Vet In Harness's blog

The RSPCA - What is it for?

Last week Mary Bale, a woman from Coventry, was convicted in a prosecution brought by the RSPCA of causing unnecessary suffering to a cat by putting it in a wheelie bin in which it was then trapped for 15 hours. She received a fine of £250 and was ordered to pay £1,171 in costs. She has also been banned from keeping animals for five years. Many of you will remember the uproar when the CCTV footage of the incident was first posted online a couple of months ago. For the background to the story, see the BBC story, and the RSPCA press release.

Bystander, a magistrate blogger, complains about the size of the costs award and the special status of the RSPCA as prosecuting authority. The odd status of the RSPCA is something that has bothered me for a while, and which I really do feel is a problem for the charity and for animal welfare and protection in general in this country.

The RSPCA is an independent charitable body which (as they never tire from telling us when fundraising) receives no government funding, and has no statutory legal authority, but which nevertheless finds itself cast in the role of investigating and prosecuting authority for much animal welfare law in this country.

As well as their work in prosecuting cruelty cases, the RSPCA provides rescue and rehoming services, free and cut-price veterinary services to pet owners on low incomes through a variety of channels, provides some rescue and rehabilitation for wildlife casualties, and campaigns on issues of animal welfare including farm animal welfare, welfare of performing animals, agitates against blood sports, and funds overseas animal welfare projects. They also lobby on, and participate in consultations regarding the writing of animal welfare law in England and Wales, (for instance campaigning against badger culling). You can read more detail in the RSPCA Mission Statement.

Essentially the RSPCA is suffering from a huge identity crisis. Is it the Police? The Crime Prosecution Service? Social Services? An NHS for pets? The League Against Cruel Sports? Amnesty International (animal division)?

RSPCA Inspectors have no statutory powers, but you would be easily forgiven for believing otherwise on occasion when watching them at work. The RSPCA were interviewed quite revealingly on the subject for a Sunday Times article from July 2007, discussing the widespread perception that RSPCA Inspectors have powers of entry and seizure.  I can see why individual inspectors find this useful in getting their work done, and you certainly hear stories of them overstepping the mark in throwing their weight around. The adoption of police ranks and police-alike uniforms certainly help this public perception. Be in no doubt, then - RSPCA Inspectors have no power of entry to properties - unlike the TV licensing man, or the chap from the water board - and no power to seize your property (and animals in your possession *are* your property). Power of seizure is restricted to police, officers of the local authority and Animal Health officials (Hansard - Lords Questions - Feb 23, 2010). Prosecutions for animal cruelty brought by the RSPCA are private prosecutions, using the same legal powers that any citizen could wield, if they were minded to.

How, then, has the RSPCA ended up with this perception of pseudo-statutory powers and essentially established itself as the ultimate arbiter of animal welfare in England and Wales? I can only guess, but it seems partly that they've self-appointed themselves thus, and partly that the correct authorities are content to allow them to continue to do so out of laziness and a sense of lack of relevant knowledge and experience on their own parts. Incidentally - Trading Standards (the people at the local council who worry about whether the pound of spuds you bought at the market really *was* a pound, or who take on dodgy cowboy builders) are the enforcement authority for farm animal welfare.

In my day to day practicing life I come across the RSPCA in two main circumstances - the first being when inspectors ask my advice or bring animals to me for assessment and treatment. In general I have found individual RSPCA Inspectors I have met to be caring, competent and professional - however their priorities can be distorted, one assumes by central priorities. One particular Inspector, shortly after the partial docking ban was passed, was memorably much more interested in whether a sick puppy we were concerned about had a docked tail than about its perilous immediate state of health.

My other main interaction with them is when trying to arrange treatment and care for stray and injured animals brought in by members of the public. These animals generally come to the surgery after a concerned member of the public has phoned the RSPCA and been told to bring them to us. The process of caring for such patients is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding drawn up between the RSPCA and the BVA which sets out what treatment the RSPCA will fund, and how. This should make the process of organising emergency treatment nice and straightforward, however it's rarely that simple. It can take a number of hours of telephone tag and sitting on hold for our nurses or receptionists to get the critical 'Log Number' to allow us to start treatment, and getting the RSPCA to then take these stray animals into shelters once their medical needs have been met is, at least at the moment, nearly impossible. We are left, as a private practice, to try to find homes for these animals, or find local welfare and rescue organisations willing to take them on. In the meantime the poor animal is in one of our hospital cages - not appropriate long-term accommodation - and at potential risk from other sick animals in the practice. It is hard to find a single practicing Veterinary Surgeon who finds dealing with the RSPCA anything other than a profoundly difficult and frustrating experience - and many, believe me, have far less polite things to say than that…

So my question is this - today, in 2010, 186 years after it was first founded, what is the RSPCA for? What do people think they are funding when they put their pound or two in the collecting box, and how does that stack up against reality? I strongly believe that most people who are involved with the RSPCA, as employees, volunteers, campaigners and fundraisers, are genuinely guided by good intentions and are working very hard to do the best job they can. But which job? So little of their time and effort seems directed to what most people would probably regard as the 'core' role - providing emergency treatment and shelter for animals in need - and so much on political campaigning and their pseudo-statutory role in law enforcement.

