international school studies show that children who have a close relationship with an animal in the home or come into contact with animals in a sympathetic way in school develop greater empathy for both animals and people (myers, 1998; poresky, 1990; Vizek-Vidovic et al., 1999). dadds (2002) noted that a training programme focusing on the child’s relationship to animals had an effect on their ability to empathize with both animals and people. other studies (tissen, hergovich & spiel, 2007) show that children, who read to a dog, develop speed and an interest in reading and younger children look forward to learning to read. these studies show that contact with animals can lead to better self-esteem, which can lead in turn to better results in school. this study focuses on animals in pre-school children’s immediate vicinity, home environment and school. the term animals refer mainly to pets which usually have multiple functions, providing psychological, social and physical stimulation, as well as security and happiness. most children are interested in animals, making the topic to an appropriate starting point for educational work both in the home environment and in early childhood education. children relate to the experiences of everyday life, usually the home, which the school may use in pursuing educational activities.
Streptobacillus moniliformis, Spirillum minor, Bartonella henselae, leptospira, and herpes B virus. Tularemia occurred in a 3-year-old child who was bitten by an infected hamster that was purchased at a pet store. 33 Reptiles can produce injuries by bites, with claws, or with tails. Severe hand injury 32 and cellulitis 29 have been reported after green iguana bites. Unprovoked attacks by ferrets on children, particularly infants sleeping or lying down, can be severe, with mutilation of the ears or nose. 69,70 Attacks on sleeping infants are similar to those in ﬂ icted by rats. 71 Although the frequency is not known, the potential for having an allergy to nontraditional pets is likely to be signiﬁcant. The American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology estimates that approximately 15% of the population experiences allergies to dogs and cats. 72 Allergy to animals usually is attributable to sensitization to their dander, scales, fur, feathers, body waste, or saliva. Flea bites also can lead to allergic manifestations. Hives have been described in people who have contact with hedgehogs. 73 Although scaly animals are not as likely to be as allergenic as furry animals, there are case reports of allergic rhinitis, asthma, and contact
In the first and last chapters of Eating Animals, Foer mediates at length on the relationships between food, narrative, and community. Early on in the book he writes: “If my wife and I raise our son as a vegetarian, he will not eat his great-‐grandmother’s singular dish [of chicken with carrots], will never receive that unique and most direct expression of her love…Her primal story, our family’s primal story, will have to change” (15). Foer returns to this theme of food’s social dimensions in the book’s concluding chapter when he observes: “We eat as sons and daughters, as families, as communities, as generations, as nations, and increasingly as a globe” (261). By the end of Eating Animals, Foer concludes that rupturing tradition and demolishing stories is, lamentably, what is called for when those traditions and stories are deeply intertwined with cuisines and dishes that rely on acts of violence and cruelty, such as those involved in factory-‐farmed animals (of which, Eating Animals points out, nearly all commercially available meat consists). However, in Extremely Loud, Foer appears more conflicted about the relationships between food and community, and suggests with Oskar’s off-‐putting devotion to this vegan principles that at times it may be necessary to ease up on ethical dietary restrictions in order to establish or to preserve meaningful bonds with other people.
violence and animal cruelty and the use of animal cruelty to exercise coercive control over intimate partners. It has also argued that witnessing animal cruelty presents a risk of harm to children. The key principle guiding intervention in families where there is domestic violence is to ensure child safety is paramount, at the same time as ensuring adult safety is a priority (DH 2013). We argue that in the pursuit of the best outcomes for children and adults, health visitors should be cognisant of the treatment and care of family pets in their assessment and in planning interventions to support families in changing their situation. The starting point would be to utilise evidence based risk assessment tools. However, to work effectively in this field, training should be provided that outlines the links between domestic violence and animal cruelty and the community services available to help children, adults and animals in need.
79. See, e.g., In re Estate of Hart, 311 P.2d 605, 614 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1957) (involving will providing that the testator‘s ―domestic animals,‖ including horses and a burro, ―shall be kept in the Park and properly fed and cared for by‖ the devisee of the park property); In re Fouts, 677 N.Y.S.2d 699, 699 (Sur. Ct. 1998) (involving an inter vivos trust for the benefit of five chimpanzees); In re Renner‘s Estate, 57 A.2d 836, 837 (Pa. 1948) (involving will providing for the care of the testator‘s dog and parrot); Hahn v. Stange, No. 04-07-00253-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 1027, at *2 (Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2008) (noting letter providing for the care of the decedent‘s ―cats, numbering ten, and any more that may come along‖). Some testators use a broad category to encompass all possible types of pets. See, e.g., In re Estate of Verdisson, 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 363, 364 (Ct. App. 1992) (―‗I leave my pets to Mr. Wardaman [Vardanian] and $20,000.00 to take care of them upon my death.‘‖).
