LEARNING IN PRACTICE
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 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 .
FOCUS ON VETERINARIAN ’ S ROLE IN ANIMAL WELFARE
CASE SUMMARY
The member was contacted to care for a dog in the client ’ s apartment while the client was away . The member was informed the dog was alone in the client ’ s apartment . When the member went to the apartment , he was unable to locate the key . Two days later , the member contacted an animal welfare officer with concerns about the dog being left alone . The member also contacted the client to request contact information for the dog ’ s caregiver but that information was not provided . The next day , the member went to the apartment but again was unable to get in . A couple days later , an animal welfare officer went to the apartment and entered with a key . The client returned home the next day . In the complaint , the client said the member was unprofessional and negligent for reporting their concerns to animal welfare services .
CASE OUTCOMES
The Complaints Committee panel decided the allegations made against the member did not warrant a referral to the Discipline Committee . The panel decided not to take any further action .
CASE CONSIDERATIONS
In consideration of this complaint , a panel of the Complaints Committee reviewed the medical records , and written submissions from the client , the member , and an animal welfare inspector . As is standard for all investigations , the panel considered all previous proceedings , if any , against the member .
When reviewing this complaint , the panel acknowledged this was a challenging situation . The client had difficulty finding care for her dog while she was away . In examining the dog previously , the member found the dog was suffering from emaciation and the client was under investigation by animal welfare authorities . The member said the client asked him for boarding suggestions but was unable to make arrangements . The member said he couldn ’ t care for the dog due to his busy schedule . The client then said it was his responsibility as a veterinarian to care for the dog .
Although the member did not commit to caring for the dog , the client sent him instructions to access the key . The member tried to enter the apartment but was unsuccessful . The member contacted the client about the feeding arrangements but the client refused to provide the information . The member contacted an animal welfare officer due to concerns for the dog ’ s welfare .
The officer ’ s statement said she and the member were concerned the dog had no care and no access to food or water . The officer contacted the client who said she was unable to make arrangements for the dog ’ s care and had asked the member for help . The dog had been left alone for a considerable period of time and the officer indicated she would get a warrant to enter the apartment . The client said she was returning home the next day . The officer went to the apartment and located the key box . The client returned home the next day .
It ’ s a serious situation when an animal ’ s welfare appears to be at risk and the member had a professional obligation to ensure the dog was not being neglected .
The panel reviewed the College ’ s Position Statement Reporting Animal Abuse or Neglect , which says veterinarians have a legal and ethical obligation to report animal abuse or neglect . Under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act , veterinarians are mandated to report to a provincial animal welfare inspector when they believe an animal is being subject to undue physical or psychological hardship . Veterinarians are expected to use professional judgment when determining abuse , physical or psychological hardship , privation or neglect of an animal . Making such a determination is challenging and no single indicator is often sufficient for a veterinarian to establish reasonable grounds to believe an animal is suffering from abuse or neglect .
In this case , the member had reasonable grounds to believe the dog was being neglected . The member was concerned about the dog ’ s welfare and he assessed the animal was at risk and involved the authorities . His efforts to contact the client were documented in the medical record and supported by witness statements . In the panel ’ s opinion , the member took appropriate steps to meet his professional obligations .
In the panel ’ s opinion , the member acted appropriately and demonstrated compassion and caring for the dog . While the panel was empathetic to the client ’ s situation , there was no evidence the member was negligent or unprofessional in this situation .
6 College Connection Summer 2022 cvo . org