Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

So about this sacred bull then....

48 replies

Kathyis6incheshigh · 13/05/2007 10:40

Story here

It just seems a bit pathetic if the agricultural officials can't find a way to save it.

It matters a lot to some people, they are prepared to put measures in place so the risk of the TB spreading is minimal....

As an atheist I feel I should be asking why these people should get special treatment just because of what is basically a superstition (as I'm sure DC and others would say).

But I would really like them not to kill it....
Does anyone else agree with me or am I just being sentimental & a woolly liberal?

OP posts:
Pruni · 13/05/2007 10:48

Message withdrawn

edam · 13/05/2007 10:54

Won't the poor cow suffer if they allow it to die of TB, though? Not sure how effective any treatment would be - in the story the temple say it's fine but they would, wouldn't they.

Don't really approve of anyone being able to opt out of public safety measures, tbh.

edam · 13/05/2007 10:58

Bovine TB can spread to people although the risk is said to be low (maybe because cows with TB are slaughtered as soon as it's detected). And if any worshipper catches it, they could infect others. TB can be very nasty and hard to treat as you have to take a six month course of antibiotics. People who fail to complete the course then create antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Which is a serious and growing problem.

Original poster
Kathyis6incheshigh · 13/05/2007 10:59

Hmm, I hadn't thought of the welfare of the bull, Edam.
I think I probably do approve of opt-outs from public safety measures if they are carefully thought through and do not lead to any appreciable added risk - because often they are blunt instruments and bring negative consequences (eg in the foot-and-mouth crisis when some farmers of rare breeds had to slaughter stock that wasn't actually infected, just because it was within a certain distance of a farm that was.)

OP posts:
Original poster
Kathyis6incheshigh · 13/05/2007 11:01

I suppose the question is how effective the isolation can be.

How much do we isolate people who test positive for tb?

OP posts:
edam · 13/05/2007 11:03

But the foot and mouth policy is designed to eliminate any risk of the disease spreading. I know how tragic it was for farmers especially for those who had built up rare breed herds over generations but these are necessary steps. Leaving a pool of potential infection is a bad idea.

And your example could be interpreted as 'farmers have to suffer when there is a foot and mouth outbreak, why should these worshippers be more deserving of an opt out'? F&M precautions caused at least as much anguish as slaughtering a holy cow.

scatterbrain · 13/05/2007 11:04

The trouble is that there are no guarantees - if the temple did not keep the bull 100% isolated it could spread TB and TB is a very bad disease - if it got into the milk herds it would decimate the dairy industry. Defra's role is to protect both the industry and public health remember. Are the temple going to keep it indoors and monitor it's health constantly ?

Also - making an exception for one bull sets a precedent and precendent setting is not something that civil servants will do lightly.

Josie3 · 13/05/2007 11:06

I'm sorry but i think it should be killed. Safety measures are put in place to protect us and our livestock. I also strongly disagree with the threats the monks and hindu community are making if it is decided that slaughter is the best way.

Original poster
Kathyis6incheshigh · 13/05/2007 11:08

Where will the bull have got the tb from in the first place?
Are there many animals out there infected?

OP posts:
edam · 13/05/2007 11:09

People who test positive for TB are treated. Not sure about isolation - certainly in the days before antibiotics people were sent off to sanitoriums for months, poor things. Parents had to look through the window at their children. Now with the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, we are risking a return to those days. Another reason to take every precaution to avoid spreading TB AND to make sure anyone who has been exposed takes their medicines as directed and finishes the course. Given that some people don't, it just goes round in a worsening spiral - making it even more important to limit exposure in the first place.

edam · 13/05/2007 11:10

Interesting question. Wonder if it hangs around with other cattle much? Farmers tend to blame badgers but no-one has proven causation - could be cows giving it to badgers.

Judy1234 · 13/05/2007 11:45

I know someone who has TB. She just had an operation for it. Used to be called the White Man's plague, the biggest killer in its day, feared like nothing else and now we've given up the BCG for teenagers - weird given its re-emergence.

if they do not want to kill the cow they could ship it to India - that would be one compromise. Donors could offer to pay the cost and pay for a replacement sacred cow.

