Treating Brucella infected animals,is unethical.
OIE insists culling of positive animals.No treatment whatsoever should be attempted.Because,
Zoonotic animal diseases including brucellosis remain a serious obstacle to public health, social and economic progress, food security and food safety .
BHAI
ethics means principles, moral, beliefs,moral principles,moral values, moral code.In saudi arabia a study in camels state that about 20-40% of camel population is Brucella Positive and unknown percentage of sheeps are also positive for brucella. It is common in humans also(malta fever). When a lab finds it to be positive it has to be reported to the GOvernment. I know that it is a notifiable disease throughout the world. If i say that i have to kill the camel, the bedouins(nomads) will kill me first. And i want to know why the killing of an animal(other than for food) is called ethical, if a case of brucella is reported in human, what is done,is the man/woman euthanised.I am trying to find an alternate method as the complete eradication by killing and incineration is not possible here. The Brucella organism can survive in soil for hundres of years, what are we going to do for that. Are we going to use blow gun all over saudi arabia to kill the microbes. when it is impossible, try an alternative, that is what i am trying to do. Everyone practising here knows the disease is rampant and they cant do anything except being a mute spectator, i am trying something which would benefit both the owner and the camel.
பதிலளிநீக்குkaraiyan.
Why don't you adapt a serious vaccination programme to controll?
பதிலளிநீக்குChocks
vaccination will be effective only if young animals before six months are vaccinated. Illiteracy among the camel owners and unfriendly terrains, make it difficult to do vaccinations. The unhindered movement of camels from other countries(in the desert there are no boundaries or no efficient checking mechanism is possible).
பதிலளிநீக்குkaraiyan.
You have got to do things sometime based on circumstances and what is available to you; things that are agreeable in one place is not acceptable in other places. But you have to do what is right by your conscience and what you can with what you have to the best of your ability..
பதிலளிநீக்குGujili
Though I accept Chocks and Gujili's views,I won't Karayan's.Ofcourse,he may not be the owner of the animals concerned and he has to obey his employer.Neverthless,he should advice his employer and coax him to accept the International law.If ,he has done this,then his job is over.Otherwise,he may be unethical.Moreover,my posting was with a general view ,applicable to each and everyone viz...all countries and vets;not pinpointing Karayan alone.
பதிலளிநீக்குThe International body says ,
1."Veterinarians should obey all laws of the jurisdictions in which they reside and practice veterinary medicine".
2.Veterinarians should report illegal practices and activities to the proper authorities.
3.It is unethical to place professional knowledge, credentials, or services at the disposal of any nonprofessional organization, group, or individual to promote or lend credibility to the illegal practice of veterinary medicine.
4.The choice of treatments or animal care should not be influenced by considerations other than the needs of the patient, the welfare of the client, and the safety of the public.
5.Humane euthanasia of animals is an ethical veterinary procedure.....
to list a few.
His question on euthanizing an animal is really surprising.My Answer to His Strange Question:Because,
Animals and humans have a different moral status
Extrapolation from situations relevant to animals to similar ones involving man, and vice versa, is not only invalid but also a weak point in any discussion on ethics or policy. Moral standards within a community, and the legislation resulting from their establishment, are of much greater importance. For example, it is generally accepted that farm animals are slaughtered for their meat. This does not mean that the intentional killing of people is similarly deemed acceptable. Thus, the moral basis of a society, as defined by its laws, determines the differential treatment of animals and humans. Because science and technology know no geographical barriers, industrialised and many developing countries share the same research potential. Therefore, protection of the well being and integrity of man and animals requires international harmonisation of all relevant legislation.
It is not easy to consider all elements necessary to design a research policy. The ultimate aim of a project should not be the sole justification for its execution; thought must also be given to the consequences of the research and the way in which the results might be used. Ideally, this process should be carried out by peer review and should include discussions with 'educated' lay people, who are likely to be less biased in their analysis of a project and, therefore, will offer a wider perspective on the research under consideration. In general, it is only the use of animals in specific research projects that is subjected to ethical review and not the consequence of the research project's results. During the last decade, the ethical review of animal experiments has become an established policy in many countries. Members of the ethical committees tend to be multidisciplinary and include scientists, experts on ethics and lay people. These committees are not consulted, however, on strategic decisions for research policy. They simply review individual projects or experiments and rely on prior scientific evaluation to determine the quality and significance of the research itself. Their main function is to assess whether the experimental design and procedures use a minimum number of animals and inflict minimal harm upon them. This evaluation system is very effective at improving the treatment of laboratory animals but is not instrumental in strategic decision-making for the planning of research programmes.
Sorry for the lengthy reply,
BHAI.
This is an article by vets from saudi arabia on treatment of camels with brucellosis.
