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?)
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.
Yes. As should have been clear when I posted this:
(emphasis added)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, you used the singular, so it’s still unclear to me which question you might mean.
Here are a bunch of them:
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.