# Veterinarian brags about killing a cat **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 21, 2015, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224 "2015-04-21T21:00:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/381 "2015-05-19T14:54:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Before I said it, I read the AVMA Judicial Committee by-laws relating to their process and rules of evidence. You mean [these](https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Rules-of-Disciplinary-Procedure-of-the-Judicial-Council.aspx)? > [@](#): > > **The Judicial Council will not be bound by the technical rules of evidence employed in legal proceedings. The Judicial Council, in its sole discretion, may accept or reject any evidence it deems appropriate.** > [@Bricker](#): > > Under that fact pattern, probably yes. Under Dr. Lindsey’s fact pattern, no. (Of course, when I say “Dr. Lindsey’s fact pattern,” I am referring to the limited set of facts that are public knowledge now; if it should come to light that she was interviewed by the sheriff and confessed to knowing the cat was a pet, then obviously that would be a new, and game-changing, fact.) Whoa there, in neither of my examples did the good Dr. _know_ whether “Spot” or the mangy mutt were pets. The question isn’t whether or not she _knew_, but what her obligation is as a veterinarian to learn that information. In the infamous photo, she’s standing in the bushes holding an otherwise healthy looking cat. The AMVA may very well decide that she had an ethical obligation to capture the cat and attempt to find an owner before putting it down, barring any signs of obvious ferality (feralness? feralosity?) > [@Bricker](#): > > In that case, neither the law nor the ethics issues would likely be in play. Exactly, whether or not the dog was a pet doesn’t matter, what matters is what was going through Dr. Lindsey’s head. In this case, any reasonable person would assume the dog was feral and any incidental ownership would easily be excused. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/382 "2015-05-19T15:22:19Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > You mean [these](https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Rules-of-Disciplinary-Procedure-of-the-Judicial-Council.aspx)? Yes. As should have been clear when I posted this: > [@Bricker](#): > > **While the organization is a private one that explicitly says they are not bound by any specific rules of evidence** in evaluating claims of ethics violations, it’s difficult to see how, on the available evidence, they could credit the second-hand hearsay of the only person who has claimed the cat was a pet. (emphasis added) > [@](#): > > Whoa there, in neither of my examples did the good Dr. _know_ whether “Spot” or the mangy mutt were pets. The question isn’t whether or not she _knew_, but what her obligation is as a veterinarian to learn that information. In the infamous photo, she’s standing in the bushes holding an otherwise healthy looking cat. The AMVA may very well decide that she had an ethical obligation to capture the cat and attempt to find an owner before putting it down, barring any signs of obvious ferality (feralness? feralosity?) The problem is that the “otherwise healthy looking cat” looks, in that infamous but blurry photo, like a feral cat would look. And the AMVA, as previously cited, does not prohibit their members from participating in feral cat trap-and-kill exercises. So while they can abjure technical rules of evidence, they cannot (without risking a lawsuit from Dr. Lindsey) conclude on the basis of the photo that the cat was not feral. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/383 "2015-05-19T15:37:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So while they can abjure technical rules of evidence, they cannot (without risking a lawsuit from Dr. Lindsey) conclude on the basis of the photo that the cat was not feral. But the photo, and a notarized statement from the pet sitter, and maybe a site visit to verify the proximity and neighborhood environment could all come together to paint a picture that any rational, ethical vet should have considered the strong possibility that it was a pet and not feral, and therefore erred on the side of not releasing that arrow. That’s not even including verification from Tiger’s owners that the pet was indeed theirs, which is a rather simple thing to obtain (their unwillingness to talk to the press having nothing to do with whether or not they’re willing to talk to the DA or an AMVA rep). Sure, Dr. Lindsey can sue them for coming to a conclusion based on all of that evidence that wouldn’t pass muster in a courtroom, but she can sue for pretty much anything, right? The AMVA is very clear that their rules of evidence are not the same as a courts, and that they’re free to “accept or reject any evidence it deems appropriate.” Dr. Lindsey agreed to that standard when she joined the organization. I don’t see how she’d win the lawsuit. