# 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:** 4
**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 21, 2006, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/61 "2006-05-21T00:45:18Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > How does a letter from a stranger indicate a _necessity_ to protect the health or welfare of his client? If this so-called relative was seriously concerned about her aunt, wouldn’t a lawyer be involved? If he was looking for something “official” to back up this person’s claim, wouldn’t he correspond with her and get more information? Merely passing along an unconfirmed accusation to a client served no purpose within the realm of ethics. It did nothing to protect the woman, her estate, or her animals. I disagree. It is not the duty of the doctor to make the decisions for the patient/client as to whether or not the information is “official”, or make value judgements about what is being done by the other person based on whether or not they indicate they have a lawyer involved. The doctor’s duty is to give information to the patient/client, so they can make such judgements. Unless the patient/client has been adjudged incompetent, or is under court order, etc etc etc. I’ve seen plenty of physicians get their ass in a sling for not sharing information with patients. I’ve been on hospital and university and even prison health _peer reivew and ethics committees_ reviewing what appear to be similar situations. And the bottom line is always that the doctor must provide the patient with information so that the patient can make appropriate decisions. Otherwise the doctor is usurping the the patient’s prerogative to be an adult. Now I’m just extrapolating the doc/patient relationship to the vet/client/pet relationship, but it seems to me to make sense. And frankly, it is the job the the professional to decide how, both legally and ethically, to behave in questionable situations. And it is up first to his peers to decide if the decision made was reasonable. Not if it was necessarily the correct decision as seen by hindsight, but if, in good faith, a reasonable doc could have decided to make that decision. And if things really go to hell, then it is the courts that decide if any laws were broken. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/62 "2006-05-21T00:47:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I do see the difference. > > In fact, I saw it, and commented upon it, way back in [post #35](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7412081&postcount=35) > > And in post #48, I said to you: > > If you had responded to that post by saying that you were NOT claiming his conduct was a breach of ethical standards, we would not be having this discussion. Instead, you indignantly posted a link to the ethical standards that supposedly buttressed your position, and now you are doing the backstroke with all the fervor (and none of the skill) of an Olympic contender. Well, you’re the one who twisted what “the question” actually was. From Zoe’s post: > [@](#): > > In his General Questions thread , **vetbridge asked if he had an obligation to recognize mental illness in his human clients**. He stressed that he is not a mental health worker and not qualified to spot those times when eccentricities may have become unhealthy. The fact that you wanted to change that question to "Instead, it’s “Is he required NOT to?” is irrelevant. My link supported my statement. No backstroke involved. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/63 "2006-05-21T00:54:37Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Well, you’re the one who twisted what “the question” actually was. From Zoe’s post: > The fact that you wanted to change that question to "Instead, it’s “Is he required NOT to?” is irrelevant. My link supported my statement. No backstroke involved. Zoe is clearly contending that **vetbridge** VIOLATED his professional ethics. She is not merely contending that his ethics did not require the action: > [@Zoe](#): > > Did you protect the personal privacy of the elderly client by forwarding the letter from her niece? Obviously, it upset her and caused problems within the family. And certainly you violated the niece’s confidence when she wrote to you in your professional capacity. Sorry, champ. I did not “twist” any question. The OP accuses vetbridge of violation of ethical standards. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/64 "2006-05-21T00:57:34Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > How does a letter from a stranger indicate a _necessity_ to protect the health or welfare of his client? If this so-called relative was seriously concerned about her aunt, wouldn’t a lawyer be involved? If he was looking for something “official” to back up this person’s claim, wouldn’t he correspond with her and get more information? Merely passing along an unconfirmed accusation to a client served no purpose within the realm of ethics. It did nothing to protect the woman, her estate, or her animals. You are serious about this? How does a letter saying that she is “obviously crazy” _not_ effect the welfare of his client? Perhaps the neice was hoping for some form of agreement from _vetbridge_ and by refusing treatment he would be implicitly agreeing with the neice. It is not his job to look for “official” information to back up the claim. And by entering into correspondence with the neice he could be opening himself to charges of disclosing confidential information. If it was a confirmed allegation he would have a duty to inform the proper authorities. If someone is writing to him making allegations about one of his clients then he has a duty to inform his client for her own welfare. He may not be the only one to receive such allegations and I don’t see how the client’s welfare is served by not informing her that someone is making allegations about her. