Feline panleukopenia (FPL), a frequently fatal disease of cats, is caused by feline parvovirus (FPV) or canine parvovirus (CPV). We investigated simultaneous outbreaks of FPL between 2014 and 2018 in Australia, New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where FPL outbreaks had not been reported for several decades. Case data from 989 cats and clinical samples from additional 113 cats were obtained to determine the cause of the outbreaks and epidemiological factors involved. Most cats with FPL were shelter-housed, 9 to 10 weeks old at diagnosis, unvaccinated, had not completed a primary vaccination series or had received vaccinations noncompliant with current guidelines. Analysis of parvoviral VP2 sequence data confirmed that all FPL cases were caused by FPV and not CPV. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that each of these outbreaks was caused by a distinct FPV, with two virus lineages present in eastern Australia and virus movement between different geographical locations. Viruses from the UAE outbreak formed a lineage of unknown origin. FPV vaccine virus was detected in the New Zealand cases, highlighting the difficulty of distinguishing the co-incidental shedding of vaccine virus in vaccinated cats. Inadequate vaccination coverage in shelter-housed cats was a common factor in all outbreaks, likely precipitating the multiple re-emergence of infection events.

THIS series gives readers the opportunity to consider and contribute to discussion of some of the ethical dilemmas that can arise in veterinary practice. Each month, a case scenario is presented, followed by discussion of some of the issues involved.In addition, a possible way forward is suggested; however, there is rarely a cut-and-dried answer in such cases, and readers may wish to suggest an alternative approach. This month's dilemma, ‘Taking a full lunch break’, was submitted and is discussed by Anne Fawcett and Juliana Brailey. Readers with comments to contribute are invited to send them as soon as possible, so that they can be considered for publication in the next issue.The series is being coordinated by Steven McCulloch, a practising vet with a PhD in the ethics of veterinary policy. It aims to provide a framework that will help practitioners find solutions when facing similar dilemmas.

A shelter cat with recent fight wounds tested negative for FIV on an in‐house test; however, it was still suspected the cat was FIV‐positive and it was held for retesting. Six weeks later it tested FIV‐positive and was euthanased. Subsequently, it was determined that the cat had previously received a single FIV vaccination during its stay in the shelter. As it is impossible, on the basis of serology, to distinguish between antibodies resulting from natural infection versus those that are vaccination‐associated, the result may have been a false positive. What factors should be considered in determining whether to euthanase a FIV‐positive cat?