Should you let your dog lick your face as vet warns of hidden health dangers
Dogs are called man's best friend for a reason, because for many people across the world, they are their owner's closest companion. Pooches share in the joy of special moments and provide comfort in the difficult ones.
To repay them for their love and loyalty, many owners may be partial to a smooch with their dog, or letting their cute canines lick their face when they greet them at the door or get excited after snack time.
However, letting your dog lick your face could come with a host of hidden dangers. Last week, it was revealed that a 26-year-old pregnant woman had developed a hydatid cyst caused by the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus.
This was most likely transmitted through contact with dog faeces, according to the Daily Mail.
This has raised concerns about the common habit of allowing our furry friends to give us 'kisses'.
To set the record straight, Dr Aimee Warner, resident veterinarian at UK-based pet insurance company Waggel, has stepped in to explain why this intimate greeting might deserve a second thought.
"Whilst we all love to show affection with our pets, it's important to understand what might be transferred during those face licks," says Dr Warner.
"Dogs' mouths harbour numerous bacteria, including Capnocytophaga canimorsus, which can cause serious infections in humans in rare cases."
There were 15 reported cases of Capnocytophaga infections in England during the first quarter of 2023, making a total of 70 cases for the year. These figures are consistent with previous years, as per the UK Health Security Agency.
As a result, Dr Warner has highlighted three key facts pet owners should know.
Not everyone faces the same risk
People with weakened immune systems, the elderly, those without a spleen, and individuals with liver disease or who consume alcohol excessively face substantially higher risks from dog saliva exposure.
Infections can be life-threatening if untreated
When Capnocytophaga enters the bloodstream, it can cause sepsis, gangrene requiring amputation, kidney failure, and a heart attack. In severe cases, the mortality rate can reach 30 per cent, particularly in vulnerable populations.
Symptoms progress rapidly and require immediate attention
Initial signs appear within one to eight days and include blistering around wound sites, fever, vomiting, headache, and muscle pain.
Without prompt antibiotic treatment, the infection can quickly escalate to septic shock with dangerously low blood pressure, confusion, and organ failure.
Dr Warner offers these practical recommendations:
Redirect face licks to less sensitive areas like hands, which can be washed afterwards
Wash your face and hands thoroughly after close contact with pets
Keep pet vaccinations current and maintain regular dental check-ups for your dog
Consider scheduling biannual vet visits to monitor your pet's oral health
Seek immediate medical attention if you develop unusual symptoms after a dog lick
The last one is especially important if you have open wounds or are immunocompromised.
"The bond we share with our dogs is built on love, loyalty, and daily connection," Dr Warner added.
"We don't need to shy away from that closeness, but we do need to understand the health implications that come with it.
"With some awareness and simple hygiene, we can continue enjoying our pets' affection safely and confidently."
Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today.
You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland.
No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team.
All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in!
If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'.
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like.