Granting that pets are not always or often as happy as one might like to think, the question remains: what if they were? Would ending harmful and irresponsible treatment of pets be enough to transform pet-keeping (or companion animal guard- ianship, as might be a better term for the ideal relationship) into a just institution? Not if it is indeed a form of slavery, because the deepest wrong of slavery is not in its cruelty. Even the most pleasantly-treated human slave suffers a severe violation by be- ing deprived of liberty. The fact that care and concern may be lavished on an animal does not itself prove that the animal is not a slave. Perhaps even the most idealized pet-human rela- tionship is still “benign slavery.” By that term I do not intend to endorse any slavery at all as morally permissible, nor to lessen the essential wrong of slavery. Instead, I merely use it to desig- nate a (probably merely hypothetical) state of slavery in which the enslaved individual is provided with a pleasant life free of significant suffering and want. If pet-keeping is a form of slav- ery, then no matter how well we treat our pets, the relationship by its nature is morally wrong.
have higher level of physical complaints, sensitivity to interactions, depression, anxiety, aggression, paranoid thoughts, and psychosis. The findings of research done by Kajbaf et al. (2010), aimed at comparing family performance and mental health in pet owners and people without pet, showed that there was a significant difference between two groups of pet owners and people without pet in subscales of anxiety symptoms, sleep disorders, emotional affection and communication. It was concluded that people without a pet have more symptoms of anxiety and sleep disorders, and pet owners show more problems than those without pet in relation to emotional involvement. According to the results, cultural factors should be taken into account in having or not having a pet, and having pet is recommended in situations that reduce anxiety and increase the sense of security and relaxation in people. In explaining the results, it can be stated that many people all over the world suffer from harmful effects of psychiatric illnesses such as loneliness, depression and anxiety. Kessler et al. (2005) reported that nearly 30% of the population suffer from anxiety. In addition, the prevalence of mood disorders is more than 20%. Several researchers have indicated that human interaction with animals with the potential of helping to reduce these problems, as well as the result of many cases, leads to increase happiness and empathy (Banks & W. A. Banks 2002; Daly & Suggs 2010; Le Roux & Kemp 2009; Shiloh, Sorek & Terkel 2003). Considering the beneficial nature of pet ownership, it can have a positive impact on human mental health issues. However, attempts to increase pet ownership have raised questions about motivations related to personality traits that people may have to keep pets. The findings of previous studies have suggested that, while the personality is related to the priority of different types of pet, it also correlates with the levels of attachment for each pet (Begley and Gonsman, 2005). This may indicate that some characters may benefit from interacting with pets.
The book argues for a kind of continuity between the animal experimenters and Animals Anon, suggesting that both groups feel compassion for animals and do not wish to see them suffer. Groves recognises that for scientists, this concern is primarily paternalistic, with scientists viewing themselves as ‘stewards’ of nature while many members of Animals Anon reject such a relationship. In spite of this he argues that ‘animal rights activists and animal research supporters are not as different as they have been made out to be with regard to their feelings about animals’. (p. 28) As feminists amongst others know, the difference between paternalistic concern for the welfare of a dependent and recognition of the inherent integrity of a being is fundamental. Groves’ failure to adequately understand the nature and significance of paternalism here relates to his earlier ‘dilemma’ about consuming animals and keeping them as pets. Where both consuming and keeping are understood to be aspects of a paternalistic or ‘stewardly’ approach, there is no dilemma.
However, all birds in captivity constantly need food and water, regardless of how they are classified. It is also essen- tial to know how to prepare bird foodstuffs, given that ad- equate nutrition is one of the most important factors during early acclimation. Most foodstuffs currently given to birds are the same that have been used by pajareros in Mexico for the past 35 years . We did not record the quantities and diversity of food, but, in Brazil, Alves and collaborators  provide the proportion of seeds, bal- anced rations, fruits, vegetables, meat and other items that bird owners use to feed their birds. Some interviewees also mentioned the need for getting up early in the morning to feed the birds, one saying, “the animals eat first (los ani- males comen primero).” Additional nursing measures are ensuring that birds do not injure themselves inside the cage; covering cages on time; keeping birds at an appro- priate temperature; preventing predation of birds by cats,
S treptococcus canis is a Lancefield group G beta-hemolytic strep- tococcal species which is mainly found as an animal colonizer and pathogen. This member of the large-colony-forming Lance- field group C and G streptococcus (GCGS) group (1) was officially established as a distinct taxon in 1986 (2), following previous studies which showed that the Lancefield group G streptococci isolated from animals and humans were biochemically divergent and could represent distinct species (3). Although S. canis can be part of the female reproductive tract and the tonsillar and ear microbiota of cats and dogs (4–7), it is also an important pathogen for these two species and infects a wide range of other domestic and wild animals (2, 8–10). S. canis is the most common strepto- coccal species found in dog infections (11), being identified in cases of dermatitis, otitis externa, pneumonia, infective endocar- ditis, and adult septicemia (6, 11, 12). This species has also been implicated in fetal or neonatal septicemia, leading to abortion or neonatal death, respectively (2, 11), and in both canine and feline necrotizing fasciitis and streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (13, 14). S. canis may be transmitted between different animal species living in proximity (15) and has been responsible for outbreaks of clinical and subclinical mastitis with bacterial shedding in milk in cattle herds (16, 17) and in pets living in shelters (14). However, little is known about the genetic diversity of S. canis, namely, if there are clones particularly adapted to the different animal spe- cies.
