College Connection | Fall 2023
Panel reviews case involving ownership , consent
College Connection | Fall 2023
LEARNING IN PRACTICE
Panel reviews case involving ownership , consent
Case Summary
Two individuals purchased and took home two dogs from the complainant on the condition the dogs ’ ownership would transfer fully when the dogs were spayed and castrated . The individuals ’ veterinary hospital contacted the complainant ’ s clinic to obtain medical records , without their permission or knowledge . Two other dogs were placed with the individuals for breeding , on the condition their ownership would transfer after they were spayed following breeding . The two dogs were vaccinated by the individuals ’ hospital .
Case Outcomes
The Complaints Committee panel decided the allegations made against the member did not warrant a referral to the Discipline Committee . The panel took no action on the matter .
Case Considerations
In considering the complaint , the Complaints Committee panel reviewed medical records and written submissions . As is standard for all investigations , the panel considered previous proceedings , if any .
The allegations in the case centred around the individuals ’ veterinarian treating the dogs without the complainant ’ s consent or confirming ownership . The veterinarians understood the dogs were co-owned and there was a misunderstanding about responsibility for care .
The Professional Practice Standard Establishing , Maintaining , and Discontinuing a Veterinarian-Client- Patient Relationship ( VCPR ) and the accompanying Guide define client as the owner of the animal ( s ) being treated , the owner ’ s authorized representative , or an individual the veterinarian reasonably determines is acting in the interest of the animal ( s ). The VCPR includes an expectation of trust between the veterinarian and client .
As money had been exchanged , full ownership transfer depended on surgical sterilization and the individuals were permitted by the complainant to have the dogs in their posession and have them spayed . The Panel felt it was reasonable for the veterinarians to believe their clients had agency to make medical decisions , such as vaccines . Many companion animal clinics have protocols for elective procedures to include ensuring vaccine status is current .
The panel referred to the Professional Practice Standard Medical Records which requires veterinarians to make requests for relevant historical information in a timely manner to facilitate the continuity of care . The veterinarians requested information from the previous veterinarian , based on their understanding the individuals had approval to make medical decisions for the dogs .
The panel acknowledged the Medical Records standard indicates medical records information belongs to the owner and consent is required before that information can be provided to the new owner . In this case , no ownership had changed hands .
The Medical Records standard requires veterinarians respond to requests for relevant historical information in a timely manner to facilitate the continuity of care . The veterinarians requested information from the previous veterinarian , based on their understanding the individuals had approval to make medical decisions for the dogs .
Regarding the microchip status , the panel noted it is common to ensure a microchip is present , but it would be unreasonable to contact microchip companies for every pet . The veterinarians understood the dogs were co-owned or being cared for by the individuals on the complainant ’ s behalf .
The panel does not determine ownership but assesses if veterinarians acted professionally and ethically . In the panel ’ s opinion , the veterinarians were acting in good faith as the clients understood they had agency for the medical care of the four dogs .
Veterinarians have a responsibility to provide safe , quality care . The College assists veterinarians in doing so when matters are reviewed by the Complaints Committee . The public has a right to ask questions about the care that was provided to their animal ( s ) and this process provides veterinarians with feedback on whether they have met the standards of practice or whether there are improvements needed to mitigate risks in practice . The Committee provides advice or may request a veterinarian enter into an undertaking when remediation would reduce risks and support a veterinarian in meeting the standard of practice . Only the most serious cases , where there is bad intent , incompetence , reckless behaviour , or a history of failure to remediate at-risk behaviour are referred to the Discipline Committee for a discipline hearing to determine if an act of professional misconduct or serious neglect may have occurred . This example is taken from a case that was reviewed by the Complaints Committee and is offered as a self-reflection tool to support veterinarians in understanding how to meet the standards of practice .
Public confidence in veterinary regulation cvo . org 10