General WHO guidelines (and most national and local guidelines):
Nibbling of uncovered skin, minor scratches or abrasions without bleeding - immediate vaccination (4-dose schedule) if the animal cannot be observed for 10 days. This applies to cats as well as dogs.
But in 2019 Turkey modified their rabies guidelines and added something uncommon:
Situations not requiring post-exposure rabies prophylaxis:
9. In cases of contact with cats: Minor abrasions of the skin (injuries not penetrating the subcutaneous tissue), or injuries involving minor scratches or skin damage without bleeding; non-bite contact with cats resulting from provocation.
This applies regardless if cat can be observed or not.
Why? I was not able to find any discussion of this policy change, but I believe it's because of their local epidemiological data. Turkey is not rabies free, but cats are rarely found infected, and there is not a single recorded case of cat to human rabies transmission. Also, scratches carry a significantly lower transmission risk than bites. At same time Turkey has huge stray cat population which results in a lot of minor scratches, exactly the type that falls under exception.
It's entirely ignored in practice. In 2025, 123,538 people went to Istanbul hospitals after a bite or scratch. Most exposures were cat-related (86.3%) and were caused by scratches (81.5%). Nearly all injuries were superficial (99.8%). Rabies vaccination was initiated in 98.8% of patients with 411,432 doses given.
But my question is not why this specific exception is ignored, I think I already know. I want to ask a different question - do you think this exception was justified at all given the epidemiological data? Is it justified local adaptation or unjustified deviation?