khunsanuk Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Hi, "Sadly becuase the test for rabies in animals requires a brain sample" Was not aware of it. And what if the animal had rabies? Would the kid get medicine? If so, could she just have been given this anyway? Or would they then kill the kid as well to get a brain sample? (Josh, not pissed at you obviously, just pissed off that an animal had to die just because some people were utterly irresponsible) Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 Hi, Hmmm, just checked and from what I gather rabies can be treated in humans and preventive treatment seems fairly common. So, why the fuck kill the animal? Why not give the kid that preventive treatment regardless? Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted December 20, 2006 Report Share Posted December 20, 2006 I've had the rabies shots series twice -- once after being bitten by a bat. (Just don't ask about it!) There was no mad rush to have it begun, which is the reason I asked why they hadn't observed the animal for a few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lembeh Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 I can't give you an absolute answer, but an educated "best guess" may she some light. The first fact is that when symptoms have started rabies is almost 100% uniformly fatal. There are about 5 cases world wide of people who have started the symptoms and survived - the rest have died. So, when symptoms have started, its considered a uniformly fatal disease. There is a "window period" when treatment can be administered. This is up until about 12 to 14 days post exposure (after the bite). In domesticated animals (and in some other animals) the course of the disease in the animal is known. Its known that cats and dogs, for example will show symptoms within about 10 days if they have rabies, and so, there is (just) enough time to observe the animal and see if it develops symtoms. If it does, there is still enough time to administer the treatemnt before the onset of symptoms in the human. However, there is little information on other (and especially wild) animals. How long would it take for symptoms to appear in a cougar? 5 days, 10, 15 or 20? Nobody (as far as I am aware) knows. So, in this case "observation" of the animal is ruled out. There *was* the option of "assuming the animal was rabid" and giving the child the treatment anyway. The current treatment is now a series of 5 injections, given in the leg (to a child) or arm (adult). The old treatment regime of a series of painful injections has gone (thankfully). However, there are significant (human) ethical considerations against giving someone a treatment course for a disease they may not/do not have. Plus the possible risks of side effects. In the balance (in my opinion) the only option was to destroy the animal and see (for sure) if it had rabies. My personal opinion is that the current rules or guidlines - observe the animal for domesticated animals and destroy immediately for wild animals is a hold over from the days of the long series of (very) painful injections. When the treatment (i.e. nowadays) is less traumatic the balance of immediately destroying the animal does seem somewhat distorted. However, I wold think the public health and medical personel involved had little (legal) choice in the matter. In weighing the balance of the risk to the child versus the risk to the animal, the child will always win, and perhaps, when we start thinking the animal has as much "right to life" as a child, we are starting to go too far. The final sad thing is that the animal did not have rabies. While I support the idea that considerations of the life of the child outweighs the life of the cougar - the life of the cougar should not be outweighed by the sheer dumb f*ck stupidity of the people who have an unrestrained wild animal at a kids party.... -j- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lembeh Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 With bats the story is sligthly different. Bats carry the virus, but do not get the disease. I know you were talking about observing the cougar, (and I think I amswered that above). However, with bats, you can observe as long as you want - they are susceptible but dont get the disease. Hence in the case of a bat bite, if you have the body of the bat they do the test and see what the answer is - if not, you get the injection anyway... -j- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 They had the bat, since the fool thing bit me in my own bedroom! I dumped it into a box and took it to the clinic. They also reported that the bat was rabid, though my doc said he suspected the bat got away and they just said that. (TIT) The first time I got the shots, the Peace Corps just did it automatically. It was a neighbour's pet that nipped me, and the animal seemed healthy as could be. BTW the shots nowadays are no worse than any other injections. But I remember my grandmother telling me about getting them as a kid. You got them in the stomach -- and it hurt like hell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 p.s. << However, there are significant (human) ethical considerations against giving someone a treatment course for a disease they may not/do not have. Plus the possible risks of side effects. >> Peace Corps gives all trainees the first shot of the series, presumably to give you more of a time frame if you do get bitten. I remember one fellow in my group who had quite a reaction. He was just in line ahead of me, and I watched him turn a bright red all over! The nurse called for a gurney, and they got him off to emergency ASAP. I heard later that when they took his shoes and socks off, his feet were purple. He stayed in Thailand though, and I asked him later what they had told him. He replied, "They told me not to get bitten by anything." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 Hi, Thanks for the explanation, Josh. "The final sad thing is that the animal did not have rabies. While I support the idea that considerations of the life of the child outweighs the life of the cougar - the life of the cougar should not be outweighed by the sheer dumb f*ck stupidity of the people who have an unrestrained wild animal at a kids party...." Yep. How about giving those people that series of very painful shots? Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.