The discovery of extinction of species by the French zoologist and pioneer of paleontology Baron Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) shook the assumption that animal species were inexhaustible. Berger suggests that the industrial revolution brought about an accelerated extinction of species, leading to an unrequited but suppressed outbreak of human guilt. This was salved by the introduction of substitutes in the form of teddy bears and other toys, anthropomorphic animations and, of course, an increased visibility through a variety of animal-based entertainments: “it was not until the nineteenth century that reproduction of animals became a regular part of the décor of middle-class childhoods—and then […] with the advent of vast display and selling systems like Disney’s—of all childhoods” (104). So the mass production of substitute animals seeped into virtually every first-world household, frequently intermingling with (and sometimes being attacked by) domestic pets. Increasingly, it became possible to simultaneously cherish real and artificial animals within the bosom of the home while actively contributing to their accelerating demise through everyday consumerism. Increased hunting, harvesting and related environmental incursions have rendered many species extinct, despite a global infatuation with animal cartoons, toys, and pets. Berger points out that encounters with real animals in zoos inevitably lead to disappointment when compared with their fantasy- garnished replicas. This is because real animals are preoccupied with their own lives, compromised as these may be, and routinely show little interest in their human audience.
Dogs and cats belong to the order Carnivora animals where many people believe that they require high protein content from animal flesh in their diets (Swanson et al., 2013). However, some study has proved that cats need more protein than dogs (Hewson-Hughes et al., 2011; Knight et al., 2016; Tôrres et al., 2003). AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials) recommends 18% for dogs and 26% for cats of protein in their diets. Hill et al. (2009) analysed 1,156 wet and 750 dry dog and cat foods. They have found that wet and dry pet food contains more than 30% of the protein in average and most of the protein is taken from the animal products where they have higher water and land footprint than the crop products (Gerbens- Leenes et al., 2002; Hoekstra, 2013a)
Given the current data, a pediatrician cannot make a case for removing animals before a child comes into the home. On the other hand, it seems a poor choice to suggest that parents with asthma acquire cats or dogs before a child is born in an attempt to prevent future allergic disease, as siblings or the parents themselves may be sensitive and have more illness because of the pets. Although presence of animals was associated with less sensitization to dogs, cats, and other environmental allergens, it was not com- pletely protective, as some children who were ex- posed to pets early in life did go on to develop allergic sensitization. Thus, bringing a pet into the home is not consistently and completely protective and should not be recommended in an attempt to decrease the likelihood of future sensitization. Fur- thermore, if the child does develop asthma and is sensitized, removal of the pet becomes difficult, causing trauma for all family members.
nasal mupirocin ointment and chlorhexidine body wash versus education control on human MRSA colonization. A subset of these households participated in a nested evaluation of home environments and companion animals, i.e., the Pets and Envi- ronmental Transmission of Staphylococci (PETS) study (6, 9). Two home visits were conducted at a 3-month interval; ran- domization and treatment occurred between these visits. Peo- ple sampled themselves using Copan ESwabs (Copan Diagnos- tics, Murrieta, CA) at (i) both nares and (ii) axillae and groin creases (pooled, referred to as the skin site). Index patients submitted a third ESwab from the site of the original MRSA SSTI lesion. Self-swabbing has been validated for use in this context (10).
Nocardia spp. are soil saprophytes which are able to cause superficial and deep infections in several domestic animals. Nocardiosis is detected in companion animals (dogs and cats), horses and ruminants . Nocardiosis is frequently initiated by inhalation of organism from soil or by skin inoculation through a puncture wounds. Diagnosis is based on the presence of microorganisms in tissue smears as well as on cultural detection of Nocardia spp. Materials may be cultured on chocolate agar, blood agar and Sabouraud agar under aerobic conditions . At least twelve species within the genus Nocardia have been defined by the use of expanded and susceptibility tests and the application of molecular techniques .