SaintGeorge · 13/05/2007 11:53

The bull is in isolation. It could be treated and vaccinated.

It would be far more dangerous if it was a cow rather than a bull since Bovine TB can be transmitted through the milk supply.

TB was known as consumption, I have never heard it called the 'White Man's Plague', at least not in this country. Then again I'm working class, obvioulsy uneducated and I wouldn't suggest stupid things like shipping an infected animal to India (get a bloody life Xenia please).

ScaryHairy · 13/05/2007 11:54

If there is any risk of spread to humans they should kill the bull.
The last thing any of the people who might be in contact with the animal will want is to have to take their children to the TB clinic for tests, antibiotics etc.
We live in West London and there was recently an outside chance that my DD could have been exposed to TB. She wasn't, but that has not stopped the Health Protection people from panicking and being a total pain in the arse, and my daughter has been put through some less than pleasant tests.
TB is a nasty disease. A person can have latent TB and be asymptomatic for years, and then get very ill. It can be really devastating and in some parts of London the rate of infection is now higher than in India.

Upwind · 13/05/2007 11:59

Good post Xenia, but is TB endemic in India? Otherwise I can't imagine that they would allow it. Even if they did the animal could not safely be shipped in the usual way without the risk of infecting other animals and workers.

TB in humans is horrific. While I sympathise with the temple, even "minimal risk" of that bull spreading the disease is too high imho.

mamazon · 13/05/2007 12:03

i can see where they are comeing from as it is a huge partof their religion but i also feel that the health and safety of human life outweighs that of an animal or religious belief.

If i lived anywhere near that bull and i contracted TB i would sue the temple for evey penny i could get.
i would then want them charged with reckless endangerment - is that a real charge or does it only exist in Law and Order? -

when is the government going to grow a backbone and realise they make rules for everyone living in this country, not everyone except those who claim they can flout laws because it is against their culture.

QueenofBleach · 13/05/2007 12:05

My Uncle had to have his complete dairy herd destroyed because of TB

SaintGeorge · 13/05/2007 12:08

The law allows the animal to be treated not destroyed.

It is one animal, not a herd.
It is a bull so dairy products not relevant.
Unless you live with the bull, living near it is not going to cause you to catch TB.

Judy1234 · 13/05/2007 12:20

If the law allows the animal to be treated then they should treat it. I can't see why there is any fuss over that.

Callisto · 13/05/2007 15:15

As far as I am aware if your cattle are tested positive for TB they have to be destroyed, we don't treat TB in the UK.

I would doubt that any livestock shipping company in the country would transport an infected beast to anywhere.

TB is spread by badgers and I think the govt is going to announce a badger cull shortly - I was told this by a farmer friend though so it isn't gospel (so to speak).

Upwind · 13/05/2007 17:30

Seems you are right Callisto - Defra have a webpage stating that here in GB "the TB Orders specifically prohibit the treatment of cattle and deer for tuberculosis"
and that "the risk to human health is considered low due to vaccination at childhood..."

Does that even happen anymore? Vaccination is not used for cattle because it does not prevent infection, just reduces its severity and it also causes the TB test to give false positive results.

AitchTwoOh · 13/05/2007 17:32

aaaw, it's a lovely looking beast, isn't it?

Upwind · 13/05/2007 17:39

So cute!

Like thost furry badgers who are much too attractive to carry disease - or maybe not. Seems a govt report "expected to acknowledge that culling badgers can be an effective means of controlling the disease"

Original poster
Kathyis6incheshigh · 13/05/2007 17:40

Yes it is very attractive, especially with the flowers. This is why I wondered if I was just being sentimental

I wonder if it is actually showing symptoms or asymptomatic as Scaryhairy mentions for humans.

OP posts:
SaintGeorge · 13/05/2007 17:54

There are provisions under the law for the Welsh Assembly to give this animal a reprieve from the death sentence.