Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Julian Earl — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 14:32:10 GMT

Under Eurpoean law, casualty slaughter animals must be deemd as healthy (other than an acute injury requiring their emergency slaughter). BCVA have produced a model certificate that, while the advisory booklet refers to the requirement to be healthy, contains the declaration that an animal is free from systemic disease, which is not the same.

I have pointed out the discrepancy on several occasions and have met with the response that the context of a certificate is important. In other words, when I suggested that if a farmer client had bought a cow with a non-systemic discharging mammary abscess that was certified as healthy by the seller's vet, then the purchaser would have pretty obvious legal grounds for saying that the declaration was nonsense. But the same cow could be sold as healthy if it happened to break a leg and required immediate casualty slaughter, according to a former president of BCVA. I may be slightly paraphrasing (but only slightly) this comment of his:

"Words mean what I want them to mean, depending on the context of the certificate". It was a high-ranking member of the RCVS* who stated this and I suggested that a barrister would have a field day chewing up and spitting out that defence but BCVA insisted that healthy can be synonomous with absence of clinical disease. Which is clearly nonsense. Unless the wording is precise and accurate on a certificate, then someone is going to end up in court - or the DC of course - defending a stance based on the the flawed wording of the BCVA's model declaration.

“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

*In order to make it less personal, I have edited the name out. But still someone at the RCVS.

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:48:55 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]Now the real question is, can we certify an animal as healthy if it has non-systemic disease?[/quote]

No.

I can't pretend to be sure that I haven't done this when younger, though.

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 09:50:31 GMT

I think the sheer impossibility of definitely certifying an animal to be absolutely healthy is the reason RCVS banned "Certificates of soundness" for horses, and replaced them with an examination on behalf of a purchaser, and merely certifying that the horse was "fit for the purpose intended "

Wynne

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Julian Earl — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 23:41:08 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

cat with fleas or ear mites?

[/quote]

Not healthy.

I can't agree with all this fey mystical stuff about health. Health is the absence of ill-health.

[/quote]

Ear mites and presumably otitis - ill-health.

One flea and no dermatitis - healthy. In fact, I think that the fleas would need to have an effect on the animal for them to be causing ill-health. But otherwise, I agree with your sentiment Evelyn.

Now the real question is, can we certify an animal as healthy if it has non-systemic disease?

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:32:55 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

cat with fleas or ear mites?

[/quote]

Not healthy.

I can't agree with all this fey mystical stuff about health. Health is the absence of ill-health.

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Richard Carter — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:39:35 GMT

cat with fleas or ear mites?

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Julian Earl — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:33:01 GMT

[quote user="Mark Thirkell"]

I don't think an MRCVS could sign a certificate to say an animal was healthy - freedom from clinical signs of disease is about as precise as I would care to go. Surely "healthy" as stated above is a general concept and not a precise clinical term (consider "eczema", "canker", "cancer", "he/she's not him/herself" "under the weather") plus many other vague notions which are at best convenient shorthand but do not really convey proper meaning.

[/quote]

Assuming that you/someone does a complete and thorough examination and found no signs of disease, illness or infirmity, then would you be prepared to declare an animal healthy? And yes, that's with all the necessary qualifications: to the best of my knowledge and belief, in my opinion etc.

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Julian Earl — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:28:09 GMT

[quote user="Sally Everitt"]

The World Health Organisation defines health as " a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" This definition would suggest that health may be an aspirational state which is only rarely (and transiently) achieved.

"Not showing signs of systemic disease" is perhaps a matter of opinion and depends on how hard you look. We tend to think of a list of major signs such as vomiting, polydipsia or fever - but if signs are consider to be objective signifiers of underlying disease what do we make of abnormal blood results or genetic markers of disease. -

So in answer to the original post I would say they were not the same

Sally Everitt

[/quote]

I agree with the definition of health/healthy - it seems a very obvious and straightforward definition. I would not be concerned about sub-clinical or genetic markers because they do not affect the health. While that is a bit of a circular argument, I do not think that anyone or any animal carrying genes for a hereditary disease that the subject was not afflicted with is therefore unhealthy by any sensible definition.

But I want to turn this around: what about the cat with ringworm, or a cow with a old abscessated mammary gland. or a dog with conjunctivitis that has no other symptoms? Are those healthy because they do no have a systemic illness?

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Mark Thirkell — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:47:52 GMT

Just to show that acronyms can mean different things to different readers, I always thought the "A" in "BAR" stood for "and". I think bright = alert in this context and not an assessment of intelligence. I think a dog can be alert (wide awake) but not responsive; consider post-ictal epilepsy or, indeed, the natural attitude of most beagles (doing their own thing, oblivious to commands!)

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Mark Thirkell — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:33:05 GMT

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Martin Jones — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:02:19 GMT

It all really depends on your framework for measuring health - are we talking purely biomedically, or pursuing a more holistic approach?

Best to ask any of your SVNs, or RVNs who've qualified in the last 3-4 years, about concepts like Roper, Logan and Tierney's activities of living theory - and Dorothea Orem's simple but brilliant self-care deficit work. As ways of looking at health, they're much more robust than definitions of peripheral or systemic disease.

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Sally Everitt — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 05:56:23 GMT

So in answer to the original post I would say they were not the same

Sally Everitt

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Laurence Webb — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 22:32:42 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

2. Bright alert and responsive. Even seen a bright, alert dog not responsive? Or an alert responsive dog that's not bright?

[/quote]Chocolate labradors are alert and respond to food (if not commands). Bright? Not so sure.

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Julian Earl — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 22:00:29 GMT

[quote user="Rob Davis"]

"Healthy" is surely a relative term and difficult to define. "Not showing signs of systemic disease" is clearer, though could still be open to interpretation.

All our patients are dying, it's just that some are doing it faster than others...

[/quote]

I'm not sure that healthy is a relative term - a bit like pregnant isn't. Are you not either healthy or not? I appreciate that someone can be healthier than another for example, but really that implies one is less ill than the other; one of them may be healthy or neither but not both. So what about the suggested examples in my original post?

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:53:02 GMT

I would say "no, healthy and asymptomatic are not synonymous". Even cancer patients are said to be in remission and not healthy.

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:27:21 GMT

Two phrases that amuse me:

1. Is he fit and well?

2. Bright alert and responsive. Even seen a bright, alert dog not responsive? Or an alert responsive dog that's not bright?

Re: Humpty-Dumpty wording?

Rob Davis — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 19:38:00 GMT

"Healthy" is surely a relative term and difficult to define. "Not showing signs of systemic disease" is clearer, though could still be open to interpretation.

All our patients are dying, it's just that some are doing it faster than others...