It seems to me that we desperately need some clarity. My pipe dream? For investigations into animal welfare and abuse to be carried out and prosecuted by specialist teams working and funded within the normal police and criminal prosecution channels (though in the current public financial straights it seems sadly unlikely that the police would willingly take on extra work) and for the RSPCA to distinguish carefully between their rescue and rehabilitation and rehoming work, and their political campaigns.

And while that remains pie in the sky? I would just ask you to think carefully about the large amounts of money donated to animal charities in the UK every year. Decide where you actually want your hard-earned money going. Rescue and rehoming? There are wonderful, dedicated, local animal shelters and wildlife rehabilitation services up and down the country to whom you could donate - after all, that's where many stray and unwanted animals referred to the RSPCA are likely to end up anyway - or national organisations like the Cats Protection, Dogs Trust, and Redwings Horse Sanctuary. Charity veterinary treatment? Think about the Blue Cross. Political campaigning on animal welfare issues? You have a world of choice, from the sensible to the militant. And if you're interested in improving the health and veterinary care for animals all over the world, by increasing our clinical knowledge of conditions and treatments, please consider donating to Petsavers. Finally remember, most charities would much rather you donated your time and expertise than your money, so in these cash-strapped times do please consider volunteering!

'C is for Chocolate' - A to Z of Pet Poisons

Quick Facts:

• Poison(s):  Chocolate contains the methylxanthine substance theobromine.  Related methylxanthines are caffeine and theophylline (found in coffee and tea).  Pharmaceutical xanthine preparations are available and are used primarily as bronchodilators (to widen the airways) in conditions including asthma.  They also have uses in cardiovascular disease and the treatment of age related dementia.  Preparations include 'Millophiline', 'Corvental' and 'Vivitonin'.  Methylxanthines have a stimulant action on the central nervous system, cardiovascular and respiratory systems, causing increased alertness, and increasing blood pressure, cardiac output and breathing rate.  So-called 'Dog Chocolates' do not contain cocoa solids or theobromine.
• Species affected: Many animals are sensitive to theobromine and consequently chocolate poisoning can affect most species.  Dogs are particularly likely to suffer accidental poisoning by scavenging or well-intentioned but misguided 'treating' with chocolate-containing items.
• Toxic dose:  the amount of chocolate required to produce a toxic effect in any given patient depends on the size of the patient and the theobromine content of the chocolate.  Theobromine content is estimated from percentage cocoa solids - dark or bittersweet chocolate will have a much higher theobromine content than milk chocolate, continental chocolate also tends to be higher in cocoa solids and consequently theobromine dose.  The more the cocoa content is 'diluted', the lower the potential toxicity.  Consequently, a very small number of squares of dark chocolate has the potential to be dangerous in a small terrier, whereas a large labrador can probably eat several portions of milk chocolate-containing desert without ill effect.
• Symptoms:  The stimulant effects of theobromine are responsible for the symptoms of chocolate intoxication. Affected animals may have increased heart rate and blood pressure and increased breathing rate.  Effects may also be seen from central nervous system stimulation.  This may produce tremors, twitching / nervousness, or in more severe cases seizures, loss of consciousness, and death.  These symptoms may occur within hours of ingestion.  Chocolate consumption can cause gastrointestinal upset.  The fat content of (particularly milk) chocolate products can also cause pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas) which causes stomach pain, vomiting and diarrhoea, may be severe, and which will often require hospitalisation and intensive treatment.  Gastrointestinal symptoms will often take a day or more to become apparent.
• Action:  Contact your veterinary surgery for advice immediately if you believe your pet has consumed chocolate or chocolate-containing foods, even if they are not showing any unusual symptoms at the time.   It will be helpful to your vet if you are able to provide them with the weight of the animal, the exact chocolate / foodstuff consumed, how much has been eaten, and the time that has passed since the substance was eaten (or if you do not know this precisely, for instance the box of chocolates disappeared from the coffee table while you were out of the house, the earliest and latest times that it could have occurred).  If your pet is showing any symptoms, it is important to seek immediate veterinary attention - but do call ahead so that the surgery can make arrangements to see you as quickly as possible.
• Treatment:  Your veterinary surgeon will attempt to estimate the total dose consumed from the information you are able to give them, and will assess whether treatment is likely to be required. They may consult a poisons information service for specialist advice.  The more complete the information you can provide, the more accurate this assessment will be and unnecessary treatment may be avoided - if information is incomplete, precautionary treatment may be advised.  If treatment is considered necessary, it may include induction of emesis (making the animal sick) or gastric lavage ('stomach pumping') if the chocolate has been consumed reasonably recently.  Further treatment  may include administration of intravenous fluids (a drip) to support the circulation, and activated charcoal to absorb theobromine from the digestive tract.  Treatment may also be required for pancreatitis or more mild digestive upset, should these arise.  While deaths do sometimes occur from chocolate poisoning, most cases, if seen promptly, can be treated successfully.  

