W59.22XA – Struck by turtle, initial encounter
W61.32XA – Struck by chicken, initial encounter
W61.62XA – Struck by duck, initial encounter
W61.52XA – Struck by goose, initial encounter
Each such entry is subdivided three times. Following “struck by duck: initial encounter,” for example, you’ll find “struck by duck: subsequent encounter,” followed by “struck by duck: sequela.” (Ducks are quite persistent, it seems.) There’s also struck by dolphin, parrot, cow, horse, pig, raccoon, sea lion, nonvenomous lizard, etc., each with its own set of three variations.
As useful as these new categories will surely be in caring for the vast numbers of people struck by wildlife and other things, there’s an arbitrariness to them that is upsetting to the logical mind. There is no “struck by swan,” for example, even though nesting swans are known to be more aggressive than ducks. [1] Then there are those classifications that are too specific. Is there a meaningful difference between the initial and the subsequent encounter with a duck? And would it not have sufficed to have the single category “struck by water fowl”? Because if there is a medically meaningful distinction between being struck by duck and struck by goose, what could it be? Other classifications seem too general. Take “struck by chicken,” for example.
that comes with the next update.... ICD-10.1