Would you kill an eagle? Or another bird to stop bird flu?

Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:01 pm

I just read that someone had died of bird flu in Iraq. I was thinking that if it made it to the US a lot of chickens, ducks, turkey, and other food birds would be killed. But what about pets? What about rare birds? In Iraq they would also like to kill migritory birds in the area. But where do they draw the line? Where would you draw the line? I kind of feel sorry for birds but they aren't people. Surely we value our own lives more. But I kind of feel sorry for birds that are not ill but put to death anyway.

Website · Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:57 pm

...well, i don't know if it's really nessesary to go that far to stop a flu. then again, i don't know anything about this "bird flu". It just sounds like another scare tactic. But is it really nessesary to kill of the birds, or thin out there numbers for our safety? same things is done with deer hunting, but i don't know... *shrug*

Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:14 pm

Well, I think thats mean. I myself know I could *never* *never* *NEVER* kill my pet birds. They're my family. Then again, I am also clueless on the matter.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:20 pm

Would you kill a human being to stop bird flu?

Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:30 pm

No I wouldn't kill a human being with a disease in order to stop the disease.
I might avoid someone if being in close contact would mean that I might contract it. But that is just the smart thing to do. Plus if a human is dying of a disease then no one has to kill them. They are already dying.

I don't even know if I'd be able to kill a bird in my yard. I like birds so unless it seemed obviously sick I wouldn't want to kill it. And then again, if it looked sick I wouldn't want to approach it to kill it. So I'd end up calling someone to come and get rid of it.

If there was a disease that didn't kill you and if you were in the same room with someone you'd probably get it, what would you do? Would it be fair to isolate them from society? The only thing I can think of is Leperosy and I think people that have that do stay away from other people. But I am not sure. I think you'd have to actually touch blood or fluid to get it anyway. Tuberculos, well, I think you can get that by breathing the same air, but I think they'd have to be doing more than just breathing. Coughing or something. Part of me says they are people and they have rights to do whatever they want. But then again if they are spreading a disease I don't know. That is a toughy. If I had a disease and I couldn't do the things I enjoy, like go to a movie or something because other people would be there and could get it, well I'd probably rather be dead. It wouldn't be freedom and everyone wants freedom.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:02 pm

Isolate the diseased from society? Ever heard of quarantine?

Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:13 pm

Even so. The birds in infected areas are being culled even if they aren't actually infected with the H5N1 virus, just as a safety measure. The real question is: Would you cull a large number of people from a rural area, who might become infected with it? (along with birds)

Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:44 pm

Yes, I have heard of quarentine. I just think it is scarey to imagine being quarentined away for life. I mean, that would be like being a prisonor. But I guess that is the best anyone can hope for if they have a highly contagious disease. And also I have seen movies where people are basically a prisonor in their own town because maybe a few of the population have a disease. But then they want to leave to escape but are forced to stay in the area at gunpoint. And I don't know of that ever really happening but if there was an outbreak of something I imagine it could happen.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:58 pm

smudgeoffudge wrote:Yes, I have heard of quarentine. I just think it is scarey to imagine being quarentined away for life. I mean, that would be like being a prisonor. But I guess that is the best anyone can hope for if they have a highly contagious disease. And also I have seen movies where people are basically a prisonor in their own town because maybe a few of the population have a disease. But then they want to leave to escape but are forced to stay in the area at gunpoint. And I don't know of that ever really happening but if there was an outbreak of something I imagine it could happen.

You'd only be in quarantine until they found a cure, unless you died because of the illness. But you probably wouldn't stay in quarantine until you were elderly.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:18 pm

Paul wrote:Even so. The birds in infected areas are being culled even if they aren't actually infected with the H5N1 virus, just as a safety measure. The real question is: Would you cull a large number of people from a rural area, who might become infected with it? (along with birds)

What a waste of a life. :I

Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:19 pm

Yeah. If it meant that me and the people I care about wouldn't get the disease, sure I'd kill something.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:43 pm

Its a question of ethics isn't it. Are people ok with mass killings in order to protect others, or aren't they. But whats ethical and what is necessary are 2 different things. Sometimes you have to do bad things to protect the people you love.

Say the virus were to mutate into something that is contagious between humans, and is therefor as easily transferred as say a cold there could be a large problem. If you have no way of inoculating people it could become a pandemic. Not to say it would, but its always a possibility people fear.

I think that, as barbaric as it sounds, containing H5N1 by exterminating large numbers of birds may be a necessity. It is sad, but I would rather this done than thousands of people dying. But I find the whole idea of killing off birds in effected areas to be a bit flawed anyways. Maybe it'd be better to isolate birds, then test them, if they are infected then kill them. If something is in isolation it can't spread. Thats like way more expensive though.

As for migratory birds though, I think thats a larger and more important concern. If you have infected birds that migrate they can infect birds in other countries, or even on other continents.. and thats bad.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:46 pm

I read in the newspaper, that it's mostly the people that come in close contact with birds that are at risk. Shooting of wild birds would be only to prevent tame birds to get the disease and then pass it onto humans.

Here, specialists are advicing putting up a 'vaccination' barriere. Vacinnating tame birds. But due to economic reasons, it seems they won't do it. (Apparently, you can't see the difference between a vaccinated chicken and a chick one in the blood(?), because both have remains of the virus in it. So, they can't export the chickens, because chickens with the virus in them, don't get sold very easy. Though, the vacinnated chickens are harmless to eat for humans.)

Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:03 pm

If I know a bird had the bird flu, heck yes I'd shoot it.

Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:08 pm

While I disagree with random cruelty to animals, people are more important than animals. If the only way to stop a population from becoming diseased is to kill a few birds who are infected, then do it!
Get the diseased birds out of their misery, and
kill two birds with one stone.

....sorry, I just had to say that.