# Vetbridge's Obligation to Recognize Veterinary Ethics **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 20, 2006, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497 "2006-05-20T05:00:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![brossa](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brossa/32/3040_2.png) [@brossa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brossa)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/21 "2006-05-20T14:03:22Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Does he protect animal health when he kills them? > > Does he relieve animal suffering when he keeps an old and sick animal alive to please a rich woman? Interesting. Apparently **vetbridge** is damned both for treating animals and for euthanizing animals. > [@](#): > > Was he acting for the welfare of the public by betraying the niece’s confidence? Was he acting for the welfare of his client by letting her know that her niece thought she was crazy? Pretty tenuous to connect the niece’s erroneous expectation of priviledge to the issue of public welfare. I don’t see it. As for ‘protecting’ the welfare of the client by withholding information: that’s a big ethical no-no, too. I imagine that it would be easy to justify all sorts of lies to clients if you felt that you could do it ‘for their own good’. > [@](#): > > He acted impulsively and without insight. That’s why it’s unprofessional. Assumes facts not in evidence. Hey, speculation is fun! I choose to believe that the letter was full of hateful statements about what a bitch the aunt was for not saving her money so the niece could inherit it, and that the aunt specifically asked whether the niece had sent such a letter, and that **vetbridge** turned the letter over only after much agonizing soul-searching. Just because one disagrees with the chosen action does not mean that the decision was undertaken lightly. I agree with **astro** ’s last paragraph. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/22 "2006-05-20T14:04:02Z")
> [@slaphead](#): > > If I wrote a letter to my auntie’s plastic surgeon expressing concern at the fact she was squandering her retirement fund on chin tucks and whatnot, I might expect that to remain confidential, because doctors are widely understood to be under an obligation to respect confidentiality under almost all circumstances, and also to to take unusual regard regarding the best interests of their patients. You aren’t the client or patient! You have no reason or basis by which to expect your correspondence about your aunt to her physician to remain confidential or to be withheld from her! ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/23 "2006-05-20T14:07:46Z")
**Zoe** , any veternarian who even suggests a diagnosis of mental illness in a human is creating a far worse breach of ethics than passing along a slanderous note from a relative of a client. He is not a (human) medical doctor - he is not licensed to diagnose or treat humans. Somewhere in the state code is a requirement that he not work outside of the scope of his practice, and diagnosing mental illness is WAY outside the scope of a veternarian’s practice. Can he place a call to the local police or animal shelter if he suspects abuse or animal collecting? Absolutely, and given his posts on the board, I’m convinced he would. But his specialized knowledge begins and ends at animal health and the impact animal health has on the community. After that, he’s no more bound to get embroiled in family drama than the cashier at Wal-Mart who privately thinks some old lady is spending way too much money on gardening supplies. I won’t touch the euthanasia problem. If you don’t see how killing an animal quickly and painlessly is caring more for their physical welfare than encouraging clients to shoot, strangle, drown or abandon them, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/24 "2006-05-20T14:16:20Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > The thing is, pets are an extension of us emotionally; but cannot be dealt with as you would a human. I think she was coming from that standpoint – which is the dilemma we all face when dealing with the little critters we love. As a society, we’re told on one hand to treat them as we do our own offspring, but logically and legally, it simply can’t be done in some circumstances. It’s a tough decision for a vet, but I can understand how his response simply does not compute in the mind of an animal lover. > > The family thing…Hmmmm…I wouldn’t have shared that information with my client if I was in Vetbridge’s shoes. It wasn’t his place. It had nothing directly to do with his job. He should have ignored it. In medicine, animal or human, you can’t afford to “ignore” anything. The letter being delivered to him effectively put him on notice that there was a dispute brewing about his client’s judgement. If Vetbridge was my veterinarian and he withheld information like that from me while he was treating my pets, I might well see that as a violation of professional trust and his duties toward me as his client. If you’re involved even peripherally, in a legal dispute and you start getting court orders for release of documents (as Vetbridge indicated he has received in the past) it changes your world view on how casual you can afford to be with information, and especially accusatory letters that are putting you on notice of this or that opinion. The dichotomy of the situation is kind of odd here. You want him to be casual and dismissive of the import of the letter questioning his client’s mental abilities and withhold it from his client, and on the other hand you want get out a micrometer to dissect how precisely he should be interpolating his ethical duties in the everyday IRL scrum of dealing with emotional patients and their animals. He’s a man trying to do a difficult job the best he can, in an environment that can be legally perilous if he withholds information from his client or starts playing around with professional confidences. He’s a hardworking Veterinarian, not an omniscient God who can read every ones mind and discern every ones motivations. