Ebola patient's dog euthanized

[StartingoverVet]

Saw this article....

http://online.wsj.com/articles/spanish-ebola-patients-dog-is-euthanized-1412792833

Personally given there is no science showing dogs can pass Ebola to humans (previous study shows they can be "infected" with virus but have no symptoms), I cannot condone it, especially when isolation is a possibility, although clearly not "convenient".

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[lhmhtd]

Saw this article....

http://online.wsj.com/articles/spanish-ebola-patients-dog-is-euthanized-1412792833

Personally given there is no science showing dogs can pass Ebola to humans (previous study shows they can be "infected" with virus but have no symptoms), I cannot condone it, especially when isolation is a possibility, although clearly not "convenient".

Thoughts?

I think a lot of it has to do with the media perpetuating the fear of Ebola spreading and it being pandemic or something. It was probably much easier and cost effective to euthanize- imagine all the crap they'd likely get if they hadn't euthanized him. I personally don't think it was necessary though; as you said, the alternative of isolating him would have been an inconvenience. Poor pup.

 

[DVMDream]

I think a lot of it has to do with the media perpetuating the fear of Ebola spreading and it being pandemic or something. It was probably much easier and cost effective to euthanize- imagine all the crap they'd likely get if they hadn't euthanized him. I personally don't think it was necessary though; as you said, the alternative of isolating him would have been an inconvenience. Poor pup.

He was already isolated to that apartment and was left with enough food and water for weeks by his owners.

Also, they were getting a lot of crap for euthanizing him, they would have been given less crap if they had not euthanized him.

Not only that but they destroyed a perfect opportunity to see if a dog that was definitely near a person with ebola could have any possibility of contracting the disease. I kind of doubt it unless the owner was allowing the dog to drink her urine or blood or other body fluids (I guess maybe the dog could get it just by licking the skin if she were sweating, but I really doubt it).

I mean the chance this dog even picked up the virus is slim and the chance of him spreading it is as close to zero as you can possibly imagine.

 

[Frozenshades]

Also, they were getting a lot of crap for euthanizing him, they would have been given less crap if they had not euthanized him.

Perhaps. Who would (could?) cause more of a stir: animal rights activists, or fearful people panicking about a disease they likely don't understand? I really don't know. I don't think it was handled in the right way, but I also think it was somewhat of a lose, lose situation. Although I suppose it's never possible to make everyone happy...

 

[StartingoverVet]

Here is the CDC study on dogs and Ebola ...

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/11/3/pdfs/04-0981.pdf

It doesn't really do much but show dogs in the affected areas have antibodies to the disease IMO>

 

[DVMDream]

Perhaps. Who would (could?) cause more of a stir: animal rights activists, or fearful people panicking about a disease they likely don't understand? I really don't know. I don't think it was handled in the right way, but I also think it was somewhat of a lose, lose situation. Although I suppose it's never possible to make everyone happy...

I don't really see it as a lose, lose situation. I mean you can easily make both sides happy by putting the dog in quarantine, which it really already was.

And you don't respond to panic but just going, "ok, we'll do it your way." I mean there were a ton of people protesting bringing back the doctors who contracted ebola to the US for treatment and you didn't see our government go, "ok, you win."

 

[RJGOP]

Saw this article....

http://online.wsj.com/articles/spanish-ebola-patients-dog-is-euthanized-1412792833

Personally given there is no science showing dogs can pass Ebola to humans (previous study shows they can be "infected" with virus but have no symptoms), I cannot condone it, especially when isolation is a possibility, although clearly not "convenient".

Thoughts?

It's not worth the risk to save one animal, though. I understand your sympathies, if you are interested in veterinary medicine, but I think we can all agree that we should prioritize the life of humans over the life of animals.

 

[Caia]

How would we go about finding out whether or not dogs can transmit the disease to humans? Obviously we know how, but I'm not sure what the protocol would be.

I think that if it isn't zoonotic, then there's no reason to put the dog down (given there isn't a humane need to), simply quarantine it. If it is zoonotic, then I think it's safer to put the dog down at this point until it can be studied more. It doesn't seem however, that we know whether or not it is transmittable to humans.

 

[DVMDream]

How would we go about finding out whether or not dogs can transmit the disease to humans? Obviously we know how, but I'm not sure what the protocol would be.

I think that if it isn't zoonotic, then there's no reason to put the dog down (given there isn't a humane need to), simply quarantine it. If it is zoonotic, then I think it's safer to put the dog down at this point until it can be studied more. It doesn't seem however, that we know whether or not it is transmittable to humans.

Rabies is zoonotic and we still quarantine suspected cases until there is proof the animal has the disease (unfortunately we still don't know if ebola is zoonotic or not from dogs to humans, but we do have other disease that are and we don't automatically euthanize). Granted you can start rabies prophylaxis for people in contact with the dog, but this dog was isolated in an apartment with the only two people (presumably) having had contact with it already being isolated. The virus can live for a couple hours on surfaces, up to a few days (if in an environment where there are bodily fluids). Bleach will kill it. So really the dog is not of risk to any other humans unless someone comes into the apartment. They actually put the people who had to go in to euthanize the dog at greater risk for getting ebola over if they had just left the dog alone because within a maximum of one week the virus would have died off itself.

I see way more problems with euthanizing the dog over isolating it:

1. Big loss in investigating if the dog even picked up the virus. And to do potentially do further studies of the virus and pets.
2. People aren't going to seek help right away now for ebola in order to hide/protect their pets. I mean, if it were me, you would have to kill me first before you would be able to get near my cat, not going to happen while I am still alive, especially if she is completely healthy like the dog above seemed to be.