To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
31 minutes ago
- The Sun
Britain's benefits system is being gamed and the bill is spiralling – it's time to get a grip
A YEAR into the Labour government and the number of people claiming out of work sickness benefit has gone up by 50 per cent to 3,000 every single day. The system is being gamed. 3 3 People are now claiming benefits for acne. ' Sickfluencers ' on social media are advising followers how to claim cash by calling up and saying they're too anxious to get assessed. Instead of a safety net we've ended up with a racket. Keir Starmer can't control his own MPs, who won't back welfare savings. And the bill is spiralling, set to overtake defence spending by 2030. Labour 's response to this mess will inevitably be tax rises. They've already hiked National Insurance, now we can expect record council tax rises and hikes to fuel and alcohol duty. And Reform are certainly not the answer. They want even more spending, which means even higher taxes. Only the Conservatives have a plan to fix our broken system. Our plans will get people back to work and focus on the truly disabled. We'll stand up for Sun readers, for taxpayers, for the grafters and the people who play by the rules. It's time to get a grip. It's time for common sense.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
AstraZeneca boss mulls New York listing in fresh blow for City: Exodus risks transforming London into a 'global backwater'
The boss of Britain's biggest listed firm is considering shifting its stock market listing to the US in a move that raised fears the City could become a global backwater. AstraZeneca chief executive Pascal Soriot is reportedly weighing what would be a devastating blow to the London Stock Exchange. The move comes amid growing frustration with the UK's rules on approving new medicines as well as a row over drug prices between the industry and the NHS. Soriot has spoken privately of his desire to move the FTSE 100 drugs giant's listing on multiple occasions. He has also considered moving AstraZeneca's headquarters away from the UK as well as its main stock market listing, the Times reported, citing sources familiar with the matter. Shares have fallen by 17 per cent over the past year. They rose 2.8 per cent, or 282p, to 10,402p following the report. Soriot, 66, has previously criticised the UK and the rest of Europe for falling behind other countries such as the US and China in developing medicines. In April, he said that innovation in pharmaceuticals 'has mostly been funded by the US'. The company has also been heavily investing in China, which Soriot considers to be a major untapped source of sales. AstraZeneca is the largest company on the London Stock Exchange with a value of £158billion. A move would deal a severe blow to the beleaguered UK market, which has been hit by a number of defections. It is also likely to fuel fears that other major British firms, including oil giant Shell and miners Glencore and Rio Tinto, all of whom have previously considered moving away from London, could follow suit. Michael Healy, UK Managing Director at trading platform IG, said: 'Another week, another potential hammer blow to the UK stock market. We're in dangerous waters – London risks becoming a global backwater unless something changes fast.' Charles Hall, head of research at broker Peel Hunt, said: 'This is another warning shot that we cannot take our capital markets for granted.' But Soriot is likely to face stiff resistance from members of the company's board of directors as well as from the Government. Dan Coatsworth, investment analyst at broker AJ Bell, said such a move would be 'difficult to pull off' for AstraZeneca, which declined to comment.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Pet insurer charged £250 excess THREE times after our black labrador's single operation: SALLY SORTS IT
We took our black labrador retriever Vicki to the vet because she had some lumps on her skin. Four of the lumps were of concern and needed removing. This was done in January this year. Analysis revealed that they were all non-cancerous tumours. We made a claim on our insurance with John Lewis (underwritten by Royal & Sun Alliance). As Vicki was over nine years old, we had to pay 20 per cent of the remaining claim bill after the excess of £250, which we understood. The bill was £1,550 and we expected £1,040 to be reimbursed. But we only got £640 as the insurer took three excesses of £250 each. Please help. J.L., Essex. Sally Hamilton replies: The operation was a success and thankfully Vicki is fine. But you were shocked at being billed for three excesses totalling £750. Your policy certainly states that an excess must be paid for 'each accident or illness'. But I felt, like you, these excesses were excessive, as your beloved pet had undergone only one operation to remove the various tumours from her skin. In its initial letter of explanation, John Lewis emphasised that as there were three different types of lump, this meant there were three conditions and that an excess must be applied to each one. You argued that although benign, they were all skin tumours and surely amounted to one condition. I asked John Lewis to check your claim had been handled fairly. Its conclusion, I'm afraid, was that it remained confident in its original assessment. It added that applying an excess for each diagnosed condition in this way is a 'common approach for many' insurers in the industry. I asked around about this claim. One broker I spoke to said it is not always dealt with this way. Sometimes tumours, even different types, that appear all at the same time can potentially be treated as one condition. But this was not the case with John Lewis and Royal & Sun Alliance, and you have been left licking your wounds over its triple excess grab. A spokesman says: 'While we fully sympathise with J.L.'s situation, we're confident that we provided the right costs to cover