Here we go - hot potato of the moment. I'm like a dog with two tails because one of my bitches has tested completely clear for glaucoma.
OK - so what, I hear you all say.
She had previously been examined by an opthalmologist who was not practised in gonioscopy, and failed. He had taken 20 mins to get the lens to stay on; couldn't see much, so failed her.
This failure was printed in the KC breed records, and in various breed notes, and has followed her like the sword of Damocles for the last 3 years. She was a marked lady.
Now we've moved, and have been to a far more experienced eye man, who says there's not a thing wrong, and so the flack I've taken over the last three years has been unnecessary and hurtful.
Comments please.

Jo

Jo I'm delighted to hear your news, three years is a long time it must have completley messed up any breeding plans you may have had, not just for her but for all the dogs in her line. We have a case in my breed that was said to have GPRA by one specilist this was then disputed by two others, but the original result was still published My sister had a heart check done on the same bitch by three different vets and, yes you've guessed, three different scores. I'm all for testing not just breeding stock but also as many dogs as pos. from breeding lines but we must have more accuracy before we all lose faith in the health testing system.

Thanks for the sympathy - I was pretty sure I wasn't alone with this problem. Once the results have been published, it sticks in people's minds regardless ('no smoke withour fire 'mentality)
I dare say that if we were in the States we would be sueing for the equivalent of defamation of character (Sierra?), but the fact remains that I've nearly lost her time to breed, and have been watching like a hawk , and worrying like mad that her sight was going to be lost at any time. Not a fun scenario.

Anyhow, I have my beautiful girl with all her assets intact, and that's all that matters now.

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

Glad to hear that you got the all-clear on your girl.

As to suing for deflamation of character -- mmmmm, no. But you would be having a go at the veternarian for malpractice and subsequent loss of potential value, puppies, etc, as well as damage to your reputation. And malpractice insurance in the States in most professions is extremely high because the suits do occur and are settled rather than going to court.

I think that the reporting system of genetic testing has its flaws as well as pluses. It's great to know whether dogs have passed (or failed), but when things like this happen, it points out that medical science is not always an infalliable science since it is dependent upon the human factor in reading results, etc. In the States, I've seen the *same* x-ray sent into OFA (Orthopedic Foundation for Animals) after having received a 'fair' evaluation on hips and because it was a different panel of doctors reading it, come back as 'good'. Same x-ray, different evaluators. I've always been advised by my veternarian back there not to send in several different dogs in the same month if one dog had great hips and the others had good hips. His view was that the evaluators could/would then rate them as 'good' and 'fair'. Strange, but knowing that humans are falliable, I always went with his advice. I've also seen people go to out-of-town vets if they have a dog that they think is going to be questionable in some area and have the dog pre-tested, since they don't want it 'ruining their breeding records'. If the dog tests poorly, they simply do not submit the x-rays, evaluations on eyes, heart, etc. to the appropriate facilities. So, pros and cons.

I'm not sure how the x-rays are rated over here (or by whom; i.e., a panel of doctors which rotate, etc.). So perhaps someone could explain the system here. I tend to go to specialists for any type of genetic testing -- normally veternarians that the dog community has given a good rating to. If I understand it correctly, in the UK any type of genetic probability testing is routinely reported by the veternarians to the Kennel Club?

Looking forward to new information. I'm so happy that everything turned out well for you, Jo!

Hi Jo. This is a common problem. Panellists have been told not to do Gonioscopic testing on Flatcoats unless they know what they are doing but some still mess it up! If the panellist mentions anaesthetic (and I have heard it!) then that’s time to find someone else!! We had 8 FC's yesterday with 3 for Goniosopic tests.
Regards, John

Hi Jo I`m made up for you, you must be over the moon! Where I was brought up the saying goes " like a dog with two d....s " but I would never say it myself !!!!!!!! TThere is a lot of controversy at the moment over the European Certificate not being recognised & also about some dogs being misdiagnosed by certain panellist`s & then the results being published. Maybe if a dog does fail its eye exam it should be tested again by a different opthalmologist before the diagnosis is confirmed. Anyways, a big well done.