I think they lost way more than they gained by euthanizing the dog. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Caia]

Rabies is zoonotic and we still quarantine suspected cases until there is proof the animal has the disease (unfortunately we still don't know if ebola is zoonotic or not from dogs to humans, but we do have other disease that are and we don't automatically euthanize). Granted you can start rabies prophylaxis for people in contact with the dog, but this dog was isolated in an apartment with the only two people (presumably) having had contact with it already being isolated. The virus can live for a couple hours on surfaces, up to a few days (if in an environment where there are bodily fluids). Bleach will kill it. So really the dog is not of risk to any other humans unless someone comes into the apartment. They actually put the people who had to go in to euthanize the dog at greater risk for getting ebola over if they had just left the dog alone because within a maximum of one week the virus would have died off itself.

I see way more problems with euthanizing the dog over isolating it:

1. Big loss in investigating if the dog even picked up the virus. And to do potentially do further studies of the virus and pets.
2. People aren't going to seek help right away now for ebola in order to hide/protect their pets. I mean, if it were me, you would have to kill me first before you would be able to get near my cat, not going to happen while I am still alive, especially if she is completely healthy like the dog above seemed to be.

I think they lost way more than they gained by euthanizing the dog. But that is just my opinion.

Rabies isn't a fair comparison though because of the risk involved of a human contracting the disease...given that there is a treatment protocol like you mentioned, which is lacking with ebola. Someone contracting rabies from the dog and someone contracting ebola are two very different scenarios in regards to human health.

If there is any risk of humans contracting it, the dog is better off put down. Studying the disease is something different, I can agree that some research could have been done instead, but I don't agree with just leaving it simply because it seemed to be fine due to the fact that we know very little about it in dogs as of right now.

 

[LetItSnow]

I think it was inevitable. I don't know of any medical or epidemiological reason to euthanize the animal, but given public hysteria over Ebola .... inevitable.

Not that I don't think SOV's question is a good one, and I'm not trying to be flippant in my answer (well, ok, not flippant toward SOV, anyway), but I just think this one was a foregone conclusion.

Very little in the public sphere is done rationally.

 

[Caia]

So I've done some reading and this is all assuming that the dog was indeed infected with the virus. If we didn't even know if it was or not, which seems to be the case, I think the knee-jerk was a little too swift.

My opinion centers around the dog actually being infected. At that point, I only see research via quarantine and euthanasia being the two options.

 

[DVMDream]

Rabies isn't a fair comparison though because of the risk involved of a human contracting the disease...given that there is a treatment protocol like you mentioned, which is lacking with ebola. Someone contracting rabies from the dog and someone contracting ebola are two very different scenarios in regards to human health.

If there is any risk of humans contracting it, the dog is better off put down. Studying the disease is something different, I can agree that some research could have been done instead, but I don't agree with just leaving it simply because it seemed to be fine due to the fact that we know very little about it in dogs as of right now.

I don't disagree that there is a difference in the two diseases, but was really trying to compare a fatal disease vs. a fatal disease. There just isn't much research done with ebola. If there were a vaccine or a treatment protocol I would hope it would be different but I kind of doubt it. As LIS said, there isn't much done rationally or with thought in the public health sphere.

However, I can still see people now hiding their pets or holding off to get treatment until they can hide their pets simply because of this.

We do know very little of it in dogs but if you read the article that SOV posted a very small percent of dogs that were seen eating bush meat from ebola infected animals actually had antibodies to ebola and even smaller percent seen licking vomit from ebola infected patients had antibodies to ebola and even some dogs in an area without ebola had antibodies to it. I mean, it seems there is no real conclusion as to if dogs even get ebola as a disease or have just been exposed to it. And there definitely isn't any research on if they can spread it.

I guess I see that since we don't know much about it then I get that. But still some common sense, logical, sane, rational thought could have easily prevented the dog from being euthanized and could have provided some more information about the disease. But apparently we panic first and react rather than think first.

 

[DVMDream]

So I've done some reading and this is all assuming that the dog was indeed infected with the virus. If we didn't even know if it was or not, which seems to be the case, I think the knee-jerk was a little too swift.

My opinion centers around the dog actually being infected. At that point, I only see research via quarantine and euthanasia being the two options.

Yeah that was my point. They just euthanized because the dog happened to be with someone that had ebola. There was no evidence the dog had the virus. It seems silly to me and way to "OMG! PANIC! AHH!"

Had the dog actually been shown to have the virus, then I could see the logic, but I don't see the logic in it how they did it. I see panic.

 

[Caia]

Yeah that was my point. They just euthanized because the dog happened to be with someone that had ebola. There was no evidence the dog had the virus. It seems silly to me and way to "OMG! PANIC! AHH!"

Had the dog actually been shown to have the virus, then I could see the logic, but I don't see the logic in it how they did it. I see panic.

That's what I get for assuming that people knew for a fact that the dog was infected. **** that.

 

[Jess Monster]

It's not worth the risk to save one animal, though. I understand your sympathies, if you are interested in veterinary medicine, but I think we can all agree that we should prioritize the life of humans over the life of animals.

As a public health student, I agree with this statement.

When there is a risk to human life and scientific uncertainty, the precautionary principle usually comes into play. In this case, the easiest and fastest way to mitigate the risk to humans was to euthanize the dog.

 

[catnips]

Yes, but I fail to see any risk to humans in this case. The dog was quarantined - there would be no regular human contact. We could actually learn more from this. I think this decision was caused by panic and ignorance, not knowledge. They didn't know if the dog was infected.

Apart from this, I think this is a horrible way to say "thanks" to an health care official who put her own life at risk for others. Husband was trying to save their family dog - in the midst of everything they are already going through.

All in all, I think there were other, better options than to simply take life. I am sad for the dog and the family, but I am also sad that we willingly lost an opportunity to study this case. Again, I fail to see any risk for humans in the controlled, quarantined environment.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Not only that but they destroyed a perfect opportunity to see if a dog that was definitely near a person with ebola could have any possibility of contracting the disease.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[dyachei]

Yeah that was my point. They just euthanized because the dog happened to be with someone that had ebola. There was no evidence the dog had the virus. It seems silly to me and way to "OMG! PANIC! AHH!"

Had the dog actually been shown to have the virus, then I could see the logic, but I don't see the logic in it how they did it. I see panic.