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/65 "2006-05-21T01:06:33Z")
> [@Qadgop the Mercotan](#): > > I disagree. It is not the duty of the doctor to make the decisions for the patient/client as to whether or not the information is “official”, or make value judgements about what is being done by the other person based on whether or not they indicate they have a lawyer involved. The doctor’s duty is to give information to the patient/client, so they can make such judgements. Unless the patient/client has been adjudged incompetent, or is under court order, etc etc etc. > > I’ve seen plenty of physicians get their ass in a sling for not sharing information with patients. I’ve been on hospital and university and even prison health _peer reivew and ethics committees_ reviewing what appear to be similar situations. And the bottom line is always that the doctor must provide the patient with information so that the patient can make appropriate decisions. Otherwise the doctor is usurping the the patient’s prerogative to be an adult. > > Now I’m just extrapolating the doc/patient relationship to the vet/client/pet relationship, but it seems to me to make sense. And frankly, it is the job the the professional to decide how, both legally and ethically, to behave in questionable situations. And it is up first to his peers to decide if the decision made was reasonable. Not if it was necessarily the correct decision as seen by hindsight, but if, in good faith, a reasonable doc could have decided to make that decision. > > And if things really go to hell, then it is the courts that decide if any laws were broken. I agree that it is the doctor’s job to make those snap decisions, but what decision-making issues would have been hampered by his failure to share the letter? She was bringing her animals in for treatment, and I assume she continues to do so…either with Vetbridge or another vet. Simply passing the letter on only served to help her make decisions with regard to who she wanted to leave money to. It had no effect on his professional dealings; only on the family drama. I assume he already thought she wasn’t firing on all eight cylinders due to the amount of money she was spending. But he was still working with her professionally. Shouldn’t that judgement call have come long before the letter dilemma? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/66 "2006-05-21T01:17:42Z")
> [@rayh](#): > > You are serious about this? > > How does a letter saying that she is “obviously crazy” _not_ effect the welfare of his client? Perhaps the neice was hoping for some form of agreement from _vetbridge_ and by refusing treatment he would be implicitly agreeing with the neice. It is not his job to look for “official” information to back up the claim. And by entering into correspondence with the neice he could be opening himself to charges of disclosing confidential information. If it was a confirmed allegation he would have a duty to inform the proper authorities. If someone is writing to him making allegations about one of his clients then he has a duty to inform his client for her own welfare. He may not be the only one to receive such allegations and I don’t see how the client’s welfare is served by not informing her that someone is making allegations about her. I still want to know what good simply passing the letter on did. That act alone did not have a positive effect on the welfare of his client. ---
**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 21, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/67 "2006-05-21T01:20:12Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Shouldn’t that judgement call have come long before the letter dilemma? What judgement call? He was not in a position to judge her. He was in a position to decide whether or not he could or would render the services she requested of him. Her requests were not of the type that he was ethically or legally obligated to report to law enforcement. Nor were they requests that he was unwilling to carry out. Therefor his duty to her was the same as to any other patient/client. Having someone write a letter to **vetbridge** declaring her to be crazy could affect the client’s future ability to care for her pets in the way she chose. True, it might have made it better, but it might not have been too. In any event, as the instigator of the vet/client/pet relationship, it was the client who had the responsibility to make the determination about the relationship, and to do so, the client needed the information that the vet had. IMHO he was ethically obliged to provide it. ---
**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 21, 2006, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/68 "2006-05-21T01:24:21Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I still want to know what good simply passing the letter on did. That act alone did not have a positive effect on the welfare of his client. So? I pass on information that doesn’t have positive impacts on my patients all the time, when I tell them they have HIV, or cancer, or even high blood pressure. They get depressed, they cry, they go into denial. Some few have even attempted suicide. But they need to know this, so they can make informed choices. