay/neuter prevents a large number of these problems . . . This is one of my (many) reasons for advocating for (near universal) spay/neuter during the first year of life. Not to mention the 47 zillion puppies and kittens that die each year, and all the hit-by-car injuries and deaths due to male dogs roaming to find a female . . . This is really such a complicated issue, with so many good hearted people on all sides of it! I'm sorry for your dog's behavior and your predicament! Your dog has a lovely life with you, so that's good enough even if he can't do some other fun things that he might be able to without this behavior issue. It is possible but not guaranteed that neutering him now might help. However, since he has had years of establishing this behavioral habit, it is entirely likely that the behavior will not go away after neutering. "Humping" is a way of establishing dominance, not just a sexual thing, and so the behavior is complicated. Habits are hard to break . . . Your other option, after neutering (which I recommend, for many reasons), if that doesn't help sufficiently, is to consult a veterinary behaviorist. Ask your vet for a referral. They are expensive, but worth it for accurate guidance on molding/changing problem behaviors in healthy ways. Good luck! Your dog is lucky to have such a nice life with your family!

Get him into a robotics team, and call that a Robotics elective!

I don't think average RN salaries are higher than average DVMs. A quick googling showed average DVM salary of 90k+ and average RN salary of 60k+. In our area, that relationship seems about right. I know unlicensed vet assistants that make over 12-14/hr, and we once had one that earned over 16/hr. I don't think the hospital cleaners pay near that here.

To the best of my understanding, the forgiveness programs are a lot of talk and little action. Finding a qualifying job can be very hard. I'd definitely research the details very carefully before counting on any loan forgiveness programs.

Another voice for licensed vet tech being a noble but terribly under-compensated job. Absolutely bad wages for all support personnel in vet med. If you can hire a new grad vet for 65k, you aren't going to be paying your techs more than half that. If half that sounds feasible, then, well, fine. But that is with very limited up-side growth. So, in my mind, not a career path for someone with the ability to do something more lucrative.

Note that this article is 2 years old, and that tuitions have gone up, up, up each year since then while so have graduating class sizes . . . making for more and more indebted students and more and more competition for jobs.

Dh is a vet. He went to school when out of state tuition/fees were still under 20k at the school we chose. Tuition/fees are more than double that now. If you go to one of the off-shore or private US schools, costs can easily be 70+k/yr. It is very expensive. The new IBR (income based repayment) rules make it much more feasible to go into that sort of debt, but then you're looking at 20 years of large debt and then a possible huge tax bill when you are done with your IBR payments. (If you get 200k forgiven, that is considered taxable income according to current rules, so you're looking at a 60-80k tax bill, which you will need to SAVE FOR while in IBR.) So, yep, you're looking at a lifetime of debt. Sucks. It is possible to make a good living as a vet, but it is no guarantee, and the main route to an income level proportional to your educational investment is to own a practice, which is a whole 'nother issue coming with plenty of risk and *very* hard work and long hours. My advice to potential vets is to do it with as low debt as possible. That means undergrad paid for, going to the cheapest in-state school possible, living cheap, working PT/summers through school, and, ideally, some help from Mom and Dad. Personally, we have told our kids this, and that if they wanted to go to vet school, they better do undergrad super cheap/free de and save their "Bank of Mom and Dad" assistance for vet school to help them keep debt down, and also to only go if they can get into the cheapest option state-side. NO WAY should any sane person be going to the private CA school or any of the overseas schools unless they have a very big trust fund and family support. It's financial suicide, IMHO, to go into 300-500k in debt for schooling and come out with a career that will only safely assure you of a high 5 figure salary. FWIW, dh came out with big loans (and me, too, for my grad school), and we're doing fine, even paying them off in full as opposed to doing the new-fangled IBR stuff. We'll have the last paid off THIRTY YEARS after dh graduated. The payments have gotten smaller over the years as some shorter term loans have gotten paid off, and the monthly number seems relatively smaller as the years go by and inflation (and career/business advancement) makes our incomes go up. Still, it's another mortgage payment each month. Just a few months ago, when another set got paid off, for the first time since graduating 15 years ago, our monthly student loan payments are finally, now, less than our mortgage. Barely. Dh owns his practice (bought it 4 years out), and despite being a huge amount of work, has definitely been the key factor in allowing us some hope of making enough money to make all the educational investment pay off. Owner salaries are hugely variable, though. There are plenty of owners who make less than the associates they employ, but there is a big upside variability, so it is entirely feasible to earn 150-200k/yr as an owner while also building assets in the practice itself as well as associated real estate. (I am a big believer in owning your business's real estate both for the current value of not having to worry about a landlord or rent increases, as well as the long term investment of having real estate that will have value even if your practice folds. It is not uncommon for the real estate to end up being much more valuable than the practice.) The field has become much more competitive in recent years and is set to get more and more so for employed vets as the vet schools are pumping out vastly increased classes each year. Vet med is still a good career path, but not as flexible and guaranteed-job as is used to be. It needs to be a thoughtful decision, with understanding the details of how the choices made in school, residency, living costs during school, work options during school, and then the post-school repayment plan and also career path impact the student's long term financial well being. I know nothing about real estate. Seems like a up-and-down market, but there are always people selling houses. Like vet med, it seems like there are a lot of important choices to be made. Becoming a "realtor" or whatever the term is for the person who owns/operates an office is likely a more lucrative position. I'd think some business school education would be very helpful, as would some business-law classes.