Eh, there are some issues that confound this. One is the virus detectable in dog blood at this point? Might the dog still be infected and not have viremia? What tests do we do in dogs to detect this disease? How long does viremia persist in dogs? Can we continue to test that? How long should we quarantine for? There are, unfortunately, studies about ebola that must be done on dogs before this is a foregone conclusion. Ebola is transmitted by mammals - perhaps dogs without clinical signs can transmit the disease as a carrier for life. I don't know the answers to these questions, though they might be out there somewhere.

 

[psilovethomas]

He was already isolated to that apartment and was left with enough food and water for weeks by his owners.

Also, they were getting a lot of crap for euthanizing him, they would have been given less crap if they had not euthanized him.

Not only that but they destroyed a perfect opportunity to see if a dog that was definitely near a person with ebola could have any possibility of contracting the disease. I kind of doubt it unless the owner was allowing the dog to drink her urine or blood or other body fluids (I guess maybe the dog could get it just by licking the skin if she were sweating, but I really doubt it).

I mean the chance this dog even picked up the virus is slim and the chance of him spreading it is as close to zero as you can possibly imagine.

What if the dog drinks from the toilet? (My GSD does this..hate when boyfriend doesn't flush the toilet)

 

[Glammyre]

Thank you for posting this, SOV.

I know that, at least for humans, Ebola virus isn't detectable until the patient is showing symptoms. The patient also isn't contagious until that time. On the other hand, the CDC study you posted suggested that dogs may be infected asymptomatically.

While I do regret that the government didn't isolate the dog and follow up with testing, I'm not sure isolation would have been practical. Ebolavirus in humans spreads through several different bodily fluids, so if dogs are the same, it would be difficult to contain the dog. It might have been too expensive and/or risky to send a worker in complete PPE to socialize and clean up after the dog, and the only other option is to leave the dog completely without human contact for the isolation period (I'm guessing 21 days). I don't think that level of social isolation and waste buildup is humane.

 

[DVMDream]

Eh, there are some issues that confound this. One is the virus detectable in dog blood at this point? Might the dog still be infected and not have viremia? What tests do we do in dogs to detect this disease? How long does viremia persist in dogs? Can we continue to test that? How long should we quarantine for? There are, unfortunately, studies about ebola that must be done on dogs before this is a foregone conclusion. Ebola is transmitted by mammals - perhaps dogs without clinical signs can transmit the disease as a carrier for life. I don't know the answers to these questions, though they might be out there somewhere.

Yeah I've definitely thought of all of these, but can't get the answers to them if we just euthanize dogs that have been in contact with someone that had Ebola.

 

[Kpowell14]

We just got out of a lecture on Ebola and we talked about this dog in Madrid. From what we were told, I agree with euthanizing the dog. In order to do research with Ebola in a controlled setting, it has to be done in a BSL Class 4 facility- which there are only 5 of those in the US and 50 total in the world.. How feasible is it to transport this dog to one of these facilities to do research on it - not very. The dog couldn't just stay in the apartment - there would come a time for it to need someone to take care of it. With all of the unknowns surrounding Ebola Virus, I think It is better to humanely euthanize this dog than run the risk of exposing more people.

 

[MooVet]

This case reminds me of swine flu a few years back when public hysteria spiked and Egypt started slaughtering pigs left, right, and center.

I agree with KPowell that logistically it was probably necessary to euthanize the dog for the sake of public health. There were just too many unknowns there, though I do think it was highly unlikely that the dog posed a risk. But I do wish they had either kept it quiet or explained the reasoning better. With all the media hype and public hysteria over Ebola right now, I can just see everyone freaking out about catching Ebola from their pets because the Spanish government said they could.

 

[that redhead]

We just got out of a lecture on Ebola and we talked about this dog in Madrid. From what we were told, I agree with euthanizing the dog. In order to do research with Ebola in a controlled setting, it has to be done in a BSL Class 4 facility- which there are only 5 of those in the US and 50 total in the world.. How feasible is it to transport this dog to one of these facilities to do research on it - not very. The dog couldn't just stay in the apartment - there would come a time for it to need someone to take care of it. With all of the unknowns surrounding Ebola Virus, I think It is better to humanely euthanize this dog than run the risk of exposing more people.

Not to mention the enormous cost that would be associated. At the end of the day, a "study" with one dog is not going to be helpful in understanding the interaction among human, dog and virus and just our luck it would be an atypical interaction and give us bad information.

Not worth the expense, not worth the almost assuredly crappy quality of life for the dog.

 

[StartingoverVet]

It's not worth the risk to save one animal, though. I understand your sympathies, if you are interested in veterinary medicine, but I think we can all agree that we should prioritize the life of humans over the life of animals.

As a public health student, I agree with this statement.

When there is a risk to human life and scientific uncertainty, the precautionary principle usually comes into play. In this case, the easiest and fastest way to mitigate the risk to humans was to euthanize the dog.

Wow. Just wow. IMO, this is a really naive and poorly reasoned response, and is the reason so many people distrust public health officials/scientists. Harsh? Maybe but that is how I see it.

So whenever a life of a human is in danger any action is justifiable? Even if there is no science backing up the risk? Why aren't we killing all the dogs of people with salmonella? I am sure salmonella kills more people each year than Ebola ever has. Where do you draw the line? What happens when 10 people get Ebola and they went tot the dog park? Kill every dog in a city because you don't know if maybe they can spread the disease. Better get the cats too. Oh yeah, that worked really well in the Middle Ages....led to lots of rats around, and they couldn't possibly spread disease. We all know how that worked out,

And as DVmd said, you completely ignore the emotional effect this policy will cause. During Katrina,many people didn't evacuate and risked/lost their lives because pets were banned from shelters. Ignoring the human animal bond could potentially put more lives at risk as people refuse treat,net and spread the disease. Also, if you know your getting the disease is a death sentence for your animal you think maybe that could lead to depression ( pets do aid healing). That's also likely to increase the death toll.

