Prime example of why I hate other parents...

Barbara wrote:

As for changing the outcome for the girl, rabies is 100% fatal for
humans, so surely you would want her treated if she were infected, or
if there were any risk of infection. (Have you seem the recent
recommendation that thousands of Girl Scouts who may have been exposed
to bats undergo treatment?)

Wasn't there a recent case (mentioned in Science News?) of a young
woman who recovered from rabies after being 'medically managed' into a
coma? (i.e., she was placed into a coma intentionally, to do
something....can't recall...which would aid treatment.) I think it's
99.99999999% fatal now....

Caledonia

Caledonia wrote:
Wasn't there a recent case (mentioned in Science News?) of a young
woman who recovered from rabies after being 'medically managed' into a
coma? (i.e., she was placed into a coma intentionally, to do
something....can't recall...which would aid treatment.) I think it's
99.99999999% fatal now....

Yes. Her name is Jeanna Giese. Here's a pretty good article on Rabies,
and it mentions her. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=rabies

Once a human develops symptoms for Rabies, it's pretty much over for
that person. If someone suspects Rabies, then you get the shots, and
there's a pretty good survival rate. But, the sooner you receive
treatment, the better. There have been 7 known survivors of Rabies,
ever.

Of those 7, six of them had some sort of of treatment with the vaccine.


In some cases, they had been vaccinated prior to even being exposed
(they were in high-risk occupations, like veterinarians, or animal
handlers, etc). They were then exposed, developed symptoms, and then
managed to survive.

Some of the others were treated after exposure, but too late to prevent
onset of symptoms (that's why the sooner treatment begins, the better).

The 7th person is Jeanna Giese. She wasn't diagnosed until after
symptoms showed up, and since it was likely she'd die, her doctors
tried a radical treatment - they put her into a drug induced coma, and
then treated her aggressively with 4 anti-viral medications.

She came out of her coma with some pretty severe brain damage - it
seems her cognitive abilities were still intact, but she was basically
paralized - couldn't walk or talk or anything. From everything I've
read, she's doing really well, though, and has been re-learning how to
function normally and might even make a full recovery. Treatment has
cost over $600,000.

I think I read somewhere that all the survivors have had brain damage
of some sort. Don't know much about it though.

Cathy Weeks

Cathy Weeks wrote:
Caledonia wrote:
Wasn't there a recent case (mentioned in Science News?) of a young
woman who recovered from rabies after being 'medically managed' into a
coma? (i.e., she was placed into a coma intentionally, to do
something....can't recall...which would aid treatment.) I think it's
99.99999999% fatal now....

Yes. Her name is Jeanna Giese. Here's a pretty good article on Rabies,
and it mentions her. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=rabies

Here's another link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanna_Giese

Cathy Weeks

"Barbara" wrote in
ups.com:

I was under the impression that the rabies shots are
extremely painful and dangerous, but that apparently is no
longer the case.

the post-exposure shots are still pretty bad, but there are
vaccines for rabies for humans now. i've been trying to get my
doctor to give me them, but apparently he was uninformed
(likely), couldn't be bothered (also likely) or they were too
expensive for insurance. since i no longer *have* medical
insurance & i have a new doctor, i may try again. i'd rather
do a vaccine & boosters than the post-exposure series. i farm
& i do have contact with wild animals (bats & raccoons can be
silent carriers). we currently have a coyote that appears to
have rabies & it's pup, both last seen in my yard. yay. (BTW
Lyn, am i a horrible irresponsible parent because i still let
my 6 year old outside? how about because there's currently a
gun next to the door?)

lee
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if
there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson

0tterbot wrote:
We are talking about *repeat* biters, no?

well, perhaps, but not necessarily.

Well, I was. My exact quote was that the dogs should be destroyed "in
cases where a known biter is allowed to bite again".

with "like these dogs attacked" it's
more about dogs forming into a pack & attacking from aggression, rather than
anything else. on the other hand, a dog which "attacked" someone because
that person was frightening, hurting or torturing them (i.e. it didn't
attack, it simply defended itself) is _entirely_ a different case. to label
a dog which bit in self-defence "a biter" pure & simple is _completely_
unreasonable.

Maybe you think it's unreasonable but the fact is, by law, a dog that
bites a human is labeled as a biter.

so to say that all "biters" should necessarily be put down

I never said that.

&/or its owners charged is a common thing for people who don't know dogs
(which unfortunately includes some dog owners) to say. but it doesn't make
it fair, nor really correct either. the _massive_ majority of dogs will
never bite anyone, ever. of those that do (or have) there can be a variety
of reasons for why that happened, so making blanket statements that biters
should be put down

I never said that.

& their owners charged is really quite unnecessary, and
rather silly. still, people do say it. and some dogs really should be put
down for their own sake as well as everyone else's, i don't dispute that (i
really don't think extremely fear-aggressive or extremely psychologically
disturbed dogs have a quality of life that is worth living, for example).
but it's not as simple as "it bit! kill it!" because really, that's too much
like the unfortunate meerkats, isn't it?