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/384 "2015-05-19T16:59:00Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > But the photo, and a notarized statement from the pet sitter, and maybe a site visit to verify the proximity and neighborhood environment could all come together to paint a picture that any rational, ethical vet should have considered the strong possibility that it was a pet and not feral, and therefore erred on the side of not releasing that arrow. That’s not even including verification from Tiger’s owners that the pet was indeed theirs, which is a rather simple thing to obtain (their unwillingness to talk to the press having nothing to do with whether or not they’re willing to talk to the DA or an AMVA rep). > > Sure, Dr. Lindsey can sue them for coming to a conclusion based on all of that evidence that wouldn’t pass muster in a courtroom, but she can sue for pretty much anything, right? The AMVA is very clear that their rules of evidence are not the same as a courts, and that they’re free to “accept or reject any evidence it deems appropriate.” Dr. Lindsey agreed to that standard when she joined the organization. I don’t see how she’d win the lawsuit. This isn’t really my area of law, so I’m going to stop here. I can’t be sure what kind of action in contract or tort might sound if a professional organization takes an action that would be deleterious to a member’s professional standing on the basis of weak evidence and fails to give the member an opportunity to meaningfully challenge that evidence. I cannot, therefore, rebut your sense that they could theoretically do that. Instead, I will offer this bold challenge: they won’t. This is a factual prediction. Dr. Lindsey will not, as a result of this incident, receive any official ethical sanction from the AMVA. The question of whether they could, I abandon and concede. They will not. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/385 "2015-05-19T17:25:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have no idea who Dr. Graham is. > > So I don’t know the answer to this question, nor any of the ones that follow it. My mistake. I was going by the name posted by **bangangmo** in post #368. Substitute “Dr. LIndsey” for “Dr. Graham” And I still don’t think you’ve firmly established the cat as a pet (and the pet sitter’s testimony thereto) is a necessary fact in declaring this to be a violation of the AVMA’s code of ethics. For example: > [@](#): > > Vets are also allowed to participate in trap-and-kill programs intended to reduce feral cat populations (see, e.g. Use of matrix population models to estimate the efficacy of euthanasia versus trap-neuter-return for management of free-roaming cats, J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;225:1871–1876), notwithstanding the ethics language and notwithstanding the availability of non-lethal trap-neuter-release feral cat programs. Indeed, false claims about the efficacy of trap-neuter-release programs is what got me interested in this thread. That study says that euthanasia was only studied on a model of feral cat populations, not that such euthanasia took place. However, even if the code of ethics permits some form of euthanasia on known feral cats, that’s still a far cry from condoning shooting an unknown cat with an arrow. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/386 "2015-05-19T17:58:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This isn’t really my area of law, so I’m going to stop here. I can’t be sure what kind of action in contract or tort might sound if a professional organization takes an action that would be deleterious to a member’s professional standing on the basis of weak evidence and fails to give the member an opportunity to meaningfully challenge that evidence. I cannot, therefore, rebut your sense that they could theoretically do that. > > Instead, I will offer this bold challenge: they won’t. > > This is a factual prediction. Dr. Lindsey will not, as a result of this incident, receive any official ethical sanction from the AMVA. > > The question of whether they could, I abandon and concede. > > They will not. The CEO of the AVMA has [publicly condemned her actions](https://www.avma.org/News/PressRoom/Pages/AVMA-Judicial-Council-to-review-complaints.aspx). He doesn’t, I assume, have any authority over discipline. On the other hand, public rebuke by the head executive of your main professional association can’t be good for your future employment prospects. Licensing, as far as I know, is handled by individual state boards, and the AVMA has no jurisdiction over that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/387 "2015-05-19T18:01:25Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > My mistake. I was going by the name posted by **bangangmo** in post #368. Substitute “Dr. LIndsey” for “Dr. Graham” > > And I still don’t think you’ve firmly established the cat as a pet (and the pet sitter’s testimony thereto) is a necessary fact in declaring this to be a violation of the AVMA’s code of ethics. For example:That study says that euthanasia was only studied on a model of feral cat populations, not that such euthanasia took place. However, even if the code of ethics permits some form of euthanasia on known feral cats, that’s still a far cry from condoning shooting an unknown cat with an arrow. Yes, yes. I withdraw any claim that the AMVA could not find her in violation of the code of ethics. I simply claim they won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/388 "2015-05-19T18:11:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, yes. I withdraw any claim that the AMVA could not find her in violation of the code of ethics. > > I simply claim they won’t. And that still doesn’t answer the question that I asked you. Just click on the links to follow the