Perhaps fortunately, the sort of milk chocolate popular in the UK is very low in cocoa solids, so cases of serious poisoning from Dairy Milk and Mars bars are uncommon in all but the smallest dogs.  Don't however underestimate the cocoa content of cakes and deserts prepared with cocoa powder.  If in doubt, it's always better to seek advice early than to wait and see.  

Chocolate poisoning is an unfortunate feature of the holiday seasons in veterinary practice - we see it most commonly around Christmas and Easter, though of course it can occur at any time of year.  Please be careful when leaving chocolates around the house - particular in larger than usual seasonal quantities - and avoid the use of chocolate Christmas tree decorations (which are usually pretty disappointing in any case!).  Please also beware the alcohol content of liqueur chocolates.  Sadly, poisoning of pets by intentional 'treating' with chocolate does still occur, so continuing education of both the pet owning and general public is clearly required.

A to Z of Pet Poisons - Index

As another firework season draws to a close, for now...

Those of you in the UK can't have failed to notice that it was Guy Faukes' Night recently, when we celebrate the fact 

Fireworks - not fun for everyone!

that a seventeenth century Catholic terrorist failed to blow up Parliament with several kegs of gunpowder, by burning him in effigy, setting fire to great piles of garden waste and permitting private individuals to play with explosives.

It's been a reasonably good year - none of my patients have been seriously physically injured, though several have gone missing.  In previous years I have had a labrador jump through a glazed patio door in his panic to escape from nearby fireworks.  Another literally climbed walls, pulling a radiator off it's fixings.  More commonly we see dogs and cats run away, often to return a few days later cold, wet, afraid and sometimes with significant injuries.  Some, sadly, do not return.

 

I really really cannot understand why, in this time of antisocial behaviour and anti-terror legislation, we haven't managed to ban the sale of explosive devices to unlicenced private individuals.  Fireworks are dangerous.  Used carelessly, in back gardens, in the hands of people with no appropriate training and without the recommended safety distances, they cause many injuries each year to adults and children.  Used maliciously, they cause fear, distress and injury to members of the public and the emergency services.  In the hands of professional pyrotechnics teams, at organised displays, they are an absolute joy.  I love fireworks.  But I see no reason whatsoever I should be allowed to deploy them in my garden!

 

Fear of fireworks in pets can be managed in a number of ways - dogs and cats with relatively mild anxiety can be helped by changes in their daily routine - taking them out for their last walk early, while it's still light, providing a safe indoor bolt-hole, keeping the TV or loud music on to muffle the sound of nearby explosions, and trying to behave as normally as possible, avoiding over-fussing or chastising worried animals.  Pharmaceutical approaches are available - pheromone diffusers are available for both dogs and cats and can be very helpful in some cases (and absolutely useless in others).  A new, non-sedative, anti-anxiety medication has come on the market this year which some of my clients have tried and been very impressed with.  Some dogs and cats do very well with the use of herbal remedies such as Skullcap and Valerian tablets, Valerian compound, or Rescue Remedy - but please please consult your vet before giving herbal medicines to your animals, just because they are 'natural' does not mean they are innocuous!  For the most seriously affected animals, who are at risk of injuring themselves or their owners, the use of sedatives is sadly unavoidable.

 

The most frightening sort of exposure to fireworks is a nearby explosion, overhead.  Exactly the sort that pets in built-up areas are exposed to when neighbours deploy (not necessarily particularly large or powerful) rockets in back gardens.  Be honest with yourself - I know there's a thrill to setting off backyard fireworks, but it's a pretty naff display compared to what you'll get at an organised display.  There are fantastic displays, often for charities, in just about every town and village in the country, so there are plenty of opportunities to get your firework fix.  Organised displays give the owners of anxious pets a chance to prepare and protect their pets for noise at a specified time, which is much easier than reacting to unexpected nearby explosions.  