The European Certificate was originally called the FCI test until Mr Barnet was told he couldn't call it that! Keith Barnet started it because of the MRD controversy in Goldens and yet if the FCI scheme had been implemented in full, MRD would have been on the test as it is a mandatory part of that test! He just decided to ignore that point. There is no official list of dogs that have passed or failed so there is no foolproof way of knowing the results of the test. It doesn’t appear in the breed record supplement or on KC or BVA records anywhere. In short it is useless!

(He says now standing back awaiting the bang!!!)

Regards, John

John lets say hi before the BANG.!! The E.C.V.O. IS FAR FROM USELESS.I was the first to bring Dr Barnett over here in Sept `99. Since then he has been over twice & will be coming again in Sept. In my opinion (& it is that) he is one of the best. The B.V.A. isn`t the only club in the world you know. The second time he came over it was at the invitation of the Spanish Retriever Club.All the dogs that were tested were detailed & documented AND recorded.There has only been one fail in his three visits. Keith was the only opthalmologist prepared to come over & not charge the earth.
When you sign the form you are agreeing to allow the results to be published & the form also has a registered number.It is just that there is no one group to collate everything & publish it. One thing I can assure you of & that is,that no one is using it to hide anything! Also, it is called the European Certificate of Veterinarian Opthalmologists because that is the name of the body to which the vets who issue this cert. are affiliated.I don`t think Keith just made that up do you?
I know that some people in the U.K. are using this scheme because they consider Dr Barnett to be the best & do not have confidence in some of the other opthl.I also know that they would be willingto publish the results at their own expense. Lets face it, once a misdiagnosise has been published the damage has been done & neither the KC nor BVA are in a hurry to rectify the mistake. Was it a big or little bang? Over to you John.

Hi Christine, I thought I would attract comments from the Golden people but they are keeping their heads down. I have no complaints with Dr Barnett's abilities, just what he is doing. Nothing is ever perfect, particularly if it is subjective which in a lot of cases eye testing is. The trouble started when MRD in Golden Retrievers was taken off the list of "Conditions under investigation" and put on the full list. The move may not have been notified as well to the Golden Breed clubs as it might have been but the fault there lays at the door of the KC not the BVA. In fact I personally told the secretary of one of the Golden clubs 3 months before it became public knowledge and knowing him he would have passed it on to the Golden Breed Council so they did know! With the BVA/KC/ISDS scheme the results are freely available in the breed record supplement so if I was looking for a stud dog, or for that matter a puppy I can check the status of the eyes but with the "European Test" no such information is available and that is my complaint as far as the test is concerned, IN MOST BREEDS! After all, as a member of this board you, I and the others here have a certain amount of expertise in computers, as such, scanning a certificate into the computer, removing the details and putting new details in would be a simple matter. I could do it in seconds! So without details being available in an unimpeachable source the scheme is open to forgery!

Regards, John

Hi John you flatter me!!!!!! I`ve given up with my state of the art scanner. I lovingly dust it & gaze at it in awe,then I try and use it. Its just like my dogs, takes not a blind bit of notice of me, hides stuff for months on end & then throws it back at me months later & I end up looking at it in amazement not knowing how I did it,by which time I couldn`t care less anyway as I`m trying to do something else. So much for my expertise.You lot are obviously a clever little bunch.
Back to Keith, what exactly is he doing? The information is available from the Sp.R.Club, also as the certs. are in duplicate ie. a top & bottom of which the club has the bottom one,how can that be falsified? Besides, if the group of the people in the U.K. using the ECVO scheme are prepared to pay for the results to be published themselves what is there still to object to?
P.S. do you give computing lessons? I could obviously benefit from some.

Jo

I thought it was about time I stopped lurking here and said 'hi' to you and everyone else. You see, I've been watching this board for a while, with no suitable contributions to make.

Then I read your message and couldn't resist any longer! The thought of a flatcoat with two tails was just too much for me. I reckon it would take off..... just like a little black helicopter! :D What do you think?

Also, congratulations to you, Birdie and her puppy duppies!!

Monty's Mum

Welcome Monty's Mum Glad you have stopped lurking !

Leigh

Hello monty's Mum - nice to see you!!

Further to this glaucoma saga, I've just received a letter from the opthalmologist who passed Damson to say words to the effect that the BVA are highly unlikely to change the records.
This is patently not right, and a continuing potential slur on the dog.
I would very much like to hear from a Golden owner who may have been similarly affected with their own results, as I would like to know how the hierachy in the Golden Society stand on this.
We have our own AGM on Sunday, and although I can't go because of puppy-duppies, my long-suffering husband has 'volunteered' if I can get some hard facts first, so he can make out our case for justice.