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/25 "2006-05-20T14:20:29Z")
> [@astro](#): > > This pitting (IMO) obviously has less to do with codes of ethics and more to do with emotional outrage over the practical realities of how vets have to deal with often impractical clients with pets in hand in the day in - day out real world, not some “what if” fantasy land of armchair ethicists and wannabe veterinarians. This bears repeating. ---
**Author:** ![Long\_Time\_First\_Time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@Long\_Time\_First\_Time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Long_Time_First_Time)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/26 "2006-05-20T14:38:40Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > **Zoe** , any veternarian who even suggests a diagnosis of mental illness in a human is creating a far worse breach of ethics than passing along a slanderous note from a relative of a client. He is not a (human) medical doctor - he is not licensed to diagnose or treat humans. . Great post **Why Not.** There are some states in which Veterinarians are obligated to report suspected child abuse ( as are teachers, social workers, and a ton of other non-doctors) but that’s the end of their right or obligation to diagnose human conditions. All the protect the community and human health verbage in the oaths directly refers to prevention of zoonotic disease and ensuring a wholesome food supply. Veterinarians are told in vet school over and over again NOT to dispense medical advise of any form to humans. As a veterinarian who is employed at a veterinary school, however, I can assure you that veterinary ethics are covered in a required couse, but they are not discussed all that much after that. One hopes they are modeled by the clinicians, but little is said explicitely. Last week I was called by a person who had injected himself with a medication labeled for horses. He was worried about side effects and was told BY HIS DOCTOR to call a veterinarian to find out what he should do now. I informed him that I could give no medical advise at all and the he’d have to call back his doctor or find another physician to talk to. The euthanasia on demand issue is fairly hot in veterinary medicine. There are some vet.s who do it without blinking an eye. Perhaps they think that if they don’t do it, the animals will suffer. There are other vets who see killing healthy animals as outside what they are willing to do and will not. Taking this back to humans - it’s not like doctors are happy to give lethal injections to death row inmates because if they don’t the inmates will just get killed in a less humane fashion. Some doctors won’t participate and they really don’t see it as their problem if the inmate has to die in a less pleasant manner. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/27 "2006-05-20T14:57:27Z")
> [@Long Time First Time](#): > > Taking this back to humans - it’s not like doctors are happy to give lethal injections to death row inmates because if they don’t the inmates will just get killed in a less humane fashion. Some doctors won’t participate and they really don’t see it as their problem if the inmate has to die in a less pleasant manner. In the US, it’s unethical for a doctor to participate in an execution, and for one to do so would cost him his license to practice medicine. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/28 "2006-05-20T15:13:30Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > He acted impulsively and without insight. That’s why it’s unprofessional. Some things are a given in the professions, **Bricker**. You know them and so do I. Do we really have to start with: > > 1. Know stuff. > 2. Don’t cause problems within a family. > 3. Don’t be a tattletale. > 4. …? No. I have no idea how the practical implementation of ethical standards in the vet profession shake out. It’s far from clear to me that paragraph 2(a), which you quote above, clearly prohibits the action **vetbridge** took. I’d be very interested in seeing, for example, a cite of a vet censured as a result of similar actions, or a post from another vet indicating that the action was clearly violative of the professional standards vets must uphold. In the legal profession, for whatever it’s worth, disclosure of the letter would have been appropriate. If the best support for your position that **vetbridge** violated the ethical rules of his profession is a vague cite to amorphous standards of “service to society,” then you have done a piss-poor job of supporting your position. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/29 "2006-05-20T15:15:25Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > The family thing…Hmmmm…I wouldn’t have shared that information with my client if I was in Vetbridge’s shoes. It wasn’t his place. It had nothing directly to do with his job. He should have ignored it. And are you a veterinary doctor also? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/30 "2006-05-20T15:21:16Z")