பதிலளிநீக்குControl of Brucella melitensis infection in a large camel herd in Saudi Arabia using antibiotherapy and vaccination with Rev. 1 vaccine.
Radwan AI, Bekairi SI, Mukayel AA, al-Bokmy AM, Prasad PV, Azar FN, Coloyan ER.
Animal Production and Health Section, Ministry of Agriculture and Water, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
The authors describe an attempt to control Brucella melitensis infection in a large camel herd in Saudi Arabia. Sera from the entire herd (2,536) were examined by the Rose Bengal and standard United States of America buffered plate agglutination tests. The overall Brucella seroprevalence was 8%. Milk samples from the 120 seropositive milking camels were cultured on Brucella-selective media. B. melitensis biovars 1, 2 and 3 were isolated from 41 camels (34%). Seropositive camels (202) were treated for the first time with a combination of long-acting oxytetracycline (OTC) at a dose of 25 mg/kg administered intramuscularly (i.m.) every 2 days for 30 days and streptomycin at 25 mg/kg i.m. every 2 days for 16 days. In addition, milking camels were given OTC-intramammary infusion at a rate of 10 ml/teat every 2 days for 8 days. This regimen was found to be effective in eliminating the shedding of Brucella organisms by camels, with no relapse. Moreover, all treated camels became seronegative within 16 months after treatment. Seronegative camels (2,331) were vaccinated for the first time with the B. melitensis Rev. 1 strain vaccine, as follows: a) 175 young camels (aged three months to one year) were each inoculated subcutaneously with a full dose (1-2 x 10(9) viable organisms in 1 ml). Brucella antibody titres between 1:50 and 1:200 were detected 2-4 weeks post-vaccination. Brucella antibodies decreased gradually until the animals became seronegative 8 months after vaccination. b) 2,156 camels aged more than one year were each inoculated subcutaneously with a reduced dose (1-2 x 10(6) viable organisms in 1 ml). Antibody titres measured 2-4 weeks post-vaccination varied from 1:25 to 1:200. The titres decreased gradually, until the animals became seronegative 3 months post-vaccination. No Brucella organisms were recovered from repeated udder secretion samples from all vaccinated milking camels, and no abortions were recorded among pregnant vaccinated camels.
PMID: 8593404 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
the last comment was mine.
பதிலளிநீக்குkaraiyan.
I am glad Karayan posted this article.. I suppose there are 2 sides to every coin.
பதிலளிநீக்குGujili
My Dears,
பதிலளிநீக்குDon't mistake me.Both of you were wrong.
1.Karayan-There is a big difference between Research and Practice.Anybody can do experiment and report it.The question is 'Whether it is recognised or not by the OIE Expertise?'.One has to abide by the regulations.
2.Gujili-The subject matter is not a dichomatous question which is similar to two sides of a coin.It is a policy matter to be decided by the International body.This can be a hypothesis,which has to be rejected.
BHAI.
What happened to our experts-GFK and Peer?.
பதிலளிநீக்குLet them throw light on this matter.
BHAI.
Before Peer and GFK can comment, I have to put my 2 cents in..
பதிலளிநீக்குBhai - we have to agree to disagree. It is 2 sides of a coin. Where you have strict regulations to follow, you do because you don't have too much options. But you should at least try to see what you can do about those regulations if they no longer make sense or not applicable in particular circumstances. Research is the foundation for future treatments. Once upon a time it took forever for scientists to get their bench work to the point of pharmaceuticals. Not anymore lots of chemotherapeutics, vaccines etc take a much shorter time to go from the bench to real life treatments. Perhaps once upon a time (10 yrs ago may be..) Brucella infected animals were incurable and hence had to be euthanized. When the regulations were made at that time, may be euthanasia was the only option. If now they have come up with combo of antibiotics that can allow the animals to become seronegative. Why not try? One has to be open to ideas to try and not stick to regulations and rules just because they are rules. Afterall as the saying goes "the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge".
Gujili
Dear Gujili,
பதிலளிநீக்குAgain you are absolutely wrong.
1.It is not once upon a time nor 10 yrears ago.Recently,the Ministry of Environment, State of Qatar,organised “10th conference of the OIE " from 26th to 29th of October 2009.I was a participant.Number of delegates from different countries including KSA attended.Not even a single person suggested treatment of animal brucellosis,eventhough they knew that there were some fruitful results in KSA.Instead the following recommendations were given unanimously.
Prevention:
• Careful selection of replacement animals. These, whether purchased or produced
from existing stock, should originate from Brucella-free herds or flocks.
Pre-purchase tests are necessary unless the replacements are from populations
in geographically circumscribed areas that are known to be free of the disease.
• Isolation of purchased replacements for at least 30 days. In addition a serological
test prior to commingling is necessary.
• Prevention of contacts and commingling with herds of flocks of unknown
status or those with brucellosis.