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

Hello Jo,

How did the AGM go yesterday? I hope you can persuade the BVA to change their records.

To help the un-informed (ie. me!), are flatcoats more difficult to eye test than some other breeds? Or is it always a tricky procedure?

Monty's Mum

Hi Monty's Mum, Sorry to butt in but yes, Flatcoats do have a few anomalies when it comes to testing their eyes. Not really problems but things the ophthalmologist needs to be aware of.

Because of the development of the head, the eyelids may be perfectly O/K as a small puppy, be very loose, bordering on Ectropic as the puppy heads towards maturity, becoming nice and tight again when fully mature.

When it comes to Glaucoma, a lens is placed on the eye to aid the measuring Iridocorneal angle. Because of the shape of the eye, it is very difficult to accurately get a measurement. Because it is a relatively short time that Flatcoats have been the list for Glaucoma a number of ophthalmologists have never seen the drain and therefore are having trouble. My only complaint with this is, why do they fail a dog because of their own shortcomings? I say this because apart from Jo's dog I also have another friend who suffered the same fate. This dog was also a pass when tested by an experienced panellist.

Regards, John

Regards, John

Thanks John,

I'm not sure we'll ever need to have Monty's eyes tested since he's unlikely to be used for breeding, but it is good to know what it's all about, just in case.

Monty's still a young flatcoat (not 3 until 20 Aug) and he does seem to have baggy eyelids, especially when he's tired. I assumed he'd always be like this, but it sounds like they might tighten up when he gets older then?! Good if they do.

If we ever do need a test, I'll be sure to ask for a recommended ophthalmologist. I agree entirely that an inconclusive test result should not be recorded as a fail. That's not fair at all. And any that have been, should be amended/deleted IMO. I hope Jo can get her records altered.

Monty's Mum

Hello Monty's Mum again!
What's the ordinary news of Monty these days?
I didn't get to the AGM, nor could husband as son and daughter-in-law came back from Kenya that day. Even they agree that there is something dramatically wrong here, and they usually play devil's advocate if I'm worrying about something. (They are both vets)
However, have heard the the F/C society appear to have relented, and the noises are that THEY will publish the corrections, but AFAIK the BVA are still sticking to their original stance, and won't be shifted.
The general concensus seems to be that the BVA 's stance is illegal - so wait for a very big explosion here.

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

Hi Jo,

...**waiting for the big bang**... Can't stop for a chat now cos hubby's nagging me! I'm supposed to be helping with the packing cos we're off to Wiltshire for a week's holiday tomorrow. Just found out that the cottage is on a dairy farm, so wondering what Monty will make of all those cows! Should be interesting! Hmmmm!!!

Speak to you when we get back. Give the pups a cuddle for me

Monty's Mum

I thought a word about glaucoma testing might be appropriate here for anyone with a flatcoat particularly.
I know of the case John mentions where the dog failed, luckily for the owners it was failed while the breed was on the "under investigation list", it therefore never came up as a failure. It was later tested after the breed was switched to the affected list and passed.
The reason it failed the first time was the panellist in question, had not done a flatcoat before. He gave the bitch a sedative, t which the bitch was sensitive. The bitch duly passed out! He took her into his examination room and the owner was kept waiting outside. He returned the bitch about an hour later and said he had to fail it as he could not see the drainage angle which he needed to examine.
There are two types of glaucoma which affect dogs, one is looked for under a full anesthetic the other is not. Primary glaucoma affects flatcoats, golden retrievers and a number of other breeds. To test for this the dog should NOT be given an anesthetic. If an anesthetic is given, the following problems are found:
1) The eye lid has to pulled back
2) the third eye lid has to be pulled back
3) The eye ball itself will have moved round and has to be brought back
4) The anesthetic causes the pressure in the eye ball to change
5) the drainage angle which is the part being measured collapses on itself and cannot be seen!
So all breeds suffering from primary glaucoma should be tested while wide awake, not under anesthetic. I wonder how seditives can change a result? In the case of the bitch mentioned above she was out cold with a seditive!
Flatcoat owners are advised to go only to panellists who have experience of flatcoats as their eyes are deep set and often very dark.