conversation backwards, you’ll find it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/389 "2015-05-19T18:22:16Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > And that still doesn’t answer the question that I asked you. Just click on the links to follow the conversation backwards, you’ll find it. Well, you used the singular, so it’s still unclear to me which question you might mean. Here are a bunch of them: > [@](#): > > So I’ll ask again, who has determined that Dr. Graham committed an ethical violation, was the animal’s status (pet or feral) a relevant factor in reaching that determination, and did they rely on the pet sitter’s statement in determining that status? And if you could link to the source of your information on such matters, that’d be peachy. Or, failing that, why did you bring up the pet-sitter’s hearsay in relation to an ethics violation? As a reminder, I am now only claiming that Dr. Lindsey (who you mistook for a ‘Dr. Graham,’) will not receive an ethics violation finding from the AMVA. So, with that in mind, let’s your questions _seriatim_: (1) Who has determined that Dr. Graham committed an ethical violation? Answer: no one, to my knowledge. (2) Was the animal’s status (pet or feral) a relevant factor in reaching that determination? Answer: since this question relies upon a positive predicate from its ancestor, and since that ancestor question was answered in the negative, this question is meaningless. (3) Did they rely on the pet sitter’s statement in determining that status? Answer: since this question relies upon a positive predicate from its ancestor, and since that ancestor question was answered in the negative, this question is meaningless. (5) Why did you bring up the pet-sitter’s hearsay in relation to an ethics violation? Answer: asked and answered. But as a reminder, I did so in response to **BigT** ’s post in which he said, “I think the problem arises because of the possible pet status of the animal, and the claim she was killing for the same reasons that neuter and release programs exist. But I don’t know. But somehow I got in my head that they said there was an ethical violation, and that’s the one that seemed to fit.” ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/390 "2015-05-19T19:15:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So far as I am aware, no one except the pet sitter has claimed that the cat was a pet – that is, the owners have not come forward. Establishing that the cat was a pet, and not feral, even for the purposes of supporting an ethics violation, can’t be done on that basis. I don’t mean because they say it is a pet. I mean that, because she did so in an apparently indiscriminate manner, it could have been a pet. This isn’t a legal trial, and there aren’t any legal standards of evidence. And I’m not addressing anything that AMVA would do, because, as far as I know, they can’t really do anything. I’m addressing why she was fired. My claim is a counter to the claim that she was fired because she caused an Internet shitstorm and and bringing her employer a public relations nightmare. In other word, even if this hadn’t gone viral, I think she still would have gotten fired. She made a public statement that I believe is in contradiction to the ethical guidelines (not laws or rules) she is supposed to uphold. And she did so while specifically citing her veterinarian status. I believe she was fired for not adhering to the ethical standards that her employer expected. I just don’t think the Internet backlash was the issue. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/391 "2015-05-19T19:32:44Z")
She was fired pretty fast. There was certainly outrage at the time, but the internet shitstorm really started after she was terminated. I suppose they could have been anticipating it, but I’m not sure what’s wrong with that anyway. A lot of employers have clauses to the effect that actions detrimental to the business are firable offenses. > [@BigT](#): > > And I’m not addressing anything that AMVA would do, because, as far as I know, they can’t really do anything. I assume they can kick her out. Again, this doesn’t have anything to do with her licensing status. I don’t think membership in the AVMA is a prerequisite to licensure. Of course, I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/392 "2015-05-19T20:17:26Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > She made a public statement that I believe is in contradiction to the ethical guidelines (not laws or rules) she is supposed to uphold. And she did so while specifically citing her veterinarian status. I believe she was fired for not adhering to the ethical standards that her employer expected. > > I just don’t think the Internet backlash was the issue. Well, I propose the following test, then: As you can see from [this link](https://www.avma.org/News/PressRoom/Pages/AVMA-Judicial-Council-to-review-complaints.aspx)… > [@](#): > > The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) was equally appalled and disturbed by this image, and immediately took action to assess the situation while responding to individual complaints via social media and telephone. A special e-mail address, [JudicialCouncil@avma.org](mailto:JudicialCouncil@avma.org), has been established to gather complaints regarding this situation and forward to the AVMA Judicial Council, which investigates all matters concerning allegations of unethical conduct of veterinarians. The AVMA Judicial Council can take action up to, and including, dismissal from the AVMA in accordance with the AVMA’s Rules of Disciplinary Procedures. So if your theory is correct, I assume you’d expect to hear, eventually, about the AVMA’s Judicial Council reaching a finding of some sort of ethical violation – right? And if that doesn’t happen, inside, say, a year, then I’d argue that this is good evidence that they won’t. Do you agree? ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/393 "2015-05-19T20:28:49Z")