Psychological community integration refers to one’s personal sense of community with neighbors (Aubry & Myner, 1996). According to the occupational therapist Hammell (2004), the importance of reciprocity by way of contributing to oth- ers is congruent with the concept of belonging. Belonging within a network of social support can both strengthen the ability to do and contribute to the pleasure and meaningful- ness of doing. Enders-Slegers (2000) examined the meaning of companion animals in the life histories of elderly pet own- ers and identified the themes of attachment, opportunity for nurturance, reassurance of worth, social integration, reliable alliance, and guidance. Enders-Slegers (2000) indicated that “being responsible for the well-being of another living being enhances feelings of self-worth, and self-esteem” (p. 249). These themes were echoed in De Souza’s (2000) study, which showed that people with mental illness felt that pets “provided an opportunity to care for ‘someone’ without the complexities of human relationship dynamics which are often dependent on conditional love and approval” (p. 40). Despite evidence in support of pets as enablers of commu- nity integration, a general population household survey (Stallones, Marx, Garrity, & Johnson, 1990) did not find support for the social effect of pet ownership. However, this study inquired about pets as part of the household rather than identifying the primary pet owner. A second study focusing on ambulatory community-dwelling elderly people did not find significant differences between pet owners and non–pet owners on level of happiness or life satisfaction (Crowley-Robinson & Blackshaw, 1998).
The findings call for cultural changes in policy towards the way in which pets can be incorporated with other support in open systems which is often left untouched or unconsidered by formal service provision. A different logic of care is required; one which values the harnessing of available and valued support identified by people, which supports individuals’ capacity to undertake valued activities (such as dog walking) and looks for support which does not engage them in unequal power relation- ships which can sometimes be anti-therapeutic. With increasing emphasis being placed on evidence based health care, such macro-level policy changes are likely to necessitate strengthening the underpinning evidence base given the low quality of evidence identified within the review. Further exploration of the implementation feasibility and optimal implementation models may also be required, including the potentially important role of inter-agency and third sector working.
The contents of the book range from the medieval concept of pets to their forms of representation in pictorial and documentary sources. Chapter one, ‘The medieval pet’, sets the scene by defining the subject matter, a step of fundamental importance given the potential latitude of discussion. Although dogs and cats dominate in historical sources, instead of providing a list of animal species as potential pets, the author takes a more sophisticated approach, by defining a niche for these creatures in their conceptual environment, pointing out that ‘[p]ets blur the boundaries between animal and human status’ (p. 1). This idea permeates the entire book and resurfaces during the study of detailed subjects such as the naming of pets and their uses as attributes in various settings. The duality in the perception of animals lacking souls according to Christian teaching, but still being treated as if they have a remarkable human dimension is clearly illustrated through the carefully documented examples of pet keeping by clerics. As pointed out by the author, ‘…saints and pets in general do not mix, in marked contrast to the earthly clerics, who throughout this book will be shown as great pet keepers’ (p. 23). In addition to the direct or indirect personalization of privileged pets, a strong emphasis is placed on the proxemics of their keeping: ‘Pets abounded in both public and private interior spaces…’ (p. 55). Consequently, pets have also been physically the closest to humans of all live animals, penetrating into the social and intimate spheres of their owners’ lives. These narrow spheres were not accessible to some other favoured outdoor animals partly for practical reason, and so, for example ,cherished and valuable horses as well as high status falcons are excluded from further discussion in the book on this basis, helping the author to focus on animals that enjoyed a largely indoor lifestyle alongside their keepers during the Middle Ages. Pet keeping was typical of ladies and clerics. In this context, small raptors such as sparrow- hawks associated with priests and merlyon (merlin) with ladies (1) in the Book of Saint Albans (1486) could be considered borderline ‘pet’ cases since due to their small size they would have been relatively useless in practical falconry. According to an early 19th-century hunting book from Hungary, ‘Medieval ladies loved and caressed their falcons like they spoil their lapdogs nowadays’.(2)
According to the World Organization for Animal Health (formerly known as International des Epizooties (OEI)) , there is no evidence that dogs or cats are playing a vital role in the spread of COVID-19. However, the infected humans or pet owners should be aware that they can potentially transmit this disease to their pets, hence, it is quite instructive to keep animals separated from any person who has COVID-19 symptoms. On the 5th of April, 2020, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19 in humans) in one Tiger at a zoo in New York . As stated in the USDA report, this is the first instance of a Tiger being infected with COVID-19 as several lions and tigers at the zoo showed symptoms of respiratory illness. It is believed that the Tiger became sick after possible exposure to a zoo employee who was actively shedding the virus .