Ethicists' commentary on providing advice on risks to human health
Ethical question of the month, November 2025
You have a canine patient with recurrent episodes of diarrhea. When taking the patient history, you learn that the owner feeds the dog an exclusively raw food diet. You also ascertain that there are 2 small children in the home who closely interact with the dog. The results of a fecal examination identify both Salmonella and E. coli O157 (implicated in hemolytic uremic syndrome in children). You inform the owner of the serious zoonotic potential of the findings, but you are unsuccessful in convincing her to change to a conventional diet or cook the raw food. Having had an experience with a child with E. coli O157 infection, you are deeply concerned about the children in the household.
Are you justified or obligated to alert the Public Health Department or Social Services in this case?
Clare Palmer, Peter Sandøe, & Dan Weary comment on this dilemma and you can read it here: Ethicists’ commentary on providing advice on risks to human health