|
To Test or Not to Test ...
by Daniela Rosenstreich
apexboxers@yahoo.com
Apex Boxers, Dunedin, New Zealand
http://www.geocities.com/apexboxers/
There have been a few discussions recently where the value of heart
testing has been questioned. I think it’s worth looking more closely
at what it is people are disagreeing about. Tell me if I have it
right…
Vets & researchers (basically a bunch of folk WITH ‘Dr’ in front
of their name) seem to all agree that some kind of testing is the only
way to gradually reduce the incidence of conditions like Boxer
Cardiomyopathy (BCM) and Aortic Stenosis (AS or SAS). They also seem to
agree on what kind of tests are best for those conditions and have some
rough guidelines established (which are easy to find on the Web – see
links at the end of this article). Let’s call this group ‘The
Experts.’
Some breeders (basically a bunch of folk WITHOUT ‘Dr’in front of
their name) are saying loudly and often that the guidelines for the
tests are not clear enough and some results are suspect. Let’s
call this group ‘The Test Skeptics.’
Whether it is the Test Skeptics’ intention to reduce the number of
dogs that are thoroughly tested before breeding I don’t know, but I
think they are doing this successfully. Health tests are a
big monetary and emotional investment – people tend to
look for excuses to avoid investments like that.
I can’t help but look at the results of the work done in the UK.
All the reports I have seen seem to show that a testing regime had a
dramatically positive effect on the incidence/severity of AS in that
country. I don’t believe that the auscultation used for initial
screening would have been reliable enough to keep the Test Skeptics
happy. Yet the scheme seems to have been successful.
I think the reasons behind the Test Skeptics views lie in some basic
rules of human nature:
** Rule One: People don’t like uncertainty.
If the tests aren’t ‘certain’, people get anxious. The
fact that holter monitor results are not ‘black and white’ appears
to bother people and it is used as an excuse for not testing.
The fact is NO tests are certain (as others have pointed out, PAP smears
and mammograms are not 100% reliable but are still useful screening
methods).
Hey Test Skeptics – want to really frighten yourselves? Study
epistemology and the history and philosophy of science – many of the
things you take for granted as scientific facts are no more ‘certain’
than Holter Monitor results.
** Rule Two: People are scared of failing.
The simple, attractive truth is: If you don’t sit a test you can’t
fail it. Many breeders have invested a lot in their breeding
program – money, time, and pride. It’s not easy to contemplate
having to start over if a problem is found in your line. Which
leads
neatly onto….
** Rule Three: A poor workman blames the tools.
If there is a chance your breeding program may not come through a
testing regime, cast doubt on the tests.
** Rule Four: Nobody likes being told what to
do.
Breeding dogs is a hobby. We choose subjectively which of our
own dogs to mate and which dog to mate them to. We don’t like
having our choices dictated or restricted.
In this case the ‘interference’ in our hobby is a screening
methodology that could help the overall health and longevity of the
breed – a little more important than maintaining a sense of ‘control’
over your breeding choices I would suggest.
However, the guidelines for heart tests in boxers don’t in fact
dictate anything to breeders. Test results enable more informed
breeding choices, thus empowering rather than restricting breeders.
** Rule Five: Fear of change.
Test Skeptics warn of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' –
an expression often used as an excuse to avoid change. The
Skeptics say if we only breed dogs with good heart test results we are
losing some other great qualities from the gene pool.
This is the most dubious reason of all. Tests enable us to know
more about our breeding stock and to make more informed choices –
definitely a change for the better.
Have the boxers in the UK suffered as a result of the testing
there? What qualities will we lose? What is more
important than longevity? Our selective breeding already
excludes many good boxers due to ‘fashion,’ surely longevity should
be given more
importance.
So, the Test Skeptics have many natural and emotional reasons for
disparaging the heart tests available.
Sure, as the tests aren’t perfect, some dogs may be bred or not bred
in error, but that’s a small price to pay, and overall we will be
reducing the number of boxers with unhealthy hearts.
What it comes down to is that the purpose of the tests should be
important enough to make it worthwhile coping with some concerns and
uncertainty. If we were talking about important university exams, PAP
smears, or a driving license test we wouldn’t be put off
taking the tests by uncertainty over where the pass/fail line sits, or
the possibility of having to re-sit the test.
We need to put emotional responses aside and support the imperfect but
important tests that are our current best chance of making a difference
to the breed’s health and longevity.
Useful links on heart tests:
American Boxer Club Health Section
http://www.americanboxerclub.org/health/healthfr.htm
Boxer Underground Article on Research into Cardiomyopathy (2001)
http://www.boxerunderground.com/bu2000/abc2001/drmeurs01.htm
Boxer Underground Article - Aortic Stenosis (1993)
http://www.boxerunderground.com/aug_99/aorticstenosis.htm
Boxer Underground Article - Aortic Stenosis Q & A (2000)
http://www.boxerunderground.com/bu2000/jan2000/a_s_q_a.htm |
