Some people, vets included, have an almost obsessive paranoia about
feeding bones to ferrets.  Some of their expressed concerns include fears
that bones could stick in the back of the mouth, the esophagus, or in the
intestines, possibly causing blockages.  They fear sharp edges and points
of bone fragments could cut or puncture parts of the gastrointestinal
tract.  They suggest ferrets could choke on bone fragments, or they could
stick or cut the gums.  They panic that ferrets could break their teeth
on the hard bone.  There might be more concerns, but these cover most
of the objections I've read and heard over the years.  As I will argue
later, these fears about bone feeding tend to follow personal prejudice,
regardless of practical experience.  You can demonstrate this for
yourself by asking your vet two simple questions, "Do you recommend
feeding bones to ferrets?" and "Can you give me two independent,
peer-reviewed references that supports your opinion?"  Every vet can
answer the first question; it's the second one that results in the blank
stare.
 
Most arguments about sharp, poky bones making trouble in one way or
another are improbable.  They lie in the realm of "what ifs," or "my
friend says," rather than based on empirical evidence.  A common dilemma
is the overt exaggeration of problems, such as "bones could cut the
gums."  Would you stop eating triangular corn chips because one poked
your gums?  Overt exaggerations include "bones can choke ferrets"
(ferrets choke on dry food and water), and "bones can hurt teeth" (worse
than dry, extruded food?).  People are warned about the dangers of
choking on fish bones, but in a recent survey, the number one reported
cause of choking (requiring assistance) in restaurants was dry bread.
Using the standards set in an anti-bone ferret world, this argument could
be about bread!  Think about this; newborn babes can--and do--choke while
breastfeeding, and have died choking while bottle-feeding.  Should we
tattoo warning labels on breasts, or outlaw baby bottles?  What overt
exaggeration of risk does is to rank the perception of injury far above
the actual risk of injury, such as warning people not to work with wood
because a splinter could cause sepsis and kill them.  Actual risk is far
less than the overt exaggeration of perceived risk.
 
This type of overt exaggeration is commonly employed in the "MEE Whammy",
an emotional manipulation to change minds to one singular point of view.
MEE, short for "Myth, Emotion, Experts", is a technique where the reader
is reminded of an unsubstantiated myth (dogs choke on bones, so ferrets
are in danger), an appeal to emotion is made (I am only thinking of the
safety of ferrets), and then an expert is quoted to support the viewpoint
(So-and-so says it is dangerous).  You are whammed with what seems to be
a factual and supportable debate.  However, in reality, it is nothing
more than myth and rumor, bolstered by unsupported opinion and wrapped
in an emotional blanket, designed to frighten people into believing a
weaker, unsupported side.  "MEE Whammys" are common in politics,
courtrooms, and internet discussion groups.  Look for a lack of evidence
(data), lack of verifiable information (the who, what, when, where, and
how of the anecdote), and the use of experts who voice opinion rather
than citing reviewed, published studies.
 
Nonetheless, overt exaggeration cannot exist without SOME risk of
actual danger.  Bone has, does, and will occasionally cause a problem
in ferrets, and over a long enough period of time, EVERY perceived risk
will occur from the least serious to the worst.  It is a statistical
certainty.  Think about it, while the danger is miniscule, people ARE
struck by lightning, sucked into tornadoes, and even hit by meteorites.
Given enough time, the most improbable of events are realized, such
as a single person being struck by lightning SEVEN times and living
through it!  Unfortunately, when rare events occur, they have a
tremendous emotional impact, making them seem far more dangerous than
they really are.
 
Overt exaggeration thrives in situations where little information is
known.  If direct information for one species is lacking, experts try to
answer questions using examples from other species.  If the example is
based on other animals of the same type, it is a homolog.  For example,
the reaction of my ferrets after ingesting Tylenol can be used as a
homolog for what might happen if your ferrets eat the stuff.  If the
species are different, the comparison is probably an analog.  For
example, using the reaction of a human eating Tylenol as an example of
what might happen if a ferret ingests it is an analogous example.  The
problem is, not all analogs are valid: using humans as an analog for
ferrets scarfing Tylenol would be a serious, fatal mistake.
 
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 4154]