> [@Long Time First Time](#): > > The euthanasia on demand issue is fairly hot in veterinary medicine. There are some vet.s who do it without blinking an eye. Perhaps they think that if they don’t do it, the animals will suffer. There are other vets who see killing healthy animals as outside what they are willing to do and will not. Our vet will not euthanize a healthy animal. They say it up front and there used to be a sign on the wall. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/31 "2006-05-20T15:22:20Z")
> [@Qadgop the Mercotan](#): > > In the US, it’s unethical for a doctor to participate in an execution, and for one to do so would cost him his license to practice medicine. Here is a thread where we talked about this: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=359790](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=359790) ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/32 "2006-05-20T16:08:56Z")
**Zoe** , normally I agree with your posts and I do like you, but I think you’re way out of line here. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/33 "2006-05-20T16:20:40Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Really? Imagine this scenario. His client comes to him and says “I understand you think I’m crazy? My niece (or nephew or some other family member) told me you were keeping correspondence from me a secret because it has to do with my mental status.” Do you contend that will have nothing to do with his job? It will cause the termination of his professional relationship with the aunt, or at least damage it. Whatever the aunt’s capacity, it is very unlikely that she will think “Oh, he withheld that information from me because it had nothing to do with his job, and wasn’t his place to share with me.” Since when is he obligated to share information from an outside party? He has no proof that the woman really was her niece. He can keep that information to himself and use it as reference when dealing with the customer, but he has no obligation to share a private correspondence with anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/34 "2006-05-20T16:26:40Z")
> [@astro](#): > > In medicine, animal or human, you can’t afford to “ignore” anything. The letter being delivered to him effectively put him on notice that there was a dispute brewing about his client’s judgement. If Vetbridge was my veterinarian and he withheld information like that from me while he was treating my pets, I might well see that as a violation of professional trust and his duties toward me as his client. > > If you’re involved even peripherally, in a legal dispute and you start getting court orders for release of documents (as Vetbridge indicated he has received in the past) it changes your world view on how casual you can afford to be with information, and especially accusatory letters that are putting you on notice of this or that opinion. > > The dichotomy of the situation is kind of odd here. You want him to be casual and dismissive of the import of the letter questioning his client’s mental abilities and withhold it from his client, and on the other hand you want get out a micrometer to dissect how precisely he should be interpolating his ethical duties in the everyday IRL scrum of dealing with emotional patients and their animals. > > He’s a man trying to do a difficult job the best he can, in an environment that can be legally perilous if he withholds information from his client or starts playing around with professional confidences. He’s a hardworking Veterinarian, not an omniscient God who can read every ones mind and discern every ones motivations. Again…he has no proof that the niece even WAS her niece, and so what if she was? Maybe she was pissed off because all her inheritence was going to the vet instead of to her. If she wants to talk to someone about her aunt’s mental health, a lawyer and psychologist should represent her. He had no business passing that info on. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/35 "2006-05-20T16:27:43Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Since when is he obligated to share information from an outside party? He has no proof that the woman really was her niece. He can keep that information to himself and use it as reference when dealing with the customer, but he has no obligation to share a private correspondence with anyone. Not the question. The question is not if he is _obligated_ to share the information – it is whether the decision to share the information is a violation of his ethical obligations. Not “is he requried to?” Instead, it’s “Is he required NOT to?” ---