I agree.


when something happens such as a small child being bitten when nobody can
really determine exactly what happened, & such behaviour is entirely out of
character for the dog, i'd give the dog the benefit of the doubt - because
we all know what small kids can be like with animals.

One bite does make a "biter" - in terms of the law as I have
encountered it.

shrug we have different laws.

Who is "we"?


Repeat bites makes for a dead dog, and a guilty owner,
AFAIC.

well, that's your black-and-white view i suppose. i'm not into that sort of
thing.

No dog who bites more than once can be trusted in public. No person
who allows their dog to bite twice should own a dog. One bite can be
forgiven. Two, no way.

-L.

In article . com,
"L." wrote:

Maybe you think it's unreasonable but the fact is, by law, a dog that
bites a human is labeled as a biter.

One bite does make a "biter" - in terms of the law as I have
encountered it.

shrug we have different laws.

Who is "we"?

This may come as a shock to you, L, but not everyone on Usenet is an American.
If you want to keep talking about The Law, you had better specify the
jurisdiction.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

"Barbara" wrote in message
ps.com...

PattyMomVA wrote:
"Barbara" wrote and I snipped:

(Have you seem the recent
recommendation that thousands of Girl Scouts who may have been exposed
to bats undergo treatment?)

No, that's not quite right. They recommended treatment for the 16 girls
who
reported having "contact" with the bats or didn't sleep under the
mosquito
netting that was provided against bugs.

The original recommendation was for about a thousand.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...s_x.htm?csp=34

That seems to have changed today, so my news is a bit behind. OTOH, so
is yours. They're still trying to contact all of the girls, so there's
no final number, apparently.

Here's the news release straight from the local health department:

http://www.loudoun.gov/news/bat.htm

I haven't seen an update since August 6. (I've been watching this issue
because my girls camp at this site.)

-Patty, mom of 1+2

Barbara wrote:
animals, OTOH, can live for years with rabies; I suspect, based on this
story, that meerkats are amongst those.

I actually think that's probably not the case. Minnesota law requires
that any "wild animal, domesticated wild animal, or hybrid" be killed
and tested if it bites a person, unless the person agrees to be treated.
(http://www.mnzoo.com/guests/ZooNews/meerkats.asp)

So if it had been a dog-wolf hybrid, vaccinated annually with the canine
rabies vaccine, kept in such a way that it could never have come in
contact with a rabid or carrier animal, and it bit someone who refused
to have rabies treatment, it still would have been killed.

Phoebe

Banty wrote:

In article , Rosalie B. says...

"toypup" wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
So an occasional loud laugh is OK, but loud conversation and laughter
is as annoying (or maybe more annoying) than a crying baby, because I
can sympathize with the parents of the baby, and I have no sympathy
for loud adults.

I was once in a restaurant with a group of deaf parents whose babies were
making such a racket. They didn't notice, becuase they were deaf, but it
was the most awful dinner I'd ever had. No one, including me, could bring
themselves to tell the deaf parents they were too noisy. I'm not sure they
would know how to quiet the kids, since they probably never had to and
wouldn't know if the babies were using quiet voices anyway.

Yes but how often does that happen?

This woman that I mentioned was laughing about every minute or minute
and a half. It was just once or twice, but with great frequency for a
half an hour or so. She quieted down briefly when she ate, but they
were almost finished dinner so it was dessert and didn't last long.
Her laugh was not quite as bad as Fran Dresher (The Nanny), but it was
close.

What would you have her do, though?

Her - I don't know. There's no polite way for a stranger to tell
someone that their laugh is annoying. I was just pointing out to
someone (I can't figure out who said this)

.... When I look in so to speak at my family we are quite loud,
not screaming but boystrus (hope thats spelt right) we debate and laugh
and generally enjoy our company but how many others have we disturbed
by just being ourselves????

that a loud boisterous group EVEN IF it is a happy group is still too
noisy, especially in an otherwise quiet restaurant. So if you are
loud, you should try to be quiet in a quiet restaurant and NOT 'just
be ourselves'. That is not appropriate behavior.

"PattyMomVA" wrote:

"Barbara" wrote in message
ups.com...

PattyMomVA wrote:
"Barbara" wrote and I snipped:

(Have you seem the recent
recommendation that thousands of Girl Scouts who may have been exposed
to bats undergo treatment?)

No, that's not quite right. They recommended treatment for the 16 girls
who
reported having "contact" with the bats or didn't sleep under the
mosquito
netting that was provided against bugs.

The original recommendation was for about a thousand.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...s_x.htm?csp=34

That seems to have changed today, so my news is a bit behind. OTOH, so
is yours. They're still trying to contact all of the girls, so there's
no final number, apparently.

Here's the news release straight from the local health department:

http://www.loudoun.gov/news/bat.htm

I haven't seen an update since August 6. (I've been watching this issue
because my girls camp at this site.)

There was an article in The Washington Post today which said that the
people that were recommended for shots were those that had slept
without mosquito nets, and those that had handled the bat(s).
Apparently the girls woke up and found bats on the mosquito netting
over the bed, and one of the counselors handled the bat and
unfortunately allowed the girls to handle it too.

I suppose now we are going to have a rehash of cell phones at camp.