ps. Reading more, I would NOT delegate any of the medication or medical decisions on this issue to a minor kid. Period. This is LIFE THREATENING. Presumably the DR who RX'ed the epi-pen made clear that any use of epinephrine is a life-threatening emergency. They are not perfect. They are short term keep-you-alive solutions but do not stop the reaction or save your life beyond the minutes/hours they are in effect. Their purpose is to keep you alive while you get to the ER. If her face puffs up, face or throat gets itchy, any AT ALL breathing symptoms, get her to the ER immediately. And, by all means, get a regular allergist immediately. Find one Monday morning, and get her an appointment for a comprehensive assessment and treatment plan!

I am very experienced in this, unfortunately. First of all, I am VERY skeptical of your daughter being allergic to a steroid. I don't buy it, at least not from an urgent care doc based on WHAT? There are plenty of other steroids to try, too, if they are nervous about one that she's already been given. = Second, get her to an allergist ASAP. She needs better management. If she gets any worse, take her to the ER, not an urgent care. They will have actual board certified specialists they can consult, the option to hospitalize, IV steroids, monitoring and treatment options for any more severe reactions, etc. Next, you can take Benadryl + Zyrtec (both are OTC) at the same time. Take each at the highest labeled dose around the clock. These are your best weapons short of the steroid. Next, she should be on a high dose, tapered, steroid for 5-10 days. If it's going to be over a week, be sure you are working with an expert to plan tapering and avoid rebounding. Add (Pepcid or) Zantac (OTC) as both a random anti-histimine-ish thing and as a GI protectant to prevent GI issues while pounding all these meds. Round the clock. A topical triamcinolone (steroid, prescription) cream is very helpful, but use sparingly on large expanses of skin. I had such a bad reaction to Augmentin that I bounced out of the urgent care, then an ER, then another ER and 24 hr inpatient stay (only one of my life), and then took more than 90 days to get off the steroids. It was AWFUL and debilitating. Several days into the reaction cycle, I had to fly home from our dream-Disney vacation (leaving the kids and husband to finish the vacation and drive home a few days later) to get hospitalized in our home town in order to avoid being trapped in-patient in the (lovely) FL hospital . . . You need an expert managing this. Allergic reactions can be life threatening. During that treatment, I was on all of the above meds for a few weeks, and most of them (both antihistamines, the GI protectant, and the steroids) for months, having to very slowly wean off the steroids to avoid the hives rebounding . . . Those were all prescribed by doctors, simulateously. It was a throw-everything-including-the-kitchen sink approach to avoid repeated hospitalizations and life threatening allergic reactions . . . So, it's not ideal to do all that, but I'm just laying it out there to make it clear that there are lots of options available. (((hugs))) Good luck!

ps. To me, a fridge is a major investment. I'd live with coolers +/- a dying fridge +/- a $100 dorm fridge for the interim in order to wait a few weeks for delivery of the exact model I want. Having the "perfect" fridge actually does impact our day to day life, lol.