**Author:** ![brossa](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brossa/32/3040_2.png) [@brossa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brossa)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/36 "2006-05-20T16:28:34Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Since when is he obligated to share information from an outside party? He has no proof that the woman really was her niece. He can keep that information to himself and use it as reference when dealing with the customer, but he has no obligation to share a private correspondence with anyone. If **vetbridge** had any reason to believe that the letter-writer was NOT the niece, it seems that there would be _more_ reason to report the letter to the client - in a ‘someone is writing letters claiming that you are crazy and it seems like you should know about it’ way. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/37 "2006-05-20T16:32:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And are you a veterinary doctor also? I don’t have to be a vet to know that a letter from a supposedly concerned supposed relative would have nothing to do with the doctor/patient/client relationship I have going with someone. If she was taking legal steps to take control of her aunt’s business, she would have been represented by a lawyer or at least some legal documentation. I have no reason to believe she was her niece. Using that information in further decision-making with the client would be one thing. Passing the information on is another thing altogether. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/38 "2006-05-20T16:40:00Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Using that information in further decision-making with the client would be one thing. Passing the information on is another thing altogether. I don’t get it. It seems that his ignorance as to the family setup makes it more appropriate to pass the letter on. The person, whether niece or not, was trying to sneak around behind Little Old Lady’s back. Such a sneak has zero claim to confidentiality. After all, the sneak is violating the LOL’s trust by writing to the vet. Imagine if the manager at Kroger got a letter saying that **Kalhoun** was buying too many HoHos, and must be stopped. You’d be fine with the manager using that letter in decision-making about you, but not fine with the manager telling you about the letter? I think most of us would be the opposite. Don’t use some letter as a basis for judging me, and tell me that you got it so that I can protect myself. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/39 "2006-05-20T16:46:09Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I don’t have to be a vet to know that a letter from a supposedly concerned supposed relative would have nothing to do with the doctor/patient/client relationship I have going with someone. If she was taking legal steps to take control of her aunt’s business, she would have been represented by a lawyer or at least some legal documentation. I have no reason to believe she was her niece. Using that information in further decision-making with the client would be one thing. Passing the information on is another thing altogether. OK, so this is true for you. I get that. For me, it would eat me up inside to look my client in the face, know that someone was saying negative things about her (in writing) and not share with her that she might want to watch her back and assets. Especially if I was editing the information I gave her about treatment options based on the information I had from a third party - it’s just not right, in my book. It would have a very definite impact on our doctor/patient/client relationship. I think both are understandable points of view. \*\*Vetbridge \*\*might agree with me, or with you, or he might have a third take on it. I don’t think it’s worth it to try and change people’s point of view - either you feel oogy or you don’t. The point is, what should he, **as bound by the ethics of his profession** , do about it? The answer is clear that the ethics of his profession say nothing about it at all. The ethics of his profession talk about how he should act around his patients (the animals) and his clients (the owners) and the public safety. The ethics of his profession do not say anything about family members of clients. Since there is no professional guideline (or we have not been presented with evidence of a professional guideline in this thread), the answer can only come from personal ethics. \*\*Vetbridge \*\*acted in accordance with his personal ethics. While you may disagree with that decision, it had nothing to do with him not recognizing \*\*professional \*\*ethics. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/40 "2006-05-20T17:56:53Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Since when is he obligated to share information from an outside party? He has no proof that the woman really was her niece. He can keep that information to himself and use it as reference when dealing with the customer, but he has no obligation to share a private correspondence with anyone. Since the moment he entered into a professional relationship to serve as an agent for his client. It matters not about who it is from (niece, stranger, the pope, the IRS), it is **about** his client. Keeping it to himself and using it as a reference is entirely the wrong thing to do. It isn’t simply a “private correspondence” like some love letter from a stranger. It is information intended solely to affect his interactions with his client which he would not have received were he not acting on her behalf in the first place. You haven’t at all addressed the ramifications on his professional practice when it is revealed to the aunt that he was in possession of the letter. Believe me, it is entirely likely in the midst of family conflict for such a thing to come to light. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497.md?page=3)