I have been fortunate with the veterinarians who care for my dogs: they have always approached vaccination of a sick animal with caution. I have heard a very clear principle from them: if a dog is ill, its condition must be assessed before vaccination, rather than relying only on the fact that the scheduled date has arrived.<\/p>\n
This issue is especially personal to me because of Ossu. He is a highly reactive dog, and I have noticed that various health problems can flare up quickly after vaccination. This experience has made me question whether the same vaccination schedule can really be applied to every dog.<\/p>\n
But the question is not limited to dogs with chronic conditions. What about a dog under severe stress? Or one experiencing inflammation, a flare-up of allergies or recovery from surgery? Is it sensible to stimulate the immune system with a vaccine in such a situation?<\/p>\n
And perhaps the most important question: what does the instruction in official vaccine information to \u201cvaccinate healthy animals only\u201d actually mean?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This is not merely a recommendation from integrative veterinarians. Such instructions also appear in official vaccine product information. For example, the summary of product characteristics for the rabies vaccine Biocan Novel R<\/em> states that only healthy animals should be vaccinated. The document also discusses factors that may affect the immune response, including an animal’s health, medications and stress. This is a special warning in the product information; hypersensitivity to the vaccine’s components appears separately under contraindications. These two sections should not be treated as legally identical.<\/p>\n The purpose of vaccination is to trigger an immune response that produces protection against a particular pathogen. If an animal’s immune function is affected by illness or treatment, the expected response may not develop. This does not mean every health problem automatically constitutes immune deficiency or a contraindication to vaccination.<\/p>\n A dog with a stable chronic condition may be in a very different situation from one with a high fever, acute infection or strong immunosuppressive therapy. Assessing health before the injection is therefore not a mere formality.<\/p>\n When a dog’s body is fighting an infection, its immune system is already active. A vaccine also triggers an immune response. This does not mean the immune system has a fixed supply of resources that simply runs out when it performs several tasks. However, severe illness, malnutrition, major stress and certain medications can affect the quality of an immune response.<\/p>\n Two questions need to be distinguished. First, could possible vaccine adverse effects worsen the condition of a dog that is already ill? Second, will the dog develop a sufficiently protective immune response after vaccination? These are not the same risk, and we cannot automatically assume that every sick dog has a higher risk of adverse events. Yet uncertainty about an individual’s risk does not make a health assessment unnecessary.<\/p>\n Integrative veterinarian Dr Judy Morgan<\/strong> has repeatedly argued that vaccination decisions should reflect an animal’s individual health. In a 2026 podcast episode, she described how her dog was under anaesthesia at a veterinary clinic and staff offered to administer a rabies vaccine at the same time. Morgan declined.<\/p>\n Morgan explained that she does not vaccinate an animal while it is anaesthetised, ill, hospitalised or undergoing an extremely stressful procedure. In her view, vaccination should be scheduled separately in such situations. This is her clinical approach, not proof that every vaccine administered on the same day as anaesthesia or anxiety causes harm. For me, however, it raises a clear point for consideration.<\/p>\n Stress activates neural and hormonal regulatory systems and can influence immune function. A brief stress response is not inherently harmful, but prolonged or very intense stress can alter immune responses. A dog that is a little nervous on arriving at the clinic is not comparable to one in panic or undergoing major surgery.<\/p>\n Morgan’s question remains worth asking: is this truly the best moment to vaccinate this particular dog?<\/p>\n Dogs Naturally Magazine’s article \u201cVaccinating a Sick Dog: Why It’s Dangerous\u201d presents the views of several integrative veterinarians. Tamara Hebbler<\/strong> urges particular caution with weakened animals or those with chronic conditions. Jean Hofve<\/strong> stresses that the objective of vaccination is a protective immune response and that physiological stress may affect timing decisions. Stephen Blake<\/strong> has highlighted situations in which vaccination is added almost routinely when an animal visits the clinic for a different health problem.<\/p>\n These views share a principle: look at the whole animal before vaccination, not just its vaccination record. At the same time, clinical experience must be distinguished from risks established in research. There is, for example, insufficient evidence to claim that vaccinating every dog with allergies is highly likely to cause a serious adverse reaction.<\/p>\n Adverse effects range from temporary lethargy and pain at the injection site to rare severe allergic reactions. In a large US study involving more than 1.2 million vaccinated dogs, researchers recorded 38.2 possible vaccine-associated adverse events per 10,000 dogs within three days. That is approximately 0.38%, or about four dogs per thousand.<\/p>\n A later study of data from 4.65 million dogs recorded 19.4 possible adverse events per 10,000 vaccination visits (0.194%). These figures are not directly interchangeable: the 2005 study calculated events per vaccinated dog, whereas the 2023 study used vaccination visits. The figures describe recorded reactions in a population, not the individual risk for a dog with chronic illness or a history of a serious reaction.