Samsung french door (bottom freezer) fridges seem well regarded, and the best of the major normal type manufacturers (i.e., around 2-3k, not 10k). We recently added on a new kitchen and bought new appliances, and my hours and hours and hours of research led me to a firm decision to go with a Samsung french door. The specific model will vary with the size you have available. I went with the largest "standard" size (36" wide, standard depth) they make, as I was starting fresh so could build the cabinetry to fit the fridge. My general advice would be to get the largest french door Samsung that will fit in your space. Lowe's, Best Buy, and Home Depot carry them (as do appliance stores), so I'd search out the exact model you want, then price shop. Be aware that those three retailers (and likely others) all do some price matching, so if one is more convenient to you, it is likely that you can get them to match the best price you find. Note, if you are looking at the french door models . .. check out how the fridge drawers work. Many models have a large deli drawer that would require you to open both upper doors to access. Other models have a second exterior drawer (with variable temperature settings). So, there are 4 exterior doors (two french doors up top), then 2 drawers below. Personally, I MUCH prefer the 4 door models (2 doors up, 2 drawers below). There are some models that have another pair of 2 doors below for the freezer, but that seems much more awkward to access than the drawer(s). This is the model I got (last year, so might have some minor differences). I love, love, love it. It is HUGE. http://www.lowes.com/pd_539067-149-RF31FMEDBSR___?productId=50073209&Ns=p_product_price|1&pl=1&Ntt=samsung+refrigerators#img

How long will people be hanging out? That varies things quite a bit. I'm having a similarly sized grad party Saturday, but it is 5PM -- late, with many teens staying overnight. So, I will have WAY too much food, as usual. I'd just buy twice as much soda as you think you need, but buy stuff your family likes, so leftovers will be used at some later date. Same with chips. I buy tons. Way too much. Same with everything, lol. I am not a good person to ask. I usually buy at least twice as much as anyone could possibly consume. I am pretty good with smaller (10-12 people) gatherings, but anything much bigger and I am a mess!! Hang in there!!!!!

I guess the idea that a relatively small income is not worth the hassle for US breaks down to the fact that dh owns his own business, and, practically, he can work as much extra as he wants to earn extra $. Every day he takes off costs us about $500 to hire a per diem to replace him. If I could earn 100/day, that means he can work one extra day per week or I can work every damn day. Alternately, he could work an extra 2 years and I could NOT work for 10-20 years. Hmmm. He likes his work, and I have helped make it a business that is pretty easy to manage even with him taking substantial personal time off. (4 weeks vacation is already scheduled in the next 6 months.) So, that's the balance. I will direct my energy to keeping his/our lives happy and balanced, and he'll work until we have enough that he no longer needs to. It's not that an extra 15k isn't worth having each year, it's just that the alternate path of him earning it, and/or me helping to reduce our expenses by DIY'ing household stuff, etc, is a better use of our family energy. Not to mention me putting the time into creating a home and family life that is joyful and relaxed and full of fun stuff when he's not at work.

Nope, if I am not needed to work, I won't work. I highly doubt I'll do (substantial) work for (significant) pay outside our family business ever again. I'd work a bit in the family business to help dh (and our bottom line, as he can't hire someone as competent as I am in certain areas), or perhaps help our youngest dd if she ever does take over the family business as she says is possible. I used to put in a LOT of hours at the business, was able to train a great office manager, then my mom got sick, and now I rarely work at all. I might have to step up if our OM quits suddenly at some time, but I hope that doesn't happen. If it did, and I had time, I could see working a little more than I do now -- after Mom dies and after our kids are out of the house. But, other than working to help family, no, I wouldn't do it outside the family. I'm putting my time into the family, into the family business, and into taking care of my aging mom. When those duties are done, I hope and expect to be busily making a home for my dh, visiting adult kids and grandkids, spoiling grandkids (and their parents) with vacations, grandma-camp, etc. And, yes, I am fortunate that we have this option. Realistically, the amount I could earn is so dwarfed by dh's earning power (not insignificantly because of the hard work I did along his side building his business) . .. that I just can't imagine it being worth the family inconvenience of me working outside the family . . . I do have degrees and education that could enable me to earn a modest professional salary if I needed to do that, but I'd surely have to refresh my experience, work at a lower rate for at least a few years, pay my dues, etc . . .But, I have no desire to do so. Maybe it's just that I am damn tired from care-taking for my mom with Alzheimer's the past 3 years, and also getting sad about my first baby leaving the nest this summer . . . But, I plan to relish these last years with babes in the house, and to visit them tons, take them on fabulous vacations whenever they will let me, host extravagant family holidays, spoil their spouses and kids . . . That's my "after" plan. And to make dinner for my dh each night and grow a giant veggie garden and not let it get taken over by weeds. And make photo albums. And bake more. Volunteer informally and/or formally -- just making the world a nicer place however I can. I'm ALL OVER retirement. I can't fathom wanting to commit to being an employee if there were not a financial imperative OR a family reason to do it (as a favor to help a spouse or child build their business.)