The " humans come first" response is just a knee jerk when people haven't bothered / can't be bothered to come up with a better approach, and health officials better start thinking because it isn't that easy....

Let's think this through and come up with a better idea.

 

[Glammyre]

Wow. Just wow. IMO, this is a really naive and poorly reasoned response, and is the reason so many people distrust public health officials/scientists. Harsh? Maybe but that is how I see it.

So whenever a life of a human is in danger any action is justifiable? Even if there is no science backing up the risk? Why aren't we killing all the dogs of people with salmonella? I am sure salmonella kills more people each year than Ebola ever has. Where do you draw the line? What happens when 10 people get Ebola and they went tot the dog park? Kill every dog in a city because you don't know if maybe they can spread the disease. Better get the cats too. Oh yeah, that worked really well in the Middle Ages....led to lots of rats around, and they couldn't possibly spread disease. We all know how that worked out,

And as DVmd said, you completely ignore the emotional effect this policy will cause. During Katrina,many people didn't evacuate and risked/lost their lives because pets were banned from shelters. Ignoring the human animal bond could potentially put more lives at risk as people refuse treat,net and spread the disease. Also, if you know your getting the disease is a death sentence for your animal you think maybe that could lead to depression ( pets do aid healing). That's also likely to increase the death toll.

The " humans come first" response is just a knee jerk when people haven't bothered / can't be bothered to come up with a better approach, and health officials better start thinking because it isn't that easy....

Let's think this through and come up with a better idea.

On my side, that's also coming across as a knee-jerk response. Fair or not, humans write policy. I would say that, for most politicians, it's not so much "humans come first" as much as "humans health concerns don't come last" and behind animal health concerns. There's a lot of everyday examples of putting humans first - we euthanize unvaccinated animals that bite a human so that we can test for rabies and save the human. It extends to outbreaks too. It's common policy around the world to euthanize poultry flocks that test positive for highly pathogenic avian influenza, but it'd never be accepted to do the same to a human town that develops a highly pathogenic and contagious flu strain

I don't like the differences in care, but there are, unfortunately, reasons. In this particular case, I think one big difference is the difficulty in isolating an animal humanely. In this case, I think we can consider the dog a primary contact - it likely had direct contact with the patient while she was symptomatic. Let's assume we'd use the same isolation time as for a human primary contact - 21 days.

One big difference between human and animal isolation under these circumstances is that I can talk to the human and explain what I am doing and why. That human may not like it, but I hope I could explain it in a way that they would understand and cooperate. I can't tell the dog why I need to wear a scary suit every time I walk in there, why he can't come and greet me, and why he has to be alone all the time. Sure, I could isolate the dog anyway, but that dog is going to have an extremely poor quality of life.

In this case, I think whoever ordered this decision, if they considered the decision, weighed the dog's poor quality of life against the possible medical risk of people treating the animal and the monetary cost the entire procedure would take. While I hate this result, I can understand the decision.

I agree that this was a missed opportunity to learn more about dogs and EVD. The paper you posted didn't demonstrate actual cases, so even an n of 1 would have increased our knowledge. On the other hand, this would require a high-level biocontainment facility and someone willing to work with a potentially infected dog who could bite through PPE. I realize the risk is low, but we're also dealing with a disease with sky-high mortality and no tried-and-true cure.

I realize it'd be a low priority, but maybe OIE or another organization could create guidelines on how to handle pets. In the case you mentioned of dogs at a park (presumably with their owners) with an EVD victim, I'd guess most of the dogs would be secondary contacts at best. Their owners would be observing themselves anyway, so maybe they could also handle observing their pet?

And, SOV, full disclosure... I am interested in careers in public health, especially epidemiology, once I finish my PhD.

 

[DVMDream]

There's a lot of everyday examples of putting humans first - we euthanize unvaccinated animals that bite a human so that we can test for rabies and save the human.

Actually, this is not completely true. Depends on the nature of the bite and what is going on with the animal in the first place. If it was an aggressive attack, then yes, chances are it is euthanized and the brain/head is submitted for testing. Or if the animal was already showing signs of rabies or was otherwise to be euthanized. However, if it was a bite in the vet clinic or the home (and not an aggressive attack), the dog is quarantined for a period of time to monitor for signs of rabies and then released providing no signs of rabies develop. The human is sent to the hospital to be treated right from the start, regardless of what the rabies testing/quarantine reveals. I have seen both the euthanasia occur (and assisted with cutting off the head to submit for testing) as well as monitored dogs and cats in the hospital that were being quarantined for rabies. Unvaccinated animals are not always euthanized after a bite.

 

[Glammyre]

Actually, this is not completely true. Depends on the nature of the bite and what is going on with the animal in the first place. If it was an aggressive attack, then yes, chances are it is euthanized and the brain/head is submitted for testing. Or if the animal was already showing signs of rabies or was otherwise to be euthanized. However, if it was a bite in the vet clinic or the home (and not an aggressive attack), the dog is quarantined for a period of time to monitor for signs of rabies and then released providing no signs of rabies develop. The human is sent to the hospital to be treated right from the start, regardless of what the rabies testing/quarantine reveals. I have seen both the euthanasia occur (and assisted with cutting off the head to submit for testing) as well as monitored dogs and cats in the hospital that were being quarantined for rabies. Unvaccinated animals are not always euthanized after a bite.

Thank you for correcting me. That's what I get for writing a post late at night

 

[MooVet]

Wow. Just wow. IMO, this is a really naive and poorly reasoned response, and is the reason so many people distrust public health officials/scientists. Harsh? Maybe but that is how I see it.

So whenever a life of a human is in danger any action is justifiable? Even if there is no science backing up the risk? Why aren't we killing all the dogs of people with salmonella? I am sure salmonella kills more people each year than Ebola ever has. Where do you draw the line? What happens when 10 people get Ebola and they went tot the dog park? Kill every dog in a city because you don't know if maybe they can spread the disease. Better get the cats too. Oh yeah, that worked really well in the Middle Ages....led to lots of rats around, and they couldn't possibly spread disease. We all know how that worked out,

And as DVmd said, you completely ignore the emotional effect this policy will cause. During Katrina,many people didn't evacuate and risked/lost their lives because pets were banned from shelters. Ignoring the human animal bond could potentially put more lives at risk as people refuse treat,net and spread the disease. Also, if you know your getting the disease is a death sentence for your animal you think maybe that could lead to depression ( pets do aid healing). That's also likely to increase the death toll.