Do the ethical standards of her employer have to adhere to the ethical standards of the AVMA? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2015, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/394 "2015-05-19T21:05:37Z")
> [@fachverwirrt](#): > > Do the ethical standards of her employer have to adhere to the ethical standards of the AVMA? Doesn’t matter if they do, since AVMA, the CSU School of Veterinary Medicine, the AAHA, and countless practicing vets have spoken up to condemn her actions. For the Washington County Animal Clinic to fire her, they’d simply have to have the same ethical standards as, I dunno, _all of their peers._ The ethics aren’t really in question to anyone paying attention, just the facts. What can be proven at each level? What standard of proof is required? Bricker, I’d be willing to make a bet that Kristen Lindsey will receive some punitive action from either the AVMA, the Texas vet license board, or the Austin County DA within the next 12 months. I win if it’s as little as 1 day suspension, you win if the worst she gets is a sternly worded letter. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2015, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/395 "2015-05-20T09:59:41Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Doesn’t matter if they do, since AVMA, the CSU School of Veterinary Medicine, the AAHA, and countless practicing vets have spoken up to condemn her actions. For the Washington County Animal Clinic to fire her, they’d simply have to have the same ethical standards as, I dunno, _all of their peers._ > > The ethics aren’t really in question to anyone paying attention, just the facts. What can be proven at each level? What standard of proof is required? > > Bricker, I’d be willing to make a bet that Kristen Lindsey will receive some punitive action from either the AVMA, the Texas vet license board, or the Austin County DA within the next 12 months. I win if it’s as little as 1 day suspension, you win if the worst she gets is a sternly worded letter. I’d like to explore what minimum action from the Austin County DA would allow you to win. For example, if the issue is presented to the grand jury but the grand jury fails to return a true bill – doesn’t indict, in other words – who wins? For the other two bodies, your standard sounds good: a one day suspension or greater punishment means you win; anything along the lines of simple verbal or written disapproval is a win for me. (For purposes of the bet, anyway; I don’t regard her killing a cat like this as a ‘win’ in any overarching sense). What stakes? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2015, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/396 "2015-05-20T12:26:13Z")
No indictment = you win. If you’re willing to grant me a win on indictment but no conviction, I think that’s generous but I’ll take it, although I think any sort of indictment will result in a plea. There’s a good chance I’m screwing myself on this timeline; the TX vet board says their review board process usually takes 12 to 36 months. I’m counting on this working it’s way through the wickets quicker than most, and also I don’t want to sit around for 3 years waiting for this bet to play out. $100? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2015, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/397 "2015-05-20T14:18:01Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > No indictment = you win. If you’re willing to grant me a win on indictment but no conviction, I think that’s generous but I’ll take it, although I think any sort of indictment will result in a plea. > > There’s a good chance I’m screwing myself on this timeline; the TX vet board says their review board process usually takes 12 to 36 months. I’m counting on this working it’s way through the wickets quicker than most, and also I don’t want to sit around for 3 years waiting for this bet to play out. > > $100? How about indictment-but-no-subsequent-conviction is a push? Neither one of us wins? If you accept that, we have a bet. 12 months, $100 to the winner. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2015, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/398 "2015-05-20T14:22:32Z")
Deal. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/399 "2015-05-20T14:24:19Z")
These are the moments that make me proud to be a Pitizen. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224/400 "2015-06-20T11:58:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 12 months, $100 to the winner. One month passed. The grand jury has met again, and again did not hear the case. There have been no news reports about any actions being taken by the judicial committee of the AVMA. Of course, it’s only one month. Plenty could happen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/veterinarian-brags-about-killing-a-cat/718224.md?page=21)