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/69 "2006-05-21T01:25:23Z")
Kalhoun: We now have an actual medical doctor, who, while admittedly not a veterinarian, is in a profession where the ethical standards in this situation are at least comparable, telling you in his professional opinion the disclosure was ethically required. I don’t know – I am only positive it wasn’t PROHIBITED. But here’s a guy who has professional experience in a simialr arena telling you in his view it was required. Do you have any cite, other than your own gut feel, to contradict this claim? ---
**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 21, 2006, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/70 "2006-05-21T01:25:41Z")
> [@Qadgop the Mercotan](#): > > At least that’s how this physician sees it. Hey, we seem to have agreement among a lawyer, a physician and a psychologist. Somebody write down the date and time! ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/71 "2006-05-21T01:28:56Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I still want to know what good simply passing the letter on did. That act alone did not have a positive effect on the welfare of his client. It didn’t? All we got was **vetbridge** ’s perspective and knowledge, and for all we know, he’s not telling us everything he knows. And for all we know, the neice may have been setting her aunt up to have her declared incompetent. If you were the aunt, wouldn’t you want to know about something like that? Robin ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/72 "2006-05-21T01:29:56Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Hey, we seem to have agreement among a lawyer, a physician and a psychologist. Somebody write down the date and time! Heh - how many times do you and I stand on the same side of an issue?? 🙂 ---
**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 21, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/73 "2006-05-21T01:31:53Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Hey, we seem to have agreement among a lawyer, a physician and a psychologist. Somebody write down the date and time! Has Hell frozen over too? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![SnakesCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@SnakesCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakesCatLady)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/74 "2006-05-21T02:40:41Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I still want to know what good simply passing the letter on did. That act alone did not have a positive effect on the welfare of his client. I really don’t understand this statement. If someone in your family is questioning your ability to handle your own life with your own money, you wouldn’t want to know about it? ---
**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 21, 2006, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/75 "2006-05-21T03:23:22Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I still want to know what good simply passing the letter on did. That act alone did not have a positive effect on the welfare of his client. It allowed the woman to disinherit someone who was sneaking around behind her back making accusations. You may not want to know when people are attempting to damage your relationships with others, but I sure as hell do. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/76 "2006-05-21T05:29:10Z")
> [@](#): > > **Otto** : Otto: No, vetbridge is being damned here for euthanizing healthy animals at the owner’s request and for treating animals who are suffering to extend their suffering for the benefit of the owners. Exactly. Thank you. > [@](#): > > **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. I’m glad that it is at least a topic of discussion and not something that is automatically done at the discretion of the client. As for the niece and the elderly client: It is obvious that some of you have never been responsible for curtailing the activities of an elderly demented person who is not _aware_ that she or he has lost his mind. People who are mentally disturbed or mentally ill don’t just automatically cooperate and turn in their car keys and credit cards. They often grow more and more irritable, irrational and stubborn. Someone may be looking after their best interests not out of greed but out of concern that the elderly person will still have enough money to pay for medications and assisted living. They may have been asked to do this when the elderly person was in better health. The demented sometimes insist that you take them home to a house that doesn’t exist anymore. Or bring back their dead babies. And if you don’t do it, they will “write you out of their wills.” One day they will give half of their things to someone else and the next day they will accuse “the gypsies” of stealing them – or accuse you. They will take things that belong to you and hide them or not give them back to you or give them away or sell them. Maybe some of these people take other people’s animals to the vet. Maybe some of them are put to sleep. If I were a vet with such a client, I would