The " humans come first" response is just a knee jerk when people haven't bothered / can't be bothered to come up with a better approach, and health officials better start thinking because it isn't that easy....

Let's think this through and come up with a better idea.

How on earth is protecting public health more of a knee-jerk reaction than "omg save the poor doggy"?

We're not talking about a dog park where dozens animals and humans have been exposed. That's a straw man argument. We're talking about one dog of unknown exposure and unknown risk that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to quarantine and put many people at risk of exposure in the process. Is the risk minimal? Probably. But we don't know that, so until we do the necessary precautions must be taken. It simply is not worth it to save one dog. That money and those resources would be much better used to develop new treatments or to do further research on this subject in the future.

Yes, it absolutely sucks that the dog was euthanized. It was a terrible situation all around and I feel awful for the dog's owner. But it was the only logical option. You don't just take a Level 4 pathogen and say "Meh, it will probably be fine."

 

[LetItSnow]

We actually do know a little bit about dogs and Ebola. Not much, to be sure, but it's inaccurate to say we don't know anything.

<snark>
I think it's pointless to say "necessary precautions must be taken." I mean, stop and think about what that actually means. (Hint: Nothing.)

Or rather, it means anything the speaker wants it to me. Obviously we should take "necessary precautions" - that's why they're called necessary. But that means different things to different people because we're not going to agree on a) what's necessary, and b) what all the possible precautions are. So saying that we must take them ..... well, that's just not useful. MooVet, you should consider politics, where saying important and politically-correct sounding things and then asserting your point as if it's now completely obvious is an art form. Get your thundering voice going, shake your fist, look directly at the camera, play "Battle Hymn of the Republic" quietly in the background, wear your American flag pin in the correct lapel, and utter: "I will do ANYTHING to protect our citizens!" You'll be great. Maybe Donald Sutherland or Julia Roberts can play you in the movie.
</snark>

Anyway. All that to say: You don't get to claim something is a necessary precaution just because you say it's necessary. You need to provide a reason that it's necessary, an actual risk that it mitigates, and evidence that it will mitigate the risk.

The rabies example that someone brought up was probably not a useful comparison. We have mountains of evidence documenting zoonotic risk of rabies from dogs. We know exactly how to prevent progression of infection, we know precisely when an animal is capable of infecting a human, and we can therefore develop good policies to manage the risk.

I don't really have an opinion on euthanizing the animal one way or the other. I can see a couple good reasons to do it (none of them medical, though), and a couple good reasons not to do it. *shrug*

But I do think that it's interesting to read what people say in the context of our hypersensitive risk-averse culture, where absolutely no risk is tolerated at all and any cost is acceptable if it mitigates even the slightest risk of anything to anybody.

It sounds to me like an interesting concept would be to use dogs as sentinels for Ebola outbreaks in humans.....

• Allela L, Bourry O, Pouillot R, Délicat A, Yaba P, Kumulungui B, et al. Ebola virus in dogs and human risk. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005 Mar. http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1103.040981
• Weingartl HM, Nfon C, Kobinger G. Review of Ebola virus infections in domestic animals. Dev Biol (Basel). 2013;135:211-8. doi: 10.1159/000178495. Epub 2013 May 14. Review. PubMed PMID: 23689899.
• Olson SH, Reed P, Cameron KN, Ssebide BJ, Johnson CK, Morse SS, Karesh WB, Mazet JA, Joly DO. Dead or alive: animal sampling during Ebola hemorrhagic fever outbreaks in humans. Emerg Health Threats J. 2012;5. doi: 10.3402/ehtj.v5i0.9134. Epub 2012 Apr 30.

 

[MooVet]

<snark>
I think it's pointless to say "necessary precautions must be taken." I mean, stop and think about what that actually means. (Hint: Nothing.)

Or rather, it means anything the speaker wants it to me. Obviously we should take "necessary precautions" - that's why they're called necessary. But that means different things to different people because we're not going to agree on a) what's necessary, and b) what all the possible precautions are. So saying that we must take them ..... well, that's just not useful. MooVet, you should consider politics, where saying important and politically-correct sounding things and then asserting your point as if it's now completely obvious is an art form. Get your thundering voice going, shake your fist, look directly at the camera, play "Battle Hymn of the Republic" quietly in the background, wear your American flag pin in the correct lapel, and utter: "I will do ANYTHING to protect our citizens!" You'll be great. Maybe Donald Sutherland or Julia Roberts can play you in the movie.
</snark>

Right, and this just adds so much depth and intelligence to the discussion. Can we get back to the subject matter at hand? Would that be cool? K, thanks.

Think about it from the standpoint of the government officials. What could they have done with that dog? Leave it in the apartment as was previously suggested in this thread? Sure, it had enough food and water, but what are you going to do - let it pee and poop all over the place for weeks on end? Who are you going to send in to deal with that, and what kind of safety precautions should that person take? What happens if the dog accidentally pees into an air vent and "contaminates" another apartment full of people and pets? And you're not going to glean anything scientifically significant from one dog in an uncontrolled environment where you monitoring will be inconsistent at best. Leaving that dog in the apartment would be incredibly irresponsible, both from a public health standpoint AND and animal welfare standpoint.

