Those attending a joint lunchtime session of community and agricultural and veterinary pharmacists heard presentations on zoonoses from Mr Martin Shakespeare (community pharmacist, York), on homoeopathic medicines from Dr Steven Kayne (community pharmacist, Glasgow), and on the economics of selling pet medicines through community pharmacies from Mr Andrew Evans (of Brian Spencer Ltd)
In a presentation entitled "Sick as a parrot", Mr Shakespeare addressed the subject of zoonoses. Zoonoses were defined as diseases and infections that were naturally transmitted between vertebrate animals and man. They were important not only from a medical viewpoint but also because of their implications for public health. The causative organisms covered a wide spectrum and included some of the most horrific and emotive infections known to man, said Mr Shakespeare. The intensity of symptoms on humans ranged from mildly inconvenient to very severe; the diseases could even lead to death. The main risk groups were animal handlers, children, pregnant women and immunocompromised patients.
Zoonoses could be transmitted by direct contact with animal faeces or body fluids or via vectors such as fleas, lice or mosquitoes. Airborne infection was also possible.
Mr Shakespeare explained that the title of his presentation owed not only a debt to Monty Python but also to the condition known as psittacosis or parrot disease, probably one of the most widely known zoonoses. Psittacosis was a febrile, bacterial disease acquired by inhalation of dust infected with Chlamydia psittaci from bird faeces. It could lead to bronchopneumonia. Birds could also spread influenza.
Cat scratch disease was little recognised in the United Kingdom, but was widely distributed in the United States. Ectoparasites and endoparasites could be transmitted by both cats and dogs and could be extremely unpleasant. Campylobacter was increasing in its distribution and was carried from faecal deposits by flies.
In the case of zoonoses, prevention was better than cure, Mr Shakespeare advised. Adopting general hygiene methods, and regular worming and disinfection of animal bedding would reduce the risk. "Pharmacists have an important role in ensuring that owners' health does not suffer from contact with animals," he said.
Speaking on the application of veterinary homoeopathy, Dr Kayne stressed the importance of complying with the Veterinary Surgeons Act. That Act applied to complementary medicines as well as to orthodox medicines. It precluded diagnosis and treatment of animals by any person other than a veterinarian or owner. Pharmacists could advise on what was available to treat a named disease but could not respond to questions of the type "What is wrong with my pet?", said Dr Kayne.
After outlining the main concepts of homoeopathy, Dr Kayne went on to explain that there were a number of advantages in using the therapy for animals. Homoeopathic remedies did not interfere with any concurrent orthodox treatment that might be necessary, they did not require the observance of withdrawal periods, and they were safe and relatively cheap.
On the other hand they were often used inappropriately and could be difficult to obtain (although the position was improving).
Dr Kayne outlined some conditions that usually responded well to homoeopathic remedies and concluded by mentioning some research he had carried out with a veterinary colleague on the homoeopathic treatment of neonatal scouring in calves.
Mr Evans spoke on the economics of selling pet medicines through community pharmacies. He commented that profit and a professional image were not mutually exclusive. Taking in a new line could be advantageous in view of a decreasing income from dispensing.
Pets had good potential, but the price-sensitive equine market was rather more difficult to enter because of strong competition from saddlers and vets.
Mr Evans stressed the importance of appropriate training for both pharmacists and staff.
After the presentations the speakers for "The great debate" were introduced.
Mr Phil Jobson (Cumbria), in the role of devil's advocate, proposed a motion that "Pet medicines should not be sold by community pharmacies". He said that with only six schools of pharmacy offering undergraduate instruction on veterinary pharmacy, most pharmacists had no knowledge of how to deal with requests for advice on veterinary purchases. There were many diseases and only veterinarians had sufficient knowledge to suggest appropriate medication. "Pharmacists should not be involved in selling medicines," Mr Jobson said.
Mr Rod Jones (Hay-on-Wye) opposed the motion, stating that pharmacists were ideal "medicines managers" and should sell veterinary products. Pharmacists were readily accessible and could offer good quality advice, especially on the prophylaxis of ecto- and endoparasitic diseases, conditions that had important zoonotic implications. Mr Jones said that three to four million pet owners visited a pharmacy daily, compared with only 14 million annually who visited a vet. The potential was enormous.
Most speakers from the floor supported Mr Jones's view. Mr Andrew Cairns (Dumfries) noted there were potential difficulties in suggesting treatment options when a diagnosis could not be legally made.
The motion was heavily defeated.