want to know and I would want someone in the family to tell me so that I could at least keep an eye out for any signs of possible dementia. They don’t always “look” like they are out of their minds. I’m not a psychologist or a psychiatrist and I can’t diagnose dementia. Never have I suggested that a vet should! But at the same time neither should he turn a blind eye to the possibility that his client _may_ not be able to make competent decisions. After all, his first obligation is to his PATIENTS – the animals. And that IS very clearly spelled out in the code. > [@](#): > > **Qadgop the Mercotan** : So? I pass on information that doesn’t have positive impacts on my patients all the time > [@](#): > > **Bricker** : We now have an actual medical doctor, who, while admittedly not a veterinarian, is in a profession where the ethical standards in this situation are at least comparable, telling you in his professional opinion the disclosure was ethically required. I’m reasonably certain that neither **Kalhoun** nor I would object to a vet disclosing such information to any animal that is his _patient._ > [@](#): > > **Bricker** : In the legal profession, for whatever it’s worth, disclosure of the letter would have been appropriate. > [@](#): > > **Bricker** : 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. You are forever reminding me of how different the legal profession is from those with _ethical_ standards. > [@](#): > > **WhyNot** : 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. \ 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. After reading his posts, I’m convinced that he should have made that call and didn’t. And I’m convinced that he did become embroiled in the family drama. I do find your thinking on this generally reasonable and clear. ---
**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 21, 2006, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/77 "2006-05-21T05:39:10Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > It is obvious that some of you have never been responsible for curtailing the activities of an elderly demented person who is not _aware_ that she or he has lost his mind. People who are mentally disturbed or mentally ill don’t just automatically cooperate and turn in their car keys and credit cards. They often grow more and more irritable, irrational and stubborn. > > Someone may be looking after their best interests not out of greed but out of concern that the elderly person will still have enough money to pay for medications and assisted living. They may have been asked to do this when the elderly person was in better health. Then they can work that out with the elderly person or with the courts, not by sneaking around trying to coerce (and sue, don’t forget sue) the elderly person’s contacts. ---
**Author:** ![Hakuna\_Matata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@Hakuna\_Matata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hakuna_Matata)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/78 "2006-05-21T14:04:19Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > You are forever reminding me of how different the legal profession is from those with _ethical_ standards. > > After reading his posts, I’m convinced that he should have made that call and didn’t. And I’m convinced that he did become embroiled in the family drama. I do find your thinking on this generally reasonable and clear. Well now you have an Architect saying he made the right decision. I would have disclosed any similar type letter to my client as well. My duty is to my client. Any professional has that duty. So which profession here—Doctor, Lawyer, Architect, Pyschologist–doesn’t meet the ‘ethical’ standards you have? Any Accountants, or Engineers want to step in here and give us your opinions on a letter from someone to you questioning your client’s capabilities and what your ethical obligations are? Give it up sister–you are in the wrong here and you are only digging a bigger hole. As for the niece–she should have tried for power of attorney and done this correctly. Her intentions might have been good–but the ends don’t justify the means. And asking the licensed professional to do her dirty work is where she tried to cut corners. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/79 "2006-05-21T14:41:01Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > You are forever reminding me of how different the legal profession is from those with _ethical_ standards. That is a highly offensive and grossly ignorant thing to allege. I suggest that you crawl back into whatever hole you came from, and do not return until you can conduct yourself in a responsible manner. As I stated previously, you are truly an unethical and stupid person. ---
**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 21, 2006, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497/80 "2006-05-21T16:09:18Z")
If the old woman is then truly suffering from dementia, or some other illness, then her niece needs to see about getting power of attourney and THEN dealing with it. **Zoe** , for god’s sake, surely you can understand why there are laws about this? Do you honestly think that there aren’t any nieces out there greedy enough and nasty enough to go behind a perfectly sane auntie’s back and try to screw her over? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vetbridges-obligation-to-recognize-veterinary-ethics/357497.md?page=5)