So then what do you do with it? Take it to a vet clinic or shelter or kennel? That risks a lot of exposure, including possibly other species that we may know even less about when it comes to ebola. Plus, what business is going to risk losing clients due to being known as the clinic/shelter/kennel harboring ebola? Like it or not, a lot of people are legitimately scared by this outbreak and that perception will factor into this dog's fate. So businesses are out, and you really can't ask someone to take this dog into their home - again, there's risk to pets and family members, you could wind up turning SOV's "entire dog park contaminated" scenario into a reality, and you're not going to get anything of scientific value out of that arrangement. So the dog needs to go to a lab of some sort where his environment is controlled and he can be studied. Whether or not you believe a Level 4 Containment lab is really necessary doesn't matter - any lab is going to costly. Who is going to pay for that? Are YOU going to put your money where your mouth is LIS, and donate the funds needed for time, personnel, and equipment necessary to safely transport and quarantine that dog? Nope. The government of Madrid already has their hands full worrying about human cases, so they're not likely to want to go looking for the money to make that happen either. And again, as was already stated several times in this thread, that is a ****ty quality of life for that dog and it would be of very little value in the long run. Better to deal with this one isolated case quickly and humanely and bookmark this topic as an excellent area of research for the future.

 

[LetItSnow]

Right, and this just adds so much depth and intelligence to the discussion. Can we get back to the subject matter at hand? Would that be cool? K, thanks.

Think about it from the standpoint of the government officials. What could they have done with that dog? Leave it in the apartment as was previously suggested in this thread? Sure, it had enough food and water, but what are you going to do - let it pee and poop all over the place for weeks on end? Who are you going to send in to deal with that, and what kind of safety precautions should that person take? What happens if the dog accidentally pees into an air vent and "contaminates" another apartment full of people and pets? And you're not going to glean anything scientifically significant from one dog in an uncontrolled environment where you monitoring will be inconsistent at best. Leaving that dog in the apartment would be incredibly irresponsible, both from a public health standpoint AND and animal welfare standpoint.

So then what do you do with it? Take it to a vet clinic or shelter or kennel? That risks a lot of exposure, including possibly other species that we may know even less about when it comes to ebola. Plus, what business is going to risk losing clients due to being known as the clinic/shelter/kennel harboring ebola? Like it or not, a lot of people are legitimately scared by this outbreak and that perception will factor into this dog's fate. So businesses are out, and you really can't ask someone to take this dog into their home - again, there's risk to pets and family members, you could wind up turning SOV's "entire dog park contaminated" scenario into a reality, and you're not going to get anything of scientific value out of that arrangement. So the dog needs to go to a lab of some sort where his environment is controlled and he can be studied. Whether or not you believe a Level 4 Containment lab is really necessary doesn't matter - any lab is going to costly. Who is going to pay for that? Are YOU going to put your money where your mouth is LIS, and donate the funds needed for time, personnel, and equipment necessary to safely transport and quarantine that dog? Nope. The government of Madrid already has their hands full worrying about human cases, so they're not likely to want to go looking for the money to make that happen either. And again, as was already stated several times in this thread, that is a ****ty quality of life for that dog and it would be of very little value in the long run. Better to deal with this one isolated case quickly and humanely and bookmark this topic as an excellent area of research for the future.

You didn't actually read my post, did you?

If you so, you wouldn't have asked me to put my money where my mouth is and donate funds to take care of the animal, because you would have read where I said "I don't really have an opinion on euthanizing the animal one way or the other." I'm neither opposed to euthanizing the animal, nor in favor of it. If euthanizing it was the smart thing to do from a public policy standpoint - great, euthanize it.

I did contribute: I pointed out that you're using hyperbole and empty statements to try and support your position, instead of making evidence-based arguments that support your conclusion. I stand by that. Simply saying we must use "all necessary precautions" is meaningless, pointless, and leads to emotional responses rather than tempered, rational actions that have the lowest-possible cost:benefit.

Let me know when you have an argument based in more rational fact than just "people are afraid". I do agree with you that people are afraid, and that that's an important thing to consider in guiding public policy. But it should never DRIVE public policy, which is what it's doing right now.

 

[StartingoverVet]

@MooVet and @Zensing

You are missing the point.

You act as if killing the dog was justified without having ANY evidence that is true.
Following that policy can justify ANY act in the interest of public safety. Maybe to you it makes sense, but that is not a policy. That is your gut.

That is not science. That is just using a saying "in the public good" as a magic wand.

 

[that redhead]

You act as if killing the dog was justified without having ANY evidence that is true.

I agree that the evidence-based medicine behind Ebola spread via dogs isn't there right now.

But saying we need solid evidence before we euthanize that dog is silly, in my opinion. Lack of evidence is not equal to disproving a theory; things can be true without being proven. In the case of an extremely dangerous pathogen such as Ebola, it would be essentially impossible to prove that Ebola can be spread to humans from dogs (who's going to sign up to participate in that study?) Should we euthanize every dog that comes into contact with an Ebola patient? I really don't know, but while we know so little about the virus, it's safest from a global health standpoint to err on the safe side and euthanize in those instances. Not just for the humans who could become infected, but for the poor dog who would have to live in isolation for the rest of its life, which is not at all an acceptable outcome.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I think multiple people are not interpreting SOV correctly. Or LIS.

They are both speaking in a much broader sense about how it is incorrect to base POLICY (and by extension law) on things that do not have sufficient evidence and often have a large component of public fear.

The people arguing with them keep coming back and harping on this one example. This is not what they are getting at. There is a much bigger picture here.

 

[that redhead]

I think multiple people are not interpreting SOV correctly. Or LIS.

They are both speaking in a much broader sense about how it is incorrect to base POLICY (and by extension law) on things that do not have sufficient evidence and often have a large component of public fear.

The people arguing with them keep coming back and harping on this one example. This is not what they are getting at. There is a much bigger picture here.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

But my head hurts from the walls of text now.

Maybe it's Ebola.

 

[MooVet]

@MooVet and @Zensing

You are missing the point.

You act as if killing the dog was justified without having ANY evidence that is true.
Following that policy can justify ANY act in the interest of public safety. Maybe to you it makes sense, but that is not a policy. That is your gut.

That is not science. That is just using a saying "in the public good" as a magic wand.

Show me the science that says leaving an Ebola exposed dog in an occupied apartment complex is acceptable.

