I don't see any cons to health testing. I see neutrals, its not a guarantee of lack of health problems for example. But I see no cons, and I can't imagine spending the money on a purebred pup who's parents and grand parents haven't been health tested.
Depending on which test:
some of them are looking at actual DNA, those ARE definitive, the dog either has the gene or he doesn't. Period.
For the ones like hip dysplasia, they don't guarantee the dog won't develop it later in life, but they ensure that the dog doesn't have it at the age of two. There are unfortunetly to many factors for hip dysplasia for an excellent rating to guarantee that the dog's offspring won't have it. But having an excellent rating on both parents signifigantly reduces the chances.
Sissie, in that sort of example theres something else going on, either theres a lack of honesty in who the parents are or theres something else seriously wrong, if half a litter tests as having dysplasia by the age of two when both parents and their lines all passed.
And if the breeder ISN'T health testing I have to take their word for whether the dog is healthy, and that his parents are healthy. I don't know this person from adam except for reputation (which frankly is only as good as the rumor mill) and I'm supposed to take their word on whether the parents and grands of this pup that I'm spending a fortune on are healthy or not?? I don't effing think so......do you know what early onset dysplasia can do to a dog? And what it takes to fix it? Ask Smokeycat if you've never thought about it. And dysplasia is one of the LESS life threatening things that should be tested for in many lines.