 

So, next time you are tempted to buy fireworks, please think again, save yourself a few quid, and go to a wonderful organised display instead.  And if you have a pet who was stressed out by firework season, now is the time to contact your vet for advice - we seem to have fallen into a habit in this country of using fireworks for New Year over the past decade, so you have a month and a half to prepare your pet for the next round of pops and bangs.  Preparation is key, and starting a programme of noise desensitisation and behaviour modification now may well pay huge dividends come December 31st!

 

'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' - an update, and the Kennel Club's new plan...

In August, I wrote about the BBC programme 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed', and how it related to my experience of pedigree dogs in practice.

Yesterday, the Kennel Club announced its plan 'to clamp down on breeders to safeguard health of pedigree pets'.  The choice of language is their own, is surprisingly strong, and on its own is interesting.  These breeders, after all, on whom they want to 'clamp down', are the core of their business, the Kennel Club's absolute life-blood, and people who historically they have been extremely sensitive with and unwilling to upset, claiming that any attempt to introduce regulation without consent would simply drive these breeders away and make things worse rather than better.

The content of the press release is superficially promising, the KC seem willing to address all three of the issues I raised in my previous blog post - that's to say genetic diseases, extreme breed characteristics, and even, possibly, line breeding.  There's some quite confusing stuff in there like the claim that with appropriate regulation behind them the Kennel Club would be able to make it *illegal* to breed and sell pups without being part of their vaunted 'Accredited Breeder Scheme'.  How this would apply to non pedigree (working collies and the like) and crossbred pups, I cannot possibly imagine.  I'm hoping it's sloppy drafting, but if not would represent a vast and unwelcome extension of the KC's powers, and clearly needs keeping an eye on!

 

The Times have got an article about the announcement and the immediate implications.  The first breed in the firing line is the Peke, which, the KC hopes, will soon have a nose back!  I foresee enormous resistance from breeders and judges (who, as we've said, are a horribly incestuous bunch at the best of times) to changes in their breed standards away from the current types.  It's going to take a lot of effort and make a lot of breeders very unhappy to get people to toe this line. We will see. 

 

They're talking the talk, at least...  Let's see them walk the walk!

 

'B is for Barbiturates' - A to Z of Pet Poisons

 

Phenobarbital

Quick facts:

• Poison(s): Drugs of the barbiturate class.  This group of drugs is used in human and veterinary medicine for anaesthesia, sedation, the relief of anxiety and insomnia, and prevention of seizures (fits).  Barbiturates form part of some 'lethal injection' cocktails used by the US penal system, and are also used in veterinary medicine for humane euthanasia of patients.  Barbiturates have abuse potential.
• Species affected:  All species, dogs are most likely to suffer accidental poisoning.
• Toxic dose:  Depends on the drug, route of administration, and the patient.  Any accidental barbiturate ingestion or overdose in an animal or a human is potentially serious.
• Symptoms:  Barbiturates are sedatives. Initial symptoms include weakness and sleepiness.  Low blood pressure and reduced breathing rate will develop, and depending on dose, may be followed by unconsciousness, coma, and death.
• Action:  Contact your veterinary surgeon as soon as possible if you believe your pet may have been exposed to any barbiturate.  In general accidental ingestion of any prescription, non-prescription, or 'recreational' drug may be extremely dangerous, and you should seek advice as soon as possible if you believe your pet may have been exposed to them.  It will be helpful to your veterinary surgeon and to poison control / advice services if you have the name of the drug, strength, and quantity to hand, as well as knowing the weight of your pet.
• Treatment:  Will depend on the drug, the dose to which the pet has been exposed, and the severity of symptoms at the time of presentation.  There is no specific antidote to barbiturate poisoning / overdose and treatment is focused on supporting the patient while the drug is cleared by their body.  Treatment may include gastric lavage (stomach pumping), giving supplemental oxygen or artificial respiration if breathing is severely compromised, intravenous fluids to support the circulation, and drugs to encourage the heart to beat more strongly.  Despite intensive management, if a sufficiently large dose of drug has been absorbed, barbiturate overdose is commonly fatal.

Barbiturates have become less commonly prescribed in human medicine over the past few decades because of the potential for abuse, and the very narrow margin between the dose required for a 'high' and that which will induce a fatal coma.  Safer drugs are now available for the treatment of anxiety and insomnia.  Barbiturates remain in quite common use in veterinary medicine.  Sodium thiopental is a general anaesthetic agent, though this is less used now than a couple of decades ago.  Pentobarbital is the drug commonly used in the UK for humane euthanasia of veterinary patients.  Phenobarbital (trade names include 'Epiphen') given in tablet form is used to prevent seizures (fits) in epileptic dogs.      