The fact is, there isn't any. We know that dogs can be asymptomatic carriers. We know that seroprevalence increases in dogs with increasing proximity to endemic areas. And that's pretty much it. We don't know for sure whether there is a risk of transmission from dogs to humans, or from dogs to other companion animals. Unless you can say reliably and confidently that this particular dog poses no or extremely minimal risk to human and animal health, you simply cannot leave it in that apartment building. Then we're back to the issue of what you do with the dog if it can't stay in the apartment.

Actually, if you read the article shared twice in this thread now, there is a great discussion of this matter:

"Although dogs can be asymptomatically infected, they may excrete infectious viral particles in urine, feces, and saliva for a short period before virus clearance, as observed experimentally in other animals. Given the frequency of contact between humans and domestic dogs, canine Ebola infection must be considered as a potential risk factor for human infection and virus spread. Human infection could occur through licking, biting, or grooming. Asymptomatically infected dogs could be a potential source of human Ebola outbreaks and of virus spread during human outbreaks, which could explain some epidemiologically unrelated human cases. Dogs might also be a source of human Ebola outbreaks, such as the 1976 Yambuku outbreaks in Democratic Republic of Congo (19), the 1995 Kikwit outbreak, some outbreaks that occurred in 1996 and 2004 in Gabon and Republic of Congo (5), and the 1976 (6), 1979 (20), and 2004 (21) outbreaks in Sudan, the sources of which are still unknown. Together, these findings strongly suggest that dogs should be taken into consideration during the management of human Ebola outbreaks. To confirm the potential human risk of Ebola virus–infected dogs, the mechanisms of viral excretion (i.e. body fluids and virus kinetics of excretion) should be investigated during experimental canine infection. This research would also offer insights into the natural resistance of dogs."

Source: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/11/3/04-0981_article

Now, if they had actually tested this dog before euthanasia this might be an entirely different argument. But they didn't, and I completely understand why they would choose not to, all things considered. As with anything in medicine the risks and benefits have to weighed to make an educated decision and in this case with so many unknowns involved I can absolutely understand why they decided the risks of keeping this dog alive were too great.

In terms of future policy (which I don't think was ever on the table here but whatever), I would agree that this is a lousy case to base any policy or law on. I think we can all agree that there is a serious need for more research before any new policy, law, standard operating procedure, etc regarding companion animals in Ebola outbreaks can be devised. This particular case however was largely unprecedented, and while it wasn't handled well, the officials didn't really have any other truly feasible options.

 

[RJGOP]

Wow. Just wow. IMO, this is a really naive and poorly reasoned response, and is the reason so many people distrust public health officials/scientists. Harsh? Maybe but that is how I see it.

So whenever a life of a human is in danger any action is justifiable? Even if there is no science backing up the risk? Why aren't we killing all the dogs of people with salmonella? I am sure salmonella kills more people each year than Ebola ever has. Where do you draw the line? What happens when 10 people get Ebola and they went tot the dog park? Kill every dog in a city because you don't know if maybe they can spread the disease. Better get the cats too. Oh yeah, that worked really well in the Middle Ages....led to lots of rats around, and they couldn't possibly spread disease. We all know how that worked out,

And as DVmd said, you completely ignore the emotional effect this policy will cause. During Katrina,many people didn't evacuate and risked/lost their lives because pets were banned from shelters. Ignoring the human animal bond could potentially put more lives at risk as people refuse treat,net and spread the disease. Also, if you know your getting the disease is a death sentence for your animal you think maybe that could lead to depression ( pets do aid healing). That's also likely to increase the death toll.

The " humans come first" response is just a knee jerk when people haven't bothered / can't be bothered to come up with a better approach, and health officials better start thinking because it isn't that easy....

Let's think this through and come up with a better idea.

You're missing the point. We don't know whether or not dogs can spread Ebola. But is it worth the risk? Of course not, unless you want to die so your animal doesn't have to. Most of us, however, prioritize our own life over our subservient pets.
How do we stop this problem altogether? We make sure people even suspected of having Ebola, people who have recently been in Western Africa, cannot enter this country untill they have been officially cleared of all symptoms over the 21 day trial period. I know that is beyond our president, though.
The point is, untill we know better, we have to think rationally. Is it worth it to save one dog, while risking it to spread the virus to multiple people? I think not.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I feel like I'm watching one team hit a baseball and the other one telling them it isn't deuce because it didn't go in the basket while the first team argues that you only use baskets in polo, therefore it's a touchdown.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I feel like I'm watching one team hit a baseball and the other one telling them it isn't deuce because it didn't go in the basket while the first team argues that you only use baskets in polo, therefore it's a touchdown.

touchdown!

 

[DVMDream]

I feel like I'm watching one team hit a baseball and the other one telling them it isn't deuce because it didn't go in the basket while the first team argues that you only use baskets in polo, therefore it's a touchdown.

Lies! You use baskets in basketball too..

 

[StartingoverVet]

Show me the science that says leaving an Ebola exposed dog in an occupied apartment complex is acceptable.

The fact is, there isn't any. We know that dogs can be asymptomatic carriers. We know that seroprevalence increases in dogs with increasing proximity to endemic areas. And that's pretty much it. We don't know for sure whether there is a risk of transmission from dogs to humans, or from dogs to other companion animals. Unless you can say reliably and confidently that this particular dog poses no or extremely minimal risk to human and animal health, you simply cannot leave it in that apartment building. Then we're back to the issue of what you do with the dog if it can't stay in the apartment.

.

Don't want to belabor this, because as WTF said, we are just arguing across eachother ..... but 2 points.

1) your use of the word "carrier" is misleading. They are asmptomatically infected. They are not necessarily hosts. Use of this word would help support your case but is not correct given our knowledge.

2) the second statement i bolded is where we keep on butting up heads. You cannot say that about just about anything unknown in medicine. YOU believe that given the evidence there is a risk. I say there is no evidence there is any risk. We can shout that back and forth all day long, but there is only opinion about unknown science.

