Ebola patients Dog destroyed

Gael23

Spanish authorities have killed a pet Dog belonging to an Ebola victim.
Was this really justified? To me it seems absolutely outrageous

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ebola-dog-dead-spanish-social-media-users-grieve-as-nurses-pet-reportedly-is-put-down-9782748.html

eyescreamcone

If Even one person was saved by this action then it's totally justified

AlanS181824

Poor doggie

How Soon Is Now

I love animals especially dogs but really come on you see why it was done right?

AlanS181824

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I love animals especially dogs but really come on you see why it was done right?

Maybe if they'd proof the dog had the virus but just killing the poor dog is a bit much.

Gael23

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I love animals especially dogs but really come on you see why it was done right?

Yes I do but it was done without any tests being carried out or the dog being placed in quarantine

How Soon Is Now

ryanf1 wrote: »

Yes I do but it was done without any tests being carried out or the dog being placed in quarantine

Fair enough i didnt know that but i guess they didnt want to take any risks. The chances of it spreading threw the wild by an animal could be huge.

Gael23

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Fair enough i didnt know that but i guess they didnt want to take any risks. The chances of it spreading threw the wild by an animal could be huge.

From what animal rights activists are saying only if the animal bites someone or something like that

How Soon Is Now

ryanf1 wrote: »

From what animal rights activists are saying only if the animal bites someone or something like that

I guess the way i look at it is its not a nice thing its an innocent pet who for all we know is fine but they seem to have no way of knowing weather the dog has it or not from what ive heard tests dont work?

Just a massive risk either way to take that chance.

cerastes

ryanf1 wrote: »

From what animal rights activists are saying only if the animal bites someone or something like that

Unfortunate, but its not like dogs bite or anything, who knows what affect it might have on a dog, if it can be transmitted to canines or further transmitted to other animals, but who wants to find out.

Manach

The justification depends on how likely the dog was infected. On the one hand animals have been linked to the spread of disease (avian flu) so there is precedent. However, it might have been an alternative just to keep the dog in quarantine for the 21 day period. So if the decision was made on medical grounds with reasonable certainty, that of course is fine. But if it was done on expediency and for political reasons (to show that the Government is acting) then that is not really justified.

How Soon Is Now

It would be a massive risk to take already theres been enough of them taken.

Look at it both ways the dog could be grand he could of been kept and everything be fine but what if they dont kill the animal he has Ebola he attacks someone or spreads it to another animal or person without anyone knowing then what.

Manach

Just curious as I do not know anything about the effect of Ebola on animals, but how likely is it that a dog would attack anything else under the influence of such? Given the overall level of hazards and risks associated with the disease, keeping one dog in isolation (which I'd guess is has some fairly well developed quarantine protocols) then this is a minute level of risk compared to the overall level of risk.

It should be interesting to hear the results of any autopsy.

Victor

ryanf1 wrote: »

From what animal rights activists are saying only if the animal bites someone or something like that

Contact with any bodily fluids can spread it. the nurse in this case seems to have caught it from touching the outside of her protective suit with her hand. Can you imagine a dog not being interested in vomit and diarrhoea?

How Soon Is Now

When you think about it theres very little they could actually do with the animal. If they dont put it down who is going to take it?
If they put it in lock down somewhere if it has the virus its more then likely gonna die a horrible death. Theres the chance the dog is grand but until its to late they have no way of knowing and they obviously felt they cant take that risk.

cocker5

My view on this as a realist is, then yes it was justified if it saves one human life it’s a necessary evil I suppose BUT my view as a serious animal lover (especially dogs) they should have ceased the dog, placed him in quarantine and tested him for the virus, and not jump the gun with straight euthanization.

But the Spanish are not known for the great animal welfare or for their love of animals, and plus I’m sure it was the cheaper option for them was euthanization.…. so the animals loses out again at the end of the day sadly 99% of things in this world come down to money.

muddypaws

Pete the Vet had a very interesting take on this in his blog. It would have been more beneficial to keep the dog in quarantine and to test it regularly, to help understand whether or not it could be spread between species. So by euthanising the dog like this, no real purpose has been served, nothing has been learnt, from what could have been a very helpful case for both humans and dogs.

Pretzill

muddypaws wrote: »

Pete the Vet had a very interesting take on this in his blog. It would have been more beneficial to keep the dog in quarantine and to test it regularly, to help understand whether or not it could be spread between species. So by euthanising the dog like this, no real purpose has been served, nothing has been learnt, from what could have been a very helpful case for both humans and dogs.

Isn't that how Ebola spread originally from bats? So it does travel through species and is transmitted through bodily fluid contact - it's terrible for the dog he was pts but it could be highly likely he had the disease - Ebola is contagious and it's bad enough we still have rabies, foot and mouth, cjd and other animal to animal transmissions in parts of Europe potentially two of those transmittable to humans but any risk however low of a domestic animal trasmitting this further well I feel they had little choice.

Scary disease.

(edit to add: to hear the dog would have ended up in some lab in a plague dog scenario would be much worse imo)

cocker5

Pretzill wrote: »

Isn't that how Ebola spread originally from bats? So it does travel through species and is transmitted through bodily fluid contact - it's terrible for the dog he was pts but it could be highly likely he had the disease - Ebola is contagious and it's bad enough we still have rabies, foot and mouth, cjd and other animal to animal transmissions in parts of Europe potentially two of those transmittable to humans but any risk however low of a domestic animal trasmitting this further well I feel they had little choice.

