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 .
EUTHANASIA REQUIRES SENSITIVITY IN COMMUNICATION
CASE SUMMARY
The member examined a 17-year-old cat for euthanasia . The client requested communal cremation along with a paw print . Unfortunately , a paw print was not performed and the error was not discovered before cremation . The member offered a memorial product at no charge , however , the client declined and requested a refund .
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 , as well as written submissions from the client , the member , and a staff person . As is standard practice for all investigations , the panel considered all previous proceedings , if any , against the member .
In their complaint , the client said they phoned the hospital to discuss options for euthanizing their cat , which had deteriorated quickly over 24 hours . The client indicated they were given a quote for the euthanasia procedure and , as they were distraught , did not ask about options . While in the waiting room , the client saw a display of a paw prints and inquired about the price . The client paid $ 25 for the paw print and was told it would be ready the following day .
The client indicated they received a phone call from the member indicating a group cremation had been performed and a paw print was only an option with a private cremation . The client was upset the cat had been cremated in a group and they were left without a keepsake .
The member described the cat ’ s poor condition and noted the client had already made the decision for euthanasia . The member said all options were presented to the client regarding aftercare following euthanasia , including home burial , communal cremation , private cremation with the cremains returned , and a post mortem examination . The member said prices were provided and the member opted for a communal cremation with a clay paw print .
The member explained that cremations and memorial products are done through Gateway . Cremation requests are submitted online and the member explained an error must have occurred and a paw print had not been taken . There was an option to provide a paw print laser etching using a photograph of the cat ’ s paw . The member contacted the client about the error and offered to provide the laser etching at no cost and a refund for the cost of the paw print .
Following this incident , the hospital changed its protocol for sending cremation requisitions and now saves copies of the forms which are checked by two staff members before submission . This is done to avoid errors .
The panel acknowledged that euthanizing a pet is a difficult decision and an emotionally challenging time for a pet owner . It requires professionalism and sensitivity from the veterinarian and staff . A negative experience can be devastating for a pet owner and have implications for the veterinarian / client relationship .
It is incumbent upon veterinarians to ensure the euthanasia procedure and arrangements for aftercare are managed appropriately . In this case , the panel could not determine why a paw print was not taken but expects the member to ensure staff communicates a consistent message with respect to services .
The panel reviewed the Euthanasia Authorization Form signed by the client and noted it included the option , “ My animal remains to be cremated in accordance with hospital policy ” and that a handwritten notation “ communal ” was added . In the panel ’ s opinion , this statement is too vague to reflect the available options for cremation . It would be appropriate for the member to change this form to specify the options for communal and private cremation . It would be appropriate to include information about a paw print request to avoid future misunderstandings .
In conclusion , while the panel acknowledged the client ’ s concerns , there did not appear to be sufficient evidence for the panel to take action . It appears that an inadvertent error occurred and the member has taken corrective action to address the situation so that similar concerns do not arise again in the future .
6 College Connection Winter 2021 cvo . org