<\/p>\n Studies have also found that smaller dogs and dogs receiving several vaccines at one visit may have a higher risk of reported adverse events. However, an illness occurring after vaccination is not automatically caused by the vaccine.<\/p>\n An Australian study from 1998, discussed in an earlier FendaF article, examined the health of dogs and cats presented for vaccination. According to the reported figures, 52% of the animals had some concurrent health problem, while 3% had serious illness.<\/p>\n This does not prove vaccination harmed all these animals or that every one of them should have remained unvaccinated. It does highlight why a clinical examination before routine vaccination matters. If many animals arrive for vaccination with other health issues, how is the decision made about which are healthy enough?<\/p>\n Some integrative veterinarians advise avoiding vaccination in dogs with cancer or autoimmune disorders, hoping to minimise additional inflammatory and immune stimuli. Conventional veterinary practice takes into account the stage of the disease, treatment, vaccine type and exposure risk.<\/p>\n A cancer diagnosis alone does not mean a dog can never receive any vaccine again. It matters whether the disease is in remission, the dog is undergoing chemotherapy or its immune system is significantly suppressed. The 2024 WSAVA vaccination guidelines<\/strong> discuss individual assessment of vaccination in animals receiving immunosuppressive treatment. Risks of live vaccines may differ from those of inactivated vaccines in immunocompromised animals.<\/p>\n Personally, I would weigh this very carefully, particularly given research involving veterinary immunologist Ronald Schultz<\/strong> showing that immunity can last considerably longer than the duration of protection stated by vaccine manufacturers.<\/p>\n A dog is usually receiving antibiotics because of an infection or another health problem. Antibiotic treatment alone does not automatically mean the immune system cannot respond to a vaccine. The key considerations are the severity of illness, the dog’s general condition and the type of treatment.<\/p>\n When vaccination can be postponed for sound medical reasons, the dog can recover before the injection, and it becomes easier to distinguish symptoms of the illness from possible post-vaccination reactions.<\/p>\n Because of Ossu’s health and reactions, I have been raising vaccination questions with Estonian authorities for years. In 2021, I contacted the Agriculture and Food Board<\/strong> about Ossu’s condition and the risks associated with vaccination. The matter did not progress to a substantive consideration of an individual medical exemption.<\/p>\n In 2022, the Ministry of Rural Affairs<\/strong> responded, explaining the rabies vaccination requirement partly by the risk of the disease beyond Estonia’s eastern border. At the same time, the ministry noted that limited medical exemptions could be considered in the future, potentially based on a veterinarian’s assessment and antibody titre testing.<\/p>\n Now it is 2026. Four years have passed since that response. In my view, four years is ample time to find at least a substantive solution for medically justified exemptions. The rabies prevention regulation has even been amended in the meantime, but the requirement for revaccination within 24 months remains and the regulation does not expressly provide for an individual medical exemption.<\/p>\n What bothers me most is that the problem and possible solutions were already discussed in 2022, yet four years later the owner of a sick dog faces essentially the same question. If official vaccine information requires vaccination of healthy animals only, what should an owner do when their dog does not meet that condition?<\/p>\n I do not expect legislation to change overnight. But I do believe four years is long enough for owners to expect more than being told that an exemption might perhaps be considered someday.<\/p>\n The last case of rabies in Estonia was diagnosed in 2011, and on 3 April 2013 Estonia was officially declared rabies-free. No rabies cases were detected in domestic or wild animals between 2012 and 2025, and Estonia remained rabies-free in autumn 2026.<\/p>\n That achievement did not happen by itself. The Agriculture and Food Board continues oral vaccination of foxes and raccoon dogs in areas bordering Russia. Wildlife vaccination, pet vaccination and surveillance are distinct protective measures. The absence of cases therefore does not prove that vaccination of pets is unnecessary.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, it is reasonable to ask why Estonia requires revaccination no later than every 24 months even if the manufacturer of a particular vaccine has demonstrated protection for at least 36 months. The official information for Biocan Novel R<\/em>, for example, provides a three-year revaccination interval and instructs users to vaccinate only healthy animals.<\/p>\n The difference between two and three years may seem small. Consider a dog first vaccinated against rabies at three months and then revaccinated consistently every two or three years. By its fifteenth birthday, it would have received approximately eight or five rabies vaccinations respectively; by sixteen, eight or six. This is an illustrative calculation concerning rabies vaccination only, not proof that each extra injection is harmful.<\/p>\n Nor does a manufacturer’s confirmed three-year duration of immunity necessarily mean protection disappears when that period ends. In rabies research involving Ronald Schultz, some dogs were protected after six years and seven months, some beyond seven years and one even after eight years. That does not mean every dog’s protection lasts so long, but it shows that actual immunity may exceed both the legal revaccination interval and the manufacturer’s stated duration of protection.