Scary disease.

(edit to add: to hear the dog would have ended up in some lab in a plague dog scenario would be much worse imo)

I do agree with this, my suggestion was quarentine him for like one month or so, and if he didnt test positive retuen him to his owners etc not keep him for testing long term - I agree thats a far worse outcome for the poor dog - i just hope he went peacefully

Gael23

muddypaws wrote: »

Pete the Vet had a very interesting take on this in his blog. It would have been more beneficial to keep the dog in quarantine and to test it regularly, to help understand whether or not it could be spread between species. So by euthanising the dog like this, no real purpose has been served, nothing has been learnt, from what could have been a very helpful case for both humans and dogs.

I read his blog that you mention. He seems to think it was the wrong thing to do.

pawrick

It's a difficult one. I would have preferred if the dog could have been checked first before making a decision but at the same time it doesn't appear to be something every country it kitted out for test wise and who would look after the dog while waiting on results.Would a facility have to be shut off etc. for just one dog as it is so contagious and most pounds probably aren't suitable if it has it anyhow? It sounds like they took the quick and practical option on this even if it's not the ideal one.

sillysmiles

But isn't one of the problems that dogs get Ebola, but are symptom less. So the tests, which test for antibodies raised against the virus, would have shown up negative, but the dog could still spread it.
While it is sad, it is understandable and if my understanding of the mechanism of the disease is correct (and I'm not saying it is) then 100% the dog should be PTS now and not in a months time when the risks to the greater population has increased.

muddypaws

If anyone has any studies that shows that dogs can become infected from humans, and vice versa, could they please post them, as, to the best of my knowledge, none have been done. So surely this would have been a good case to study, if the dog was infected, it could only have been through it's human owner. Unfair on the dog, yes probably, but if it saved human and canine lives in the future, then in my opinion, worth doing.

Aru

what about the risks to those handling the dog if it turns out he has been exposed to his owners bodily fluids(vomit etc)How many people will you put at risk to spare his life?
Is it worth the potential spread of ebola if quarantine around the dog fails?

how long do you cage the dog in solitary isolation away from any human contact bar being caught to be sampled to test for ebola before it becomes cruelty?
Considering the poor creature likely will have to be rabies poled and sedated for each sample to prevent any possible transmission to his human handlers?

At what point do you decide that its safe for the dog to return to his own life...do you assume they have the same transmission time as humans and keep him for 21 days or do you keep him in solitary for months on end?

I think a pts scenario is a hell of a lot kinder for a older pet dog than being kept as a lab animal who cannot be touched for fear of possible transmission.

CDC(centre for disease control) website used to have a link on their page leading to the dog transmission theorys but its coming up as error at the minute.

Zapperzy

I would also be thinking along the same lines. What sort of life would a 12 year old dog have in quarantine suddenly taken from his home and owners and put into a strange environment, being poked, prodded and manhandled by strangers possibly wearing scary looking suits. If it was proven he was no risk and released back who would take him, by the sounds of things that poor nurse isin't doing too well, its very likely her husband is infected and her family if shes had contact withthem quarantined. So an old dog would be upheaved again and moved on to a new place with new people. Humane euthanasia is a peaceful and quick way to go with minimal stress compared to the alternative in myopinion.

Its a good point about studying him for the benefit of other animals though, but again not not the best option for that dog's sake.

cerastes

cocker5 wrote: »

I do agree with this, my suggestion was quarentine him for like one month or so, and if he didnt test positive retuen him to his owners etc not keep him for testing long term - I agree thats a far worse outcome for the poor dog - i just hope he went peacefully

And if they dont know enough about how canines transmit ebola?
and the dog releases or transmits it to another animal or human.
This dog was never going to be released. What is the condition of the owner at this point even?

Aru wrote: »

what about the risks to those handling the dog if it turns out he has been exposed to his owners bodily fluids(vomit etc)How many people will you put at risk to spare his life?
Is it worth the potential spread of ebola if quarantine around the dog fails?

how long do you cage the dog in solitary isolation away from any human contact bar being caught to be sampled to test for ebola before it becomes cruelty?
Considering the poor creature likely will have to be rabies poled and sedated for each sample to prevent any possible transmission to his human handlers?

At what point do you decide that its safe for the dog to return to his own life...do you assume they have the same transmission time as humans and keep him for 21 days or do you keep him in solitary for months on end?

Other than testing to try and understand if/how canines can transmit ebola, this dog was never going to be released, so it was Never.
Also the risk to those handling or dealing with the animal, there is a risk associated when dealing with people with ebola, a high risk, wasn't it a failure in the protocols for dealing with a patient with ebola that led to the nurse getting ebola?

Victor

cocker5 wrote: »

I do agree with this, my suggestion was quarentine him for like one month or so, and if he didnt test positive retuen him to his owners etc not keep him for testing long term - I agree thats a far worse outcome for the poor dog - i just hope he went peacefully

It isn't possible to test definitely for every disease. They are finding that HIV can be passive in young children for years.

The dog doesn't even need to be infected - the virus can be passed by surface contact.

muddypaws

Interesting that America is doing the opposite, the dog there hasn't been destroyed, but is in quarantine in the owner's apartment.

Gael23

A similar situation has arisen in the US

http://www.thejournal.ie/dog-texas-nurse-ebola-1722462-Oct2014/?utm_source=facebook_short