Vicki's veterinary bills, given she experienced three different types of tumours.' Ulez fine misery On July 18 last year, I drove to London to renew my daughter's passport. I am not used to driving in the capital and did not realise that I had crossed into the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) area, which required me to pay a charge. I only became aware of an issue nine months later when I received a letter from debt collection agency CDER Group warning me bailiffs may be called if I didn't pay a penalty charge that had risen to £355. I called CDER immediately and was told that Transport for London had sent all previous correspondence regarding this charge to the house next door – number 55 not 57. These letters were not passed to me. I feel hard done by, as I did not have the opportunity to pay the penalty early. A.P., Southampton. Sally Hamilton replies: It seemed odd that all previous correspondence had gone to an incorrect address, while the scary debt collection letter managed to reach you. This was because CDER does routine checks with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and other sources, and discovered the anomaly. Meanwhile, I was astonished your neighbours hadn't been neighbourly enough to pass on the letters to you, which could have avoided the hassle. But you said the property is used for short-term rentals and you didn't know the people who lived there at the time. Scam Watch Drivers should beware a scam text that says you must pay a fine for leaving your engine on, consumer website Which? warns. Tricksters claim you must pay a 'parking infringement fine' by a certain date – and if you fail to pay, you could be forced to stump up 'further penalties' and even face 'prosecution'. The text directs you to a link and asks you to enter your registration number to pay your fine. But the link will lead to a malicious website designed to steal your personal and financial details. Do not click on the link – instead, forward the text to 7726. You naturally wanted to avoid the nasty £355 penalty you didn't deserve. Though it was a long time since the initial penalty charge was issued, there is an option to make an 'out of time' appeal against the charge for those who have good reasons. But you felt overwhelmed by the process, which requires you to complete a special form that must be sworn before an official such as a solicitor, Justice of the Peace or County Court officer. Instead, you came to me. I asked TfL if it could be more lenient considering you had never seen the earlier correspondence. TfL investigated your case and I am pleased to tell you it decided to let you off. A TfL spokesman says: 'We are sorry for the distress that A.P. has experienced. Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) are issued to a vehicle's registered keeper, based on information from the DVLA. 'In this case, the PCN was issued to the address on the DVLA records, which led to the PCNs being progressed to enforcement action. The incorrect address in the DVLA records has since been updated. We have used our discretion to cancel any outstanding charges.' Any motorist unfairly slapped with a PCN should submit a representation with evidence that they are not liable, ideally within the timescales, typically 28 days. TfL does also consider mitigating circumstances and uses its discretion in deciding whether to cancel a charge, as it did in your case. PCNs are posted to the registered keeper of a car based on details held with the DVLA, so drivers should check with the agency that these are accurate to avoid mishaps. Importantly, drivers can avoid trouble by ensuring they familiarise themselves with the charges they are likely to face when driving into London, including Ulez and the congestion charge. The Ulez charge in London is £12.50 a day for cars that do not meet the required emission standards and are not exempt. The congestion charge costs £15 a day for those driving into the congestion zone between 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday, and between noon and 6pm on Saturdays and Sundays, as well as bank holidays. Straight to the point I bought several dresses from John Lewis to try on for a wedding this month and sent back two. But it won't refund me for one of them, worth £95, as it says it has 'deodorant marks and sweat' on it. The clear inference is that I purchased the dress, wore it for an event and then tried to send it back. Please help. R.W., via email. John Lewis says it refunded one of the dresses but as the other had deodorant marks it cannot give you a refund. It says it would be unfair to sell this to another customer. *** In May I visited Crete on a Loveholidays package holiday but the hotel was such a let-down, with mould around the ceiling, leaking taps and more. I tried to get in touch with Loveholidays via my son's phone, as mine wasn't working, but received no reply. The owner had another room available but it still had issues and cost an extra €200 – so we had to find our own accommodation. It has now said it will refund us just £27.45. S.H., Felixstowe. Loveholidays apologises and says it did try to make contact with you, which you didn't receive until after you left the hotel. It has refunded you for the full cost of the accommodation. *** My sister has learning difficulties and several health issues so my wife and I have started to help manage her money. We submitted her meter readings to her energy supplier in February and then received a bill which said she was £10,824 in credit. We asked for this to be refunded and the supplier said they'd need to get it signed off by a manager. But it's now been so long the supplier won't speak to me unless I get permission, again, from my sister, who is now in hospital. B.D., Kent. The energy provider apologises and says a refund of almost £12,000 has been made. Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT or email sally@ — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.