In the end, I think a policy following your advice is misguided and ignores all the negative impacts in the future, and sets a bad precedent, without a lot of thought of implications. You think it is too dangerous to do otherwise. There is no meeting of the minds there, so the discussion ends. <or at least it does for me>

 

[that redhead]

I say there is no evidence there is any risk. We can shout that back and forth all day long, but there is only opinion about unknown science.

This is my problem with your argument though: just because the risk has yet to be proven doesn't mean the risk is not there. And I don't think there is enough research out there yet to really base one's position on.

 

[dpmd]

Actually the fact that in the study the owners were questioned about their dogs behavior during the time after exposure and none of those owners contracted the disease (even those whose dogs were eating body fluid filled dead bodies so were pretty much as contaminated as you can get) is a pretty good sign that perhaps the positive antibodies in the dog are not as worrisome as people would think. None had antigen.

 

[StartingoverVet]

This is my problem with your argument though: just because the risk has yet to be proven doesn't mean the risk is not there. And I don't think there is enough research out there yet to really base one's position on.

Again, that argument can be used for ANY position. "Oh, we just don't know so we should take xxxx drastic action. "
IMO decisions should never be made that way, because when you are inevitably wrong many of the times, people lose trust.
And when those decisions are particularly controversial and make people upset, you likely never gain back that trust, so when you finally do have the evidence to support a smart policy who the hell is going to listen.

I am NOT saying that it is not possible dogs pass it on, but NOTHING indicates that is true , and given the seriousness of the action, nothing should be done that drastic.

IMO, public policy decisions cannot be applied with some simple maxim as "if any human is at risk, do any action". That is what got my goat up to start. It is an unthinking, (IMO emotional, but that is arguable), naive response. This appears to be an action taken out of fear and ignorance, not careful planning.... and that just leads to more panic. It certainly doesn't appear to have done anything to calm fears, appease the horrified animal lovers, and probably didn't do anything to stop the spread of the disease. Lots more decisions like that will only make things worse.

I demand better, but don't expect to get it.

 

[MooVet]

Again, that argument can be used for ANY position. "Oh, we just don't know so we should take xxxx drastic action. "
IMO decisions should never be made that way, because when you are inevitably wrong many of the times, people lose trust.
And when those decisions are particularly controversial and make people upset, you likely never gain back that trust, so when you finally do have the evidence to support a smart policy who the hell is going to listen.

I am NOT saying that it is not possible dogs pass it on, but NOTHING indicates that is true , and given the seriousness of the action, nothing should be done that drastic.

And what happens when you don't take drastic action, you're wrong, and a dozen more human cases pop up because of your mistake? Do you really think that instills trust in people? This reasoning is just plain stupid.

This isn't a legal case where you can play "innocent until proven guilty". When you have a suspected case of any highly pathogenic reportable disease, you don't just leave the animal there until it infects others. You treat it as an infected case until you can prove otherwise. Your argument that it shouldn't be that way because you say it shouldn't be that way is worthless.

ETA:

In the end, I think a policy following your advice is misguided and ignores all the negative impacts in the future, and sets a bad precedent, without a lot of thought of implications. You think it is too dangerous to do otherwise. There is no meeting of the minds there, so the discussion ends. <or at least it does for me>

Nowhere did I say that the way this one case was handled should be a "policy". In fact, I specifically said that the way this case was handled should not be the standard by which future cases are addressed. You're right, we're arguing over unknown science, and until those questions are answered no decent policy can be made. But in in this one case (seriously, how many times do I have to make this distinction? One case is not necessarily an overarching "policy".) the officials did the best they could with what little information they had and a whole host of logistical issues at play. If the dog had actually been tested or if the owner hadn't been symptomatic when she was in contact with him, it would be a different situation, and those factors will need to be considered if any new domestic animal issues should crop up before better research is available. The plain and simple fact is that we need fewer questions and more answers. Until that research is available, there's really nothing else you can do but consider domestic animals on a case by case basis.

 

[StartingoverVet]

When you have a suspected case of any highly pathogenic reportable disease, you don't just leave the animal there until it infects others. You treat it as an infected case until you can prove otherwise. Your argument that it shouldn't be that way because you say it shouldn't be that way is worthless.

and your saying you have a suspected case is worthless. It is based on no science. No knowledge of likely of having been infected. No knowledge the dogs can ever develop a disease. no knowledge of their being able to shed virus. No indication a dog can even get the same form of the disease as humans. NOTHING but your freaking being scared. So who is worthless. Geez. Get over yourself.

I said we can agree to disagree and you say my thinking is worthless. Can't let that one go.

You are not acting like a scientist. You are speculating like a scared little girl afraid mommy is going away.

Stick to the facts.... you wanna be scared, be a politician or a news reporter.

Scientists don't jump to conclusions.

 

[DVMDream]

You treat it as an infected case until you can prove otherwise.

Umm, SOV is actually suggesting just this. The ONLY difference is that he is suggesting that you find out it IS infected before doing the drastic measure (in this case, euthanasia). They didn't do that, they just jumped straight to euthanasia.

And you are missing the implications of that. Which are vast. Including people hiding pets and animals to keep their pets from being euthanized or delaying getting help for themselves until they can be sure their pet is safe.

Also, we don't see them killing all the animals in Africa where this outbreak is (mostly likely from bats). You don't hear about them killing every mammal that MIGHT have come into contact with the virus in Africa. So, why is a pet dog (which has never been proven to transmit the disease to humans or proven to actually get the disease from humans) treated differently? I mean, even if they had decided euthanasia was the best course the LEAST they could have done was tested the dog for ebola.

Also maybe you have skimmed dpmd's post above, but as she stated the owners of the dogs that had antibodies to ebola NONE of them contracted ebola themselves. Also NONE of the dogs had present ebola antigen. So... the very small amount of information that we DO have about ebola in dogs suggests that dogs are NOT a risk of spreading ebola to humans.

Honestly, they panicked and it is painfully obvious.