 

Accidental overdosing with medications prescribed for epileptic patients, or dogs deciding to 'scavenge' medications belonging to owners or members of their households are the common routes of exposure.  Rarer, but something which is seen occasionally, is barbiturate overdose in dogs or cats caused by them scavenging and eating remains of animals who had been 'put to sleep' with a barbiturate injection.  Please think carefully about where and how you bury pets' remains, particularly after euthanasia, and consider arranging for cremation if there is nowhere safe or appropriate in your garden to lay your pet to rest.

Next Time - C is for Chocolate -- A to Z of Pet Poisons - Index

 

'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' - the BBC TV programme that has got all my clients talking.

Since it aired on Tuesday evening, almost every client to come into my consulting room has been asking me what I thought of BBC1's 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed'  (BBC press release, BBC iPlayer video of episode - only valid for 7 days from initial broadcast).  It was a very well put together exposé of the darker side of dog breeding, dog showing, and the health down-side that can occur when dogs are bred thoughtlessly, callously, and with their health and well-being somewhere down the priorities list after the breeder's showing success and financial considerations.  It's fair to say that there was shouting at the telly going on in my living room on Tuesday evening.  It was a good piece of investigative, issue-driven, campaigning broadcasting - I'm sure the breeders and the Kennel Club won't think it even-handed, but the science and reporting was on the whole sound, and well understood and explained.  And the things it covered were not much of a surprise if you're in the veterinary world.

Before I start, let me just say I'm not knocking pedigree dogs here, or those who buy pedigree pups as pets and companions.  I understand exactly why people choose pedigree puppies rather than picking up a mixed breed pup.  In fact, I am the owner of a pedigree dog myself, and so are several of the vets and nurses I work with.  And our reasons for choosing them are the same reasons our clients give - when choosing a pedigree puppy, you have a degree of certainty about what the physical - size, strength - and temperament (good and bad!) - likely intelligence, trainability, aggression - which will determine the requirement for exercise, and suitability for certain sorts of activity and lifestyle of the dog your pup will grow into.  A mixed breed pup will in most cases be a completely unknown quantity - often wonderful, but very hard to predict when looking at a small bundle of fur at 8 weeks old.

 

I'm sure lots of people will be picking apart the claims, assertions, arguments and allegations in the programme.  Instead, let me talk about the problems with pedigree dog breeds and breeding today in the UK as I see them. Although they tend to be bundled together and jumbled up to some extent in the arguments about dog breeding, there are as I see it three separate but connected issues.

• Extreme breed characteristics which compromise the health and welfare of 'healthy', 'normal' animals of a given breed.  Things like the extremely flattened noses of the so called 'brachycephalic' breeds - bulldogs, mastiffs, pekinese, pugs, and the like, who commonly have difficulty breathing and staying cool.  The short legs of dachshunds and basset hounds, which due to their abnormal anatomy predispose them to orthopaedic disease and crippling arthritis in old age.  The desirable 'diamond eyes' of bassets, St Bernards, and certain other giant breeds, which cause the eyelids to fold out or in rubbing the eyelashes against the surface of the eye causing pain and predisposing to infection.  Excess of skin and abnormal skin folds on the bodies, legs, and heads of shar-pei, bassets, bulldogs, mastiffs, etc, which predispose these dogs to painful skin infections where the skin is folded back on itself forming pockets.  The malformed spines of pugs and other 'screw-tailed' breeds which can cause extreme pain and paralysis.  I see one or more of these conditions in my consulting room every day.  Sadly this list is a very very short sample of the breeds with health issues of this kind.  Even more distressingly, all of these characteristics will perversely gain rather than lose these dogs marks in the show ring. 

• Genetic diseases in certain breeds. These are distinct from those above in not being desirable characteristics as such, rather illnesses and conditions which have hitched a lift in the breed's genetics.  Examples include syringomyelia (a painful neurological condition) and endocardiosis (a debilitating degenerative heart abnormality) in cavalier king charles spaniels, hip and elbow dysplasia in labrador retrievers which cause lameness and arthritis at a young age, progressive retinal atrophy (a genetic form of blindness) in setters, allergic diseases in west highland white terriers.  Again, the full list is much much longer than this.

• Finally, line breeding.  This is the frankly distasteful habit among some pedigree dog breeders of breeding close relatives back to one another to keep the line 'clean' and preserve and enhance 'desirable' characteristics.  Breeding litter-siblings to one another, or mothers to sons, half-siblings to one another, grandfather-to-granddaughter, are all regarded as acceptable and even desirable by a minority of pedigree dog breeders.  The consequence of this is a greatly enhanced risk of seeing (particularly autosomal recessive) genetic disorders in the offspring, compromised immunity, and a great reduction in the genetic diversity of the breed.

