Gerstman, B. Burt

English

SJSU ScholarWorks

San Jose State UniversitySJSU ScholarWorksFaculty Publications Health Science and Recreation1-1-1983Sources of nosocomial infections inimmunocompromised patients (letter)B. Burt GerstmanSan Jose State University, b.b.gerstman@sjsu.eduFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/healthsci_rec_pubPart of the Biostatistics Commons, and the Epidemiology CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Health Science and Recreation at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusionin Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@sjsu.edu.Recommended CitationB. Burt Gerstman. "Sources of nosocomial infections in immunocompromised patients (letter)" California Veterinarian (1983).o Under. cannot lnd con. 11-per. me from iven up. )hibition 1y of the eseen if ed off. It ;Jful re. 1ave al-otection ot harm But for t clients tard en-lialogue ust our • to find ensible before agner's ate you .re and January ·he col-ts in a )ntribu-1g so is wever, y. First, article ~te that ts been ;ting of nent of y wrote strong-enever lxpres-side of sue in-lversity , tudY conducted in 1979 for the U. S. ~ish and Wildlife Service showed that 1 more than three-quarters of the public I pposes use of the steel-jaw leghold j ~ap to capture wild animals. In another ·field, a survey sent out by Glamour I rnagazine to its readers in 1982 asked the following question: 'Should we con-, iinue to conduct tests on animals to aid I in the development of safe cosmetics?' 134% said 'No.' ' As you can see, this is very different !rom the first sentence as amended, I which suggests that AWl is trying to 1 abolish anima! expe rime ntat ion necessary to protect humans from I physical injury. The fact is that millions ol animals are being subjected to se-vere pain and death in unnecessary \tests which the Pharmaceutical Man-ufacture rs Association , the National I Research Council, the National Soci-ety for Medical Research, and the IAnimal Welfare Institute all agree 1should not be done. Another seriously misleading error in need of correction appears on page 76where Dr. Spinelli writes: "The Mas-sachusetts Society for the Prevention ol Cruelty to Animals is reported to have assets of about $42 million," and he gives it as an "example" of "18 or-ganizations which work towards the severe restriction or elimination of animals as research models." MSPCA policy does not even remotely fit this description, and, as the wealthiest an imal organ ization in the wor ld •(though I doubt the accuracy of the $42 million figure), it is not an example a! all, but a most singular exception. •Uninformed readers can only assume ihat billions of dollars are being spent ileliminate or severely restrict animal experiments - a laughable error, but one which, if not corrected, will cer-'ainly rouse unfounded fears and hos-•iility if not downright paranoia. ~ much less serious error but one you nay want to correct in the interest of lecuracy appears on page 83 where Jr. Melby writes that the Animal Wel-l are Act protects show horses. It does not. The Federal Horse Protection Act, passed in 1970 and strengthened in 1976, is directed at reventing use of oil of mustard and other irritants, tacks, nails , and other means of " soring" Tennessee Walking Horses as a train-ing shortcut to achieve "the big lick." Finally, on page 95, Dr. Held describes two international groups which formed a single group more than two years ago. The merger resulted in a new name: the International Society for the Protection of Animals. Sincerely, CHRISTINE STEVENS President Animal Welfare Institute Washington, D.C. To Drs. Weitkamp and Dial c/o the Editor of the California Veterinarian: In reference to the article " Discospon-dylitis: a sequela to Canine Parvovirus Infection.": your observation concern-ing the association between two dogs who have recovered from Parvoviral infection and bacterial discopondylitis is an interesting one and a credit to your keen powers of observation; but I am not in agreement with your evalua-tion of causality. It would be interesting to review these two cases to see if indwelling intraven-ous catheters were used in their treat-ment (as is the case with most puppies suffering from this ailment) . The as-sociation between indwelling cathet-ers (intravenous and urinary) and re-su ltant septicemia, cystitis, and hematogenous spread of bacterial or-ganisms to other body systems is wel l documented in both the human medi-cal and veterinary medical litera-ture1•2•3•4. Perhaps the immunosup-pressive effects of Parvovirus in-creased the likelihood for the spread of infection. Nosocomial infections and iatrogenic sepsis is often ignored or minimized in importance in veterinary medicine. This is in direct violation of one of the most basic tenets of medical treatment; this being, "above all , do no harm." Respectful ly, BUDDY B. GERSTMAN References 1. Eickhoff, T. C.: Nosocomial Infections, Jour-nal of Epidemiology, 101:93-97, 1975. 2. MMWR, Infection Surveillance Control Pro-grams in U.S. Hospitals. 27:139-145, 1978. 3. Burrows, C. S.: Inadequate skin preparation as a cause of intravenous catheter-related infection in the dog. JAVMA 180:747-749, 1982. 4. Lees. G. E , Osborne, C. A., Stevens, J. B .. et. al.: Indwelling Urinary Catheters, Am J Vet. Res., 42:825, 1982. 4 /1983 California Veterinarian 27 

Sources of nosocomial infections in immunocompromised patients (letter)

San Jose State University

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&amp;context=healthsci_rec_pub

Sources of nosocomial infections in immunocompromised patients (letter)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SJSU ScholarWorks

San Jose State University