I doubt he is under any ethical obligation to share the letter with his client, either, any more than he is under some obligation to keep it away from her. It’s none of his business.
And this -
is exactly why he should have done nothing with the letter - not share it with his client, not use it as a reference, nothing. Not because it was unethical as regards his duties as a vet, but because he doesn’t need to get in the middle.
Regards,
Shodan
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.
I have no opinion one way or the other, merely posting to clarify.
He is in the middle by simply receiving the letter. This is triangulation. He gets out of the middle by sharing the letter and rejoining with his client. Remaining silent about it leaves him liable to be seen as complicit, as acting in concert with the niece, in the eyes of his client, whether in actuality he is or not.
The only thing I see in vetbridge’s actions that’s at all worthy of criticism is showing the old woman the letter from her neice, and that’s purely on the basis of personal ethics, not professional. And even that wasn’t pitworthy. There are good arguments for both showing and withholding that letter. Zoe’s one of the smarter posters on the SDMB, but I think she’s way off base with this thread.
My personality probably would have made me send a scathing letter to the niece, with a CC to the aunt.
If I was feeling nice, it’d be a scathing letter to the niece saying that I was going to tell the aunt in five days so niecey better get to her first to 'splain things.
No, acting on the letter is what involves him in the situation. Ignoring it gets him out of the situation. How can he be “acting” in concert with anyone if he doesn’t do anything?
His relationship is with the aunt, as a client. The notion that he needs to do anything about her troubles with her niece is what I disagree with. That doesn’t affect his relationship with his client unless he does something to make it so.
I get junk mail all the time. But I am not involved in anything unless I respond to it in some way. I get credit card applications, for example, but if I pitch them I am not involved with the credit company.
Regards,
Shodan
Correct-a-mundo.
You do have to be a vet, or someone with some experience in the application of the ethical standards of the profession, to opine that this conduct breached those ethical standards.
Can you show any previous cases where a similar action caused a vet to be censured or otherwise disciplined by the licensing or other authorities?
Because right now, your argument is, “Hey, I’m just using my own common sense here…” and that does not substitute for an informed opinion on the ethical standards of the profession.
Show me where I’m wrong, smart-ass.
How long have you been a member of these boards, Kalhoun?
In three and a half years and roughly 12,000 posts, have you yet to comprehend that the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim? You are asserting a breach of ethical standards; it’s to you to show, by reference to those ethical standards, that such a breach has occurred.
I hope the next three years are more fruitful as far as your ability to read and comprehend goes. It would be a shame if you didn’t make at least some improvement.
The proponent of a claim bears the burden of proving his claim. Learn it. Know it. Live it.
http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/ethics.asp
But I’m sure a high-class lawyer like yourself will invent some sort of social-worker-ethical-obligation-buttinski clause a veterinarian has to honor with regard to inserting himself into the in-fighting of an old woman and a person who may or may not be a relative who may or may not know what she’s talking about. Yup…that’s what makes the legal world go 'round.
Now go fuck yourself.
And which item in your link do you find pertinent to your argument?
Where, precisely, in the link you provided do you believe you find support for your position?
I have read the page you linked to very carefully, and I cannot find any language that I believe mandates the veterinarian not share the letter with his client.
Please describe precisely which paragraph you are relying upon to reach your conclusion.
And incidently, I never said he violated an ethical obligation. I said he butt in where he shouldn’t have – it appeared to be a purely personal decision; not one that was brought about by some professional ethical dilemma. A bright legal eagle like yourself should be able to see the difference.
Then what was the purpose of the link in your previous post?
The link supports my opinion that there is NO ETHICAL STANDARD that would make a veterinarian share that letter with his client. He was acting outside his professional capacity. Duh. That’s why he shouldn’t have done it. Get it?
Because he is doing something in your solution: He is withholding information. That is not in his client’s interest, and she cannot have any idea what he does do with the information. So when she finds out that he did recieve a letter and didn’t tell her, she may assume any number of things, one of which is that he was complicit in doing something behind her back, or simply that he agrees with the niece.
Perhaps I’m coming at this to much from the perspective of a psychologist, but so be it. You can’t assume that the person you are working with will feel just super about your having had information that you did not share.
It’s drastically different, because it’s not about someone you have a professional, or any, relationship with. There isn’t anyone who will be upset with you because they believe that you aren’t looking out for their interests through your interaction with the junk mailers.
Kalhoun, from your cite:
Now if the veterinary patient-pet-client relationship is like the medical doctor-patient relationship, (and it seems that it is), the above quote is a strong argument for the necessity of the vet informing the client of the letter. Because patient/client-doctor privacy is not only affected by acts of comission, but also by acts of omission.
Here, the doctor has information from a non-confidential source about the client that could impact the client’s privacy, and the client will be in a better position to judge what to do if the client has that information. Given the nature of the relationship, I believe the doctor must share it.
At least that’s how this physician sees it.
Yes, I do see the difference.
In fact, I saw it, and commented upon it, way back in post #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.
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.