The simplest first, then - line breeding is easily solved.  It would be the matter of a decision from the Kennel Club to refuse to register first and second degree matings (first degree is sibling matings, mother-son, father daughter, second degree is grandfather-to-grandaughter, half-siblings, aunt-to-nephew, and so forth).  However I fear there is very little hope they will do so.

 

Breeding for extreme, harmful type requires action from all quarters - the Kennel Club must re-write the breed standards to prioritise health over absolutely everything else (they claim that they care about health, there is a mealy-mouthed bit of lip service in the breed standards now that faults must be judged in relation to the effects on an animal's health - however there is no consensus among breeders and the Kennel Club that harmful characteristics should be bred out).  Of course the KC can write what they like in the standards if the breeders and judges (generally these are the same people for a given breed, leading to a nasty incestuous arrangement where relationships - human and animal - are highly entangled and nepotism rules in both species) aren't prepared to go along with it.  While the majority of dog breeders, I have to believe, are good people with the health of their animals at heart, the minority unfortunately are numerous enough, vocal enough, and in controlling positions in so many breed societies, that good intentions struggle to out.

 

Genetic diseases will become easier to manage as genetic testing, and other detection programmes, become more widely available for these conditions.  It will then come down to the puppy-buying public to demand these assurances of breeders to whom they are handing over large sums of money, and to decline to take pups from breeders who have not, or will not, screen their breeding animals for these harmful conditions.  And it will come down to the veterinary world, the RSPCA, and others, to educate the public on the reasons to make these demands of the breeders from whom they buy dogs.  Good progress has already been made with hip and elbow dysplasia in the retriever breeds, but there is still a long way to go with other conditions.

 

The causes and solutions of these issues are certainly complex and interrelated, and require action from a combination of the Kennel Club, dog breeders, and the puppy-buying public if we are going to see the necessary improvements in the health of the pedigree dogs in this country.  It may very well be that, sadly, some breeds have been bred beyond the point of no return, with their genetic variability now so low as a consequence of inbreeding that the variability to re-create a sound, healthy dog has simply been lost.  However in most cases I think there should still be hope, if action can be taken quickly and effectively by all concerned.  My fear is that the Kennel Club and breeders will be far too stuck in their ways and wedded to their flawed orthodoxy to react in time.  

 

I see pedigree dogs every so often who could only be described as genetic, health and temperament train-wrecks.  And, yes, my heart falls when I see the name of one of our (thankfully few) lunatic dog breeders on my consulting list.  On a positive note, I see happy, healthy pedigree puppies who grow into happy, healthy adult dogs every day, greatly loved by their human families.  

 

What I would love more than anything would be to see the monopoly the Kennel Club has on pedigree dog registration in this country challenged, and an alternative registry introduced, divorced from the showing world, and placing an absolute priority on the temperament, health, and welfare of the animals it represents.  Perhaps...

 

'A is for Alcohol' - A to Z of Pet Poisons

'He made some hootch and tried it on the dog' by Arthur Burdett Frost, published 1921

Quick facts:

• Poison(s): ethanol (drinking alcohol), isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol), methanol (methylated spirits) 
• Species affected:  Dogs and cats, more common in dogs.
• Toxic dose:  Varies depending on substance ingested and strength of the preparation.  Published LD50 (mean lethal dose, usually derived from studies in rodents) for ethanol is ~10g per kilo of body weight.   Serious toxic effects can be expected well below this dose.  Doses above half a standard unit (or 4g) per kilo of body weight of ethanol are very likely to have severe or even life threatening consequences. LD50 of methanol and isopropyl alcohol are around half that of ethanol.  Lower doses (particularly of isopropyl alcohol and methanol) are also likely to cause serious problems
• Symptoms:  Initially coordination problems, excitement progressing to depression, loss of consciousness, progressing to cardiac and / or respiratory arrest potentially resulting in death.  If inhaled, can cause severe breathing difficulties.  Where skin contact occurs, irritation is possible.  Serious damage to the eyes can occur from splashes of concentrated alcohols.  Methanol also causes liver damage and blindness.
• Action:  Seek veterinary advice as soon as possible if your pet is showing any signs of alcohol poisoning or if you believe they may have ingested or come into contact with any noxious substance.   Small amounts of weak drinking alcohol (eg the dregs in a beer can, or  a small amount of spilled wine) are unlikely to cause a problem and emergency treatment is probably unnecessary, though you should monitor your pet closely for any symptoms and seek advice and treatment if appropriate.
• Treatment:  Will depend on the substance swallowed / inhaled, dose, and severity of symptoms, but may include gastric lavage (stomach pumping), intubation to protect your pet's airway, and drug treatment to control symptoms.

