I agree that was pretty low class.
I think this bears repeating, as well. I have a bachelor’s degree in psychology and I am not even remotely qualified to diagnose a mental health condition.
The difficulty many people have (and I do not believe that this is Zoe’s problem) is that they do not understand that the professions (medicine, law, etc.) are governed by an explicit set of ethical standards. Those standards are, in essence, codified, and case law develops around them. Unlike the guy on the street, whose ethics are guided only by the way the wind is blowing, doctors and lawyers have actual rules to which they must adhere.
Zoe ought to know that; she quoted some of those rules, and, when called on the fact that the rules are inapposite, retreated to a position that the ethical rules should somehow be different. So the question is, simply, who’s more unethical: the doctor who abides by the ethical standards set forth by his profession and legislature, or the poster on a message board who cannot admit that the rules she cited cut against her?
Well, not to speak for Kalhoun, and I am not a veterinarian, but I am a veterinarian’s son, whose father was in small animal practice for more than thirty five years. My dad even was appointed to the state licensing board investigating veterinarians who committed ethical lapses. I used to work for him, and help him out, and (to some degree) interact with his clients, including the crazy ones. And there were more than a few crazy ones, both in the loose sense and the strictly clinical sense of the term.
I don’t think “sharing” this letter with the aunt was ethically required. It has nothing to do with the vet-client relationship (since the niece was not his client), and did not affect vetbridge’s ability to treat his patients. I don’t think it was ethically forbidden either. But I don’t think it was a good idea.
My mom and dad are on a cruise at the moment, and unavailable until next week. I can ask him when he gets back, if there is any interest.
Regards,
Shodan
And to take it to the final step, no doctor of psychology would be able to make a diagnosis on the basis of the interaction a client has with a vet.
I’d certainly be interested. As I said earlier, my only solid conviction here is that sharing the letter is not an ethically-FORBIDDEN action. But I’d be very curious to hear the opinion of a vet who has more than passing experience with application of the profession’s ethical guidelines, and your dad seems to qualify nicely.
Well framed.
I’d love to hear from a vet who has done ethics work. I can only extrapolate from human medicine, which is not the same.
I agree with you that the matter should have been handled legally. I don’t think we know one way or the other if she had power-of-attorney.
Certainly. I retired from teaching many years ago. If I received a letter questioning my student’s capabilities, I cannot think of any circumstance under which I would show that letter to the student – even if that student were an adult.
Which brings up an interesting point: Are other people’s opinions of us our business?
Golly gee! I’ve finally earned my wings in the pit…just in time for my daughter’s graduation from law school next Saturday. I suspect that Bricker didn’t take me quite so seriously. He didn’t flinch.
What specific laws are you talking about? I don’t know of anything that would require him to reveal the letter or prevent him from doing so.
And this bears repeating. **At no time have I suggested that the vet should diagnose a mental health condition. **
Campion, I’m willing to be open to the idea that I want the rules “changed” if that is really what I am asking. Show me how the ethical standards and the oath that I quoted cut against me.
The main emphasis of the codes seems to be – and correct me if you disagree – that the vets main duty is to the animals he treats. Their welfare should be put above any duty to his clients or any desire to enrich himself. Let me know if you disagree on those points and show me why.
In my opinion, I don’t think that he should prolong the life of suffering animals for the pleasure of his client. And I don’t think that he should euthanize healthy groups of pets on the impulse of the owner. Isn’t that supported by the codes and the oath?
Further, I don’t think that he should interfere in private family matters that do not affect the treatment of his patients especially when it involves the betrayal of trust (as mentioned in his oath).
Zoe, if the woman truly had power of attourney, she would not have merely sent a letter, she could have come down to the office and SHOWN Vetbridge the proper forms and papers, and seen what she could do about the woman’s pets. Not just send some crazy ass letter saying the woman was batshit and that she was going to SUE Vetbridge if he didn’t stop.
As for being cut out of the woman’s will, what the fuck? It’s Auntie Pet-lover’s money. She doesn’t owe her niece jackshit.
