|
This has given rise to the complacent assumption that one
person is as likely to be a victim as another. The risk, however,
does not arise from unknown, random causes. It has to be acknowledged
that toxocariasis is caused by dog faeces often being dumped
where others can unknowingly be contaminated by them.
Dog owners seem confident that their procedures pose no special
risk to themselves nor to others. Sometimes a reluctant admission
can be elicited that there is a very, very remote possibility
that someone else, a complete stranger, might suffer what
were described as 'mild flu-like symptoms' by a well-known
dog enthusiast (Fogle 1993). They seem certain too,
that the risk of anyone suffering eye damage is so small that
it can be dismissed. Further, it is difficult to find a dog
owner who would admit that he or she allows their dog to defaecate
where others would find it offensive, or that their dog could
spread toxocariasis.
If these views were a reflection of reality, then the inescapable
conclusion would be that a tiny group of irresponsible owners
are the culprits for the cases of toxocariasis that do occur.
If the assertions of the 'responsible majority' are to be
believed, then the infectivity of faeces that are deposited
where the public can be affected by them must be enormously
higher than supposed.
It has been argued that most dog owners are responsible and
that any social problems arising from dogs, including the
incidence of toxocariasis, are due to an irresponsible minority.
If this really is the case, then it is puzzling why any nuisance
or risk exists at all and why effective action has not been
taken to reduce them.
|