• If possible, laboratory assistance should be utilized to diagnose causation of
abortions, premature births, or other clinical signs. Suspect animals should
be isolated until a diagnosis can be made.
• Herds and flocks should be included in surveillance measures such as periodic
milk ring tests in cattle (at least four times per year), and testing of slaughtered
animals with simple screening serological procedures such as the RBT.
• Proper disposal (burial or burning) of placentas and non-viable fetuses.
Disinfection of contaminated areas should be performed thoroughly.
Control:
The aim of an animal control programme is to reduce the impact of a
disease on human health and the economic consequences. The elimination
of the disease from the population is not the objective of a control programme,
and it is implicit that some “acceptable level” of infection will remain in the
population. Control programmes have an indefinite duration and will need
to be maintained even after the “acceptable level” of infection has been
reached, so that the disease does not re-emerge.These
procedures may be under the general categories of test and
isolation/slaughter, hygiene, control of animal movement, vaccination.
Eradication:
• Eradication can only be achieved by test-and slaughter combined with
effective prevention measures and control of animal movements.
2.There is no limit for trial,but for practice.USA is the best country in the world to put the trials into practice.Why don't they advocate treatment of animals?Do you mean the USA govt. is an obstacle?No,Never.For,the scientists there know that the theory of "1 stone-2 mangoes" is not advisable in this case.
3.Obeying a regulation is the foremost part of ethics.
4.Animals will never be equal to humans.Nobody needs to be explained.
This is my last comment on this posting.
Love,
BHAI.
Bhai,
பதிலளிநீக்குThanks for updating me on the current state of affairs on Brucellosis treatment. I am not advocating for not getting rid of the cattle when they are infected. I am just saying that some of them may have to be solved by a case by case basis as in the case of Karayan's bedouin camels & their herdsmen. Actually there are studies from the US to show that in lab mice that antibiotic treatment causes them to be seronegative. They treat humans who are infected with brucellosis with that antibiotic combo regimen. Now, once scientists figure out the mechanisms by which these microorganisms can be destroyed completely, I bet they will consider treatments for infected cattle down the road. But right now, in the US, you are right the cattle are killed if they are infected. They do have problems in the wild with bison and elk being infected with brucellosis and they are beginning to have a vaccination program for them. Sometimes animals have to be killed for reasons that they can spread diseases and I am fully OK with that. Regarding obeying regulations - you are right we are to follow rules but there are also exceptions where we may have to circumvent the law perhaps not in the brucellosis situation. I hope I haven't offended you; I see this is a healthy discourse over issues that we face on a day to day basis and it is refreshing to get all opinions whether we agree with them or not.
Gujili
Thank you all for the wonderful and very useful discussion and views on the topic i opened. I was talking about this to a Professor in Pathology( a sudani, now works in a veterinary lab) a couple of days ago, i was telling him about euthanasia, he told me that it is impossible to follow in saudi, many camel owners do not allow even to testing them for Brucella and would not accept the vaccination as sometimes it causes swelling. Event if it is unethical i can't take law in my hands, recently a camel owner(a top level officer in dept.of local administration) brought his camel for mating with a bull in our farm and it was positive(1/320) for Brucella and he was arguing that it had been treated by the local vet for a month(with tetracycline+Streptomycin)and even he brought his prescriptions. We refused to mate it. He is a close friend of my owner's son and was abusing all of us. imagine what would have happened if i told him that positive animals should be euthanised. Thank you all for the valuable suggestions.
பதிலளிநீக்குkaraiyan.
Sorry ,for not mentioning two other experts-MSK and Das.
பதிலளிநீக்குBHAI.
Yes,Thanks to all for this workshop.
பதிலளிநீக்குBHAI.
hi dear friends
பதிலளிநீக்குi can understand karayans situation as i worked in ksa
brucellosis is a nasty zoonotic disease as v all know that
it is impractical to eradicate in some countries as the education level of o's are very low and not co opertaing with authorities
in the uk treatment of brucellosis is not allowed at all,+ve cow/sheep should be destroyed by incineration as b melitensis can survive in soil for ages
also any abortions should be immediately reported to MAFF authorities and cow/sheep should be isolated in a pen until all investigations are over.
please ck www.defra.gov.uk for more info on uk's policy on brucelosis
i had few experiences in saudi with positive cases i attended dystocia in a cow in a farm which was +ve and the farmer had another 5 cows and a bull for breeding that also +ve,I panicked a lot went to king khalid hosp and requested for a blood test,thank God i was ok but one our collegue has aquired the disease in saudi
in my opinion brucellosis should not be treated and destroyed -it is going to happen only if the government takes steps towards that goal otherwise it is impractical as karayan said
hope local authorities take necessary steps towards the eradication of this dreadful disease