She should get it if she wants to exercise it. Attempting to go behind her aunt’s back and do that informally was utterly inappropriate. I can’t imagine why you are arguing otherwise.
This strikes me as a very poor circumstance to discuss that, since it’s a pit thread devoted to one particular person.
Well, maybe not. I guess you didn’t explicitly say that it was Vetbridge’s responsibility to do so. On the other hand, you recommended he take psychology classes and the implication seemed to be that it was Vetbridge’s responsibility to somehow try to judge his clients’ mental state at least to some extent. You posted this:
That seems to me to call for Vetbridge to make judgment calls regarding his clients’ ability to make good decisions. As has been thoroughly explained, he cannot do that. He does not have the education to make those determinations, regardless of how many continuing education classes he takes. And attempting to do so would be problematic on ethical grounds, as has been explained to you.
You may not have explicitly called for Vetbridge to make diagnoses of his clients’ mental health, but you certainly suggested that he has some responsibility to appraise their ability to make decisions in determining whether to render services. That is at very least an ethical grey area, and it involves making judgments that no one can fairly expect him to make. Nor should he have to, since his niece has legal approaches to fix the problem. Asking Vetbridge to act as judge of his clients’ mental health is just ridiculous, and you did ask that.
That has already been shown, more than once. The fact that you are stubbornly pretending it hasn’t doesn’t change reality.
The former point is nonsense, as under any circumstance euthanizing an animal involves a judgment call - that’s exactly why vets defer to the animal’s owner to decide such things. Most cases like that simply aren’t clear-cut, because virtually any illness will mean the animal is in pain and prognoses are rarely one hundred percent certain, and so it comes down to deciding at what point the animal’s life is no longer worth living. That’s simply not an easy or crystal-clear decision, no matter how you frame it.
The second point is more relevant, as (as has been explained) there’s serious debate over what the ethical ramifications are of euthanizing healthy animals. Obviously it’s a moot point to some extent, as shelters routinely put down healthy animals simply because there is no space for them, but it’s still an issue with ethical overtones. But veterinary ethics obviously don’t support your point, and you haven’t proven otherwise. If you want to debate it, you should start a thread on that, and probably you shouldn’t bring a particular poster into it. If you want to continue castigating Vetbridge, though, you’re going to have to come up with much more convincing information and better arguments than you have.
What betrayal of trust? It wasn’t a breach of his client’s trust, for certain. What expectation of trust did the niece have in sending the letter? None, as far as I can tell, nor can I see where he had any particular ethical obligation towards her at all, as she wasn’t his client or patient. You don’t have any expectation of trust in sending a letter to a perfect stranger speculating on someone’s health. I can’t believe you still maintain this is an ethical issue - you’re not even making sense at this point.
Is your student paying you for your services? Is that student your client? I can’t speak for what the ethical relationships a Teacher has to a student, so I can’t answer this question. However as a former student I can tell you I would like to know this information. What if this is a firm I am going to work for–I would rather not accept that job if I knew they thought so poorly of my capabilities that they would write one of my teachers!
So perhaps your response is correct in your circumstance. However I do think that most professions have an obligation to the person who hires them.
If I design a house for you and on the site the Contractor pulls me aside and tells me that he wasn’t going to do something you had asked him to because it was crazy or stupid—wouldn’t you want me to tell you? See as your Architect—“I” represent you. You are my client–everything I do is in ‘your’ best interest. Otherwise why hire me? Do it yourself. I provide a service to you, no different than a lawyer, an accountant, a doctor or a veterinarian.
In my opinion other people’s opinions are my business when I hire a professional in any field to represent me. And in my opinion, it is my business if that hired professional has information from that third party that could turn a decision I need to make. Then I think your opinion is my business.
I think that the threat to take legal action came later.
I agree with you that she doesn’t owe her niece anything. But I hope to high heaven that if I lose my sound judgment concerning family and financial matters and I’m no longer quite “myself,” someone who loves and knows the real me will be there to keep me from destroying a lifetime of well-thought out plans.