Hmmm. First, I'd explain to dd that healthy/undamaged dogs will love whoever is kind to the dog, and generally anyone who is not unkind. Further, you will only have healthy/undamaged pets in your home . . . thus, the dog will be an equal opportunity lover. :) That said, dogs generally get attached to whoever provides the things the dog loves. Food, affection, snuggles, walks, etc. One of our dogs has taken a GREAT affection for our oldest dd, not because she feeds the dog (dh generally does that), but because when I developed asthma and discovered I'm allergic to dogs and cats (great, right?), we had to boot the pets out of our bedroom. This was MY sweet baby dog, who I had forced since birth (yep, we had rescued her mom pregnant), to sleep with me in our bed. So, now the poor kiddo was bed-less . . . and my oldest dd took on the lovely duty of letting her sleep in bed with her. Since then, the dog LOVES oldest dd more than life itself. She will accept substitutes when dd is away from home, but sadly, with many longing glances at the door until dd finally comes home. Now, this would not work for every dog, since not every dog loves snuggles. :) I'd suggest that dd study up on dog behavior (not "Training" but behavior) . . . and then plan to be the person to feed, walk, play with, sleep with, etc the dog as much as possible to maximize the chance that the dog will love her best. But, no guarantees. Hearts are free agents, better learn that with a dog now than a friend or lover later! You can be the most attractive companion possible to the dog (or friend or lover), but that doesn't guarantee you their sole loyalty.

I didn't read all the posts, so this might be covered already, but, personally, since Mom doesn't seem likely to be concerned, and since you are related to DAD, I'd talk to Dad for both those reasons, and because he is a DAD. I'd bring my iPad to lunch with Dad. I'd ask him if he'd seen his teen's instagram account lately. Blank stare likely to follow. "Well, Dad, that's what I figured, because I figured you'd have shut it down if you'd seen the pictures that strangers can see . . . and then I'd pull out my iPad open to her account and slowly browse the pics for Dad, pointing out periodically that any stranger can see this, and can see her real name, and can google her address, school, etc. I can't think of any men I personally know who would not have had a coronary by now and been on the phone to their spouse and child getting that thing shut down yesterday. My dh is pretty mellow, liberal, and defers nearly all parenting decisions to me . .. but I can guaran-damn-tee that he'd go to war over something like that!

Do you have to bring a gift? I always bring gifts, so I'm not sure what the etiquette is. I do know that several times folks have seemed overly appreciative of our (cash) gifts in such a way as that it seems that we must be out-of-the-norm for graduation/Eagle/etc gifts (typically 50-100, but we can afford it, as we are only invited to these sorts of things once or twice a year, as we don't participate in co-ops, etc.). I get the impression that most folks around here don't give gifts for Eagles and many don't give gifts for grads, either. We're hosting a bash for our eldest's graduation next weekend, and I sure hope folks don't feel obligated to give gifts if the $$ is an issue. If you do feel it is obligatory to give a gift, then I love the idea of something practical and inexpensive. A carry-all for toiletries, a medical-supply starter kit (compiled from the $1 section at Walmart or a dollar store, you could go far with $10 -- a handful of OTC meds/bandaids/woundwash/etc), cleaning supplies if you know the kid will be moving in to suite-style housing or an apartment in which they'll need to clean . . . A laundry bag -- if you have fabric markers or paint, you could buy an inexpensive laundry bag and put their name +/- designs on it. . . And, by all means, don't spend $4 on a card -- make one, or use a blank one you already have around the house. :)

Did you see that is the same color strip as my Dried Thyme? Yours is just one shade darker in the same color! Great color!! I love the Dried Thyme, and I'm sure yours is lovely, too.

Their gofundme page is at 45k and climbing. I sincerely hope some lawyer(s) step in to quickly sue the parents on behalf of the children and snag all that money. Sickos. Just sick, sick, sick.