Pet Acupuncture: Relieving for Who?

The Star Tribune recently published a story with the headline reading "Acupuncture for Pet Ailments." Pet lovers may find this to be a huge relief but this article does not have a lot to back it up. The article gives examples of pets that were brought in, received the acupuncture therapy, and now seem much livelier, more mobile, etc. Acupuncturists claim that these procedures are less invasive, less expensive, and can be effective for animals that don't have available, healthy painkillers. The part of the article that gets me is that there is no scientific evidence that sustains the argument that the animals that have received this treatment are physically better off than before.

The doctors that are mentioned in the article never specifically say that acupuncture works because-- some long medical/scientific reasoning inserted here. They only talk about the procedures they have done, how much it costs (or doesn't), statistics on how many vets perform this procedure, and even admit that the scientific evidence is inconclusive. The animals cannot say exactly what they are feeling. The only 'credible' voices are those of the pet owners. They make inferences that their pets "'can now go a lot farther'" or "'she's eating better and she actually runs to her food.'" Are these real, valid claims or are these ideas made up to unconsciously ease the mind? Of course an owner wants to see that their pet is getting better if the treatment is cheaper and less invasive than surgery. The fact is that animals cannot speak for themselves so we rely on the owner's opinion of the pet's pain. Is this acupuncture a treatment for the pet or the owner?