I’m not saying that that is what is happening here, but it is a possibility.
One thing that does put me off about the niece is her casual description of her aunt as “crazy.” That’s almost as bad as the vet’s use of “nuts.” (But we are to excuse his choice because he’s not a mental health worker.) :rolleyes:
Each profession differs in how priorities are structured. In veterinary medicine, the client is not the priority. Maybe you think the wishes of the client should be.
Yes, I think it’s fair to say that of my thinking.
I don’t see it, Excalibre. It is not a matter of stubbornness or pretending. That is not the way I conduct myself at Straight Dope and there are many examples that contradict what you are saying of me.
You win the Junior Mod Trophy for the day.
If you don’t see it, then I simply don’t see how anything can be discussed with you at all. Every one of your appeals to veterinary ethics has been thoroughly shot down by people much more inclined than I am to fuss over details. You simply can’t have missed it. I’m not sure what to say to you at this point.
I would agree that past experience has not led me to believe you’re particularly stubborn or inclined to make wild-ass crazy arguments, but I generally change my opinions with new evidence, and this pitting has been a great deal of new evidence into your conduct.
That was a recommendation for how you might have a useful discussion of it. I tried that with my first post in the thread too. Perhaps I wasn’t as nice this time; my mounting disgust with you for continuing this ridiculous attack on Vetbridge has made me somewhat less charitable. But that was not even remotely “junior-modding”. I didn’t mention any rule, or tell you your behavior was inappropriate - it’s not, it’s just obnoxious - or anything of the sort. I made a suggestion for how you might start a discussion of a question that you indicated was an interesting one (and incidentally, I think it’s a pretty interesting matter myself.)
To Vetbridge’s credit, in the original thread he did say that in retrospect he wished that he had not given the letter to the elderly client. He did so because he was considering referring her to another veterinarian.
Maybe he was thinking twice about her bizarre behavior and the niece’s words. Like it or not, all of us have to make judgment calls every day about the people we work with. And we make decisions based on those judgments. (The automatons among us are exceptions, of course.)
And to your credit, you have apologized for accusing Vetbridge of breaching professional rules of conduct.
Wait a minute, you have not made any such apology. You still refuse to recognize that whatever your opinion of Vetbridge’s actions, those actions were not in violation of any rules of professional conduct.
Well at least you have apologized for calling the legal profession unethical.
Wait another minute, you have not made any such apology. You have asserted that because your daughter has attended law school, you should be given a pass when you make such an allegation.
Your really are a nasty piece of work.
So you pitted him for an action he had already expressed regret for the day before?
Nice.
Classy move.
Yeah, that was sarcasm.
I’m a veterinarian (though not a clinician) and I side with vetbridge if only because when it comes to ethics and the veterinary profession, the line between right and wrong rarely is as obvious as outsiders would like them to be.
Zoe’s heart is probably in the right place, but you have to understand the position that vets are in. Balancing the interests of clients while also looking after welfare of our animal patients is probably more difficult than the actual medicine involved; veterinarians probably face more ethical dilemmas on a daily basis than physicians do. It’s not something you can learn in school, either.
You can argue that vetbridge did the wrong thing by showing that letter to his client. You can also argue that he did the right thing. There’s a persuasive case that can made on each side, but I lean towards the side that says he did right, if only because the patients’ welfare possibly could have been at stake. Forget the humans, for a minute.
Consider that if vetbridge’s client had been left in the dark about her niece’s clandestine notices, she could have possibly been blindsided by attempts to remove her animal’s from her care. Those animals may have been taken from her home, put in a shelter, and then God knows what may have happened to them. Not alerting her to the fact that her sanity was being questioned by a family member means that the vet would not be looking out for the human-animal bond between his client and patients. That’s not what vets are supposed to do.
If vetbridge had no personal reason to believe that his patients were being mistreated or endangered by a mentally ill client, then he did the right thing by sharing this letter with his client. This information may have empowered the client to protect herself and her animals from sabotage. And even if it didn’t, the mere possibility that it could have makes vetbridge’s actions justifiable.