 

Alcohol poisoning is commonly the effect of accidental ingestion of alcoholic drinks by pets.  Dogs are generally more prone to eating and drinking things they shouldn't than cats are.  Sadly, we also see cases of people intentionally feeding animals alcoholic beverages.  While small amounts of alcohol are unlikely to be dangerous, please never give dogs or cats even small amounts of alcohol.  No, Auntie Mabel's Chihuahua does *not* want or need a tot of brandy at Christmas!  And despite the fact a lot of dogs seem to like the taste of beer, please don't buy them a pint when you get your round in at the pub!  

The relative difference in body weight between pets and humans, and differences in metabolism of alcohol, can make even small doses potentially hazardous.  Also consider that the experience of being 'drunk', though some humans might find it pleasant and it may be entertaining to watch, must be very frightening for a pet who doesn't know what is going on!

Don't forget the risks of dogs or cats ingesting significant quantities of alcohol in liqueur chocolates (we'll get on to the hazards of chocolate - and theobromine, which it contains - further down the alphabet), booze-soaked Christmas cake or Christmas pudding (which also contain raisins and currants which are toxic in their own right) or 'cleaning up' human vomit at boozy teenagers' parties!

Next time - B is for Barbiturates. -- A to Z of Pet Poisons - Index

Foot and Mouth Disease returns (belatedly)

Those of you in the UK can't have failed to notice that we've had Foot and Mouth Disease back in the last month.  I was alerted to this fact while trying to enjoy a BBQ at a friend's on a Friday evening on call by the arrival of a text message from a colleague. It's one of those bits of news you just don't want to hear, even now that I'm not a mixed practice vet any more.

Anyway, it's a testament to the speed and thoroughness of the response, this time, that things seem to be under control, and we got (yet another, very keen they've been) fax today from Animal Health letting us know that movement restrictions are now being essentially removed and that we can soon export meat to the EU again.  So, good work all around.

The outbreak seems to have been halted with only two premises finally confirmed infected with FMDV strain 01/BFS67, a strain of foot and mouth disease which was responsible for the 1967 UK outbreak but which has not been seen circulating in livestock or wildlife anywhere in the world for several years, living out a peaceful retirement as a reference strain in bottles in a number of research laboratories, and with a sideline in vaccine production.

Except.

[And the rest of this piece is pure speculation, and comes with a *humungous* caveat, which is that I have no real idea what the procedure for confirming FMDV is, other than that samples are taken on suspicion and a day or two later a press release comes out from DEFRA saying 'confirmed' or not.  The difficulty with FMDV is that several other disease of cattle, sheep and pigs, such as Mucosal Disease, and Vesicular Stomatitis, mimic the clinical signs of FMDV very closely, so that suspect cases actually come up more often than people would expect.  If the procedure is a good robust one with multiple samples sent to multiple labs for cross-checking, then the following isn't really at all likely.  But I just have a slight worry that what happens is that the samples taken are sent off to one VI (veterinary investigation) lab somewhere, possibly even Pirbright, where one technician or scientist, or small group of technicians, whose job it is to process suspect FMDV samples, get on and do their jobs.  In which case...]

There are two possibilities here, and I think the second deserves at least a passing glance.  The first and apparently accepted story is that, somehow, despite the biosecurity precautions at the Pirbright Institute for Animal Health, and at the vaccine plant operated by Merial on the same premises, some of virus strain 01/BFS67 was allowed to escape, and somehow came into contact with cattle and caused the outbreak.

But isn't it just possible that, if suspect samples are tested in one place, by one group, perhaps even with the same batches of reagents, that the two 'confirmed' results are in fact the result of contamination of the samples with a reference strain inside the laboratory?  Just a *little* possible?  After all, modern analytic processes like PCR can be exquisitely, painfully sensitive.  And contamination in labs with reference material has certainly been known to produce false positives in the past.

Anyway, I'm sure the clever people who are paid to think about these things have considered this, and ruled it out.  But it occurred to me in an idle moment and brought me up short, so I thought I'd share it with you all.  Not so much a conspiracy theory as an incompetence theory, I suppose.  And as my Gran would have reminded me, you should never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by carelessness or stupidity.

 

Well, we are honoured... and some rambling thoughts on happiness and mental health.

Last week, this blog was paid a visit by the erstwhile Josh himself (well, this is the Internet, so you can never be sure, but it seems plausible) thanking me for mentioning his book, and inviting me to read what other vets have had to say about it.  He has so far failed to take me up on my offer to read his book if he sends me a review copy, which is sad.  But not wanting to be unfair on him or his literary endeavours, I went off and read his reviews.  Very depressing reading they make, too.

