A veterinary issue that triggers a public health issue
Ethical question of the month, November 2021
A strictly indoor cat is presented by its owner with the help of a member of a shelter. It has a mass, presumed to be an abscess, on one side of its neck. The mass is drained, producing a yellowish gelatinous fluid. In-house cytology reveals numerous round microorganisms that appear to be yeast and were later confirmed by a pathologist to be Cryptococcus with the comment “How a wonderful sample” transformed an ordinary cat abscess into a “beautiful case.” The cat died shortly after beginning antifungal treatment.
After the initial review of the slide, the treating veterinarian obtained a history of the living conditions and received permission from the owner to contact a colleague at the government veterinary service, who then contacted the Department of Health. Meanwhile, the veterinarian encouraged the owner to call his personal doctor. The veterinarian’s concern was that the low income of the owner and neighbors could prevent them from seeking medical intervention, he followed up with the regulatory veterinarian who again contacted the health department.
The case was not identified as a notifiable disease and no specific action from government health services was indicated. However, from a One Health perspective, this case occurred in a large apartment building with at least 100 tenants. In a recent cleaning of the ventilation system, several bird’s nests were found. The deceased cat had a habit of sleeping in front of the ventilation vent on the kitchen table. The client declares that he has undiagnosed breathing problems, as do some other tenants. What else could the veterinarian have done?
Clare Palmer, Peter Sandøe, & Dan Weary comment on this dilemma and you can read it here: Ethicists’ commentary on a veterinary issue that triggers a public health issue (pdf)