<\/p>\n We have discussed Schultz’s work, immunological memory and the difference between vaccination and immunisation in greater depth in our article Immunisation is not the same as vaccination<\/em>.<\/p>\n What scientific or epidemiological data underlie Estonia’s specific two-year limit? How much additional protection does it offer compared with a three-year interval, and how is that potential benefit weighed against the health risks for a chronically ill dog or one with a history of a severe reaction? My question is not whether rabies should be prevented, but whether the same objective could be achieved while better accounting for the individual dog’s health and the vaccine’s demonstrated duration of protection.<\/p>\n An antibody titre test measures whether an animal has antibodies against a particular pathogen. For canine distemper, parvovirus and adenovirus, a positive result may provide valuable information about existing immune protection. Rabies is more complicated: antibody measurement can provide useful information, but in Estonia it does not currently replace mandatory vaccination.<\/p>\n Antibodies alone do not always guarantee complete protection. Interpretation depends, among other things, on the testing method and the disease being assessed.<\/p>\n Even so, I see titre testing as a valuable possibility, particularly for dogs that have previously had a severe vaccine reaction or whose health makes another injection problematic. If additional information about an individual dog’s immunity is available, why should it not form part of a medically justified decision? Antibody testing cannot answer every question, but it may help make decisions more informed.<\/p>\n At a vaccination visit, an owner does not have to wait silently for the syringe to appear. Even for routine boosters, it is reasonable to ask: has my dog’s health actually been assessed before vaccination? Is the dog fit to receive the vaccine now, and is today the right time?<\/p>\n If the appointment seems likely to consist only of a quick injection, you can ask for an examination and a discussion of potential risks before deciding. The owner should not be merely a passive listener. The veterinarian brings medical knowledge; the owner knows the dog’s usual behaviour and changes in everyday life. These perspectives complement each other. Raising concerns is part of good cooperation, not an attack on the veterinarian’s competence.<\/p>\n The veterinarian may not know you have recently moved, that the dog has been under intense stress for days, sleeping poorly, eating less or behaving unusually. Owners are often best placed to recognise these recent changes. Tell the vet, even if they do not ask.<\/p>\n Severe stress does not automatically prohibit vaccination, but it is relevant information. Chronic illness, ongoing treatment and previous suspected vaccine reactions should also be discussed and documented before vaccination. Reporting previous possible adverse events is particularly important so that reliable information accumulates.<\/p>\n Every pet owner can also raise the question of medical exemptions with Estonia’s Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture. I have done so, but one person’s concern may be treated as an isolated case. If dozens or hundreds raise the same questions, policymakers may better recognise the need for a considered solution.<\/p>\n I am not against vaccination. I am against making vaccination decisions automatically, without taking into account the individual animal’s health, previous reactions and current circumstances.<\/p>\n Vaccines protect dogs against serious infectious diseases. That does not mean every vaccine is equally suitable for every dog in every state of health. The cautious approach of Judy Morgan and other integrative veterinarians is not confirmed by research in every detail, but their questions about health, stress and timing deserve serious consideration.<\/p>\n For me, it comes down to one principle: before vaccinating, we should be confident that the vaccine is appropriate for this dog, the need is justified and the timing is right. An animal’s health should not disappear behind a date on the calendar.<\/p>\n I have been fortunate with the veterinarians who care for my dogs: they have always approached vaccination of a sick animal with caution. I have heard a very clear principle from them: if a dog is ill, its condition must be assessed before vaccination, rather than relying only on the fact that the scheduled date […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":178395,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[767,766,698,765],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-192767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general-health-prevention","category-hazards-first-aid","category-health","category-medications-veterinary-care"],"acf":[],"featured_image_src":{"landsacpe":["https:\/\/fendaf.ee\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Vaktsineeri-ainult-tervet-koera.jpg",470,394,false],"list":["https:\/\/fendaf.ee\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Vaktsineeri-ainult-tervet-koera.jpg",415,348,false],"medium":["https:\/\/fendaf.ee\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Vaktsineeri-ainult-tervet-koera-300x251.jpg",300,251,true],"full":["https:\/\/fendaf.ee\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Vaktsineeri-ainult-tervet-koera.jpg",470,394,false]},"yoast_head":"\nWhy might illness affect the response to vaccination?<\/h2>\n
Judy Morgan: severe stress is also a reason for caution<\/h2>\n
What do other integrative veterinarians say?<\/h2>\n
How common are vaccine adverse events?<\/h2>\n
What did the Australian study show?<\/h2>\n
Can a dog with cancer or an autoimmune disease be vaccinated?<\/h2>\n
Should a dog taking antibiotics be vaccinated?<\/h2>\n
Ossu’s story and the question I still have not had answered satisfactorily<\/h2>\n
Rabies-free Estonia and the revaccination interval<\/h2>\n
Could antibody titre testing help?<\/h2>\n
What can dog owners do?<\/h2>\n
In conclusion<\/h2>\n
Sources<\/h2>\n
\n