I'm not going to argue against the assertion that many people in this job are somewhere on the spectrum from unhappy to frankly suicidal, that as a profession we suffer from higher than average rates of alcohol and other substance abuse, and that many vets frankly feel that they were sold a lie, that their work is simply not as satisfying as they were promised when they chose it, that their customers are often ungrateful for their work and resentful of their bills, their patients mostly want to bite or claw them, they spend a lot of their time dealing with pus and blood and shit, and that having got this far, they feel unable to back out, admit that it's not for them, and find something else to do with their lives.  Hell, I've had times like that.

The issue of depression and suicide in the profession is one that has been gone over many times by many different people.  It seems to me, thinking back over the people who were with me in my years at vet school, that we probably chose people for veterinary training who may not be that suited to the reality of the job after graduation.  In the UK, at least, selection for extremely tightly contested places is essentially on academic attainment, plus an interview in many but not all cases.  My classmates were, for the main part, very hard-working, driven, obsessive / perfectionist / idealist personalities, with a smattering here and there of brilliant types who appeared never to have to do any work (though, like many things, I suspect this appearance was often deceptive).  There really isn't any scope in the selection mechanism to select for people who cope, make do, are practical and enjoy solving gnarly problems without an ideal solution. 

Because it doesn't take long to realise that the job isn't about finding 'the answer' or 'the right solution' or deploying 'the gold standard treatment' most of the time.  The way I see things, it's about trying to tread the difficult line between the animal's best interests, the owner's desires (reasonable or otherwise), the financial constraints, and your professional responsibilities, while trying to avoid stepping too many of the generously scattered ethical and legal landmines.  And  as for the actual bread and butter of the job - it's not intellectual, it's practical and it's about interpersonal skills.  It's about coming up with an often alarmingly Heath Robinson Plan B when the Plan A you were taught at vet school fails in some exciting way.  It's about sensing and responding to owners unspoken, and often unconscious agendas, issues and twitches and somehow producing the best result you can under the circumstances, one that the owner is comfortable with, one that minimally compromises the animal (because, yes, that's often what you're left aiming for), and which meanwhile produces an income for the practice sufficient to keep your boss of your back.  And I love it, for all of that.  That's the challenge.  And I can see why a perfectionist, obsessive, idealistic type would find it completely impossible.

Against a background of all of that, we need to add in the fact that recent graduates are now carrying a mountain of student debt, one which will only get bigger as the 'top-up fees' university generation graduates, and which recent graduate salaries are simply not sufficient to service while providing a reasonable quality of life, not an unreasonable expectation after five or sometimes more years studying on a student income, and galling when you glance sideways and see newly graduated doctors earning upwards of 35k. 

As an aside, I'd love to know how the *attempted* suicide statistics for our profession stack up with other occupations.  I rather suspect that the ratio of successful to attempted suicides is rather higher for us than for accountants, say.  After all, I have the all the necessary means to a relatively painless and pretty much guaranteed-effective death in the boot of my car right now, if I wanted it.  I know of vets who have used it.

Are things similar in the US and other places?  I would love to know my readers' thoughts.  And Josh, I'd love it if you'd send me that review copy...

James Herriot (well, it had to happen one day!)

Some of you will have recognised this blog's namesake as one of the lesser-known James Herriot novels.  I think in common with many of my collegues, the Herriot books were a formative influence - though of course they tell you on no account to mention this on your UCAS form!  Doing a spot of Wikipdeia browsing this afternoon, I found a quote by Alf White (the man behind the Herriot nom de plume) which fairly sums up the way the industry has changed in the last 50 or so years since the Herriot books were based.

"Years ago, farmers were uneducated and eccentric and said funny things, and we ourselves were comparatively uneducated. We had no  antibiotics, few drugs. A lot of time was spent pouring things down cows' throats. The whole thing added up to a lot of laughs. There's more science now, but not so many laughs."

The quote is attributed to a piece in Time Magazine in 1992 by Jonathan Margolis titled "But It Did Happen to a Vet", a horrible title at the best of times and I haven't followed up the attribution so this being Wikipedia I can't vouch for it (a whole other argument, mind, I think Wikipedia is *wonderful*).  Rings true, though.

Pet Hates: The Shocking Truth About Pets and Vets

An aside - the Wikipedia piece on Herriot reminds me that there's a new book out which is causing some annoyance in the veterinary press, mostly from people who (like me) haven't bothered to read it.  Well, it seems likely to be a pile of dross, and we're busy people.  I certainly don't recommend you buy it, though I'm in no position to comment in detail.  It's called "Pet Hates: The Shocking Truth about Pets and Vets" by someone calling themselves 'Josh Artmeier'.  Nice anagram to hide behind, 'Josh'.  Mind you, I'm one to talk...