Downloaded from http://inpractice.bmj.com/ on June 18, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
Ever yday Ethics
Possession is nine-tenths
of the dog
THIS series gives readers the opportunity to consider and contribute to discussion
of some of the ethical dilemmas that can arise in veterinary practice. Each month,
a case scenario is presented, followed by discussion of some of the issues involved.
In addition, a possible way forward is suggested; however, there is rarely a cut-and-dried
answer in such cases, and readers may wish to suggest an alternative approach. This
month’s dilemma, ‘Possession is nine-tenths of the dog’, was submitted and discussed
by Richard Brown. Readers with comments to contribute are invited to send them
as soon as possible, so that they can be considered for publication in the next issue.
Discussion of the dilemma ‘Immediate dispatch?’, which was published in the May issue
of In Practice, appears on page 311.
The series is being coordinated by Siobhan Mullan, of the University of Bristol. It is
hoped it will provide a framework that will help practices find solutions when facing
similar dilemmas.
Possession is nine-tenths of the dog
Richard Brown qualified from
the University of Cambridge in
1981. He gained an MSc in tropical
veterinary medicine from the
Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary
Studies in 1986. He has served
as a veterinarian with various
overseas governments and has
practised for over 20 years in the
UK. He is currently an associate
director at the School of Veterinary
Medicine at City University in Hong
Kong.
A client comes and asks for his seven-year-old spaniel to be put to
sleep. The dog’s record shows only regular vaccinations, ecto- and
endoparasiticides, and a dental. The owner explains that this was
a difficult decision; his wife recently had a second baby, after which
the terrier’s behaviour became unpredictable and, in the last week,
both his older daughter and wife were bitten several times.
You inspect the dog, which appears clinically healthy. It is
active and ‘mouthy’ but not aggressive. You suggest rehoming, a
behaviourist and some time to reconsider, but the man is adamant.
He pays with a credit card and leaves.
However, before any action can be taken, a woman arrives and
explains that the man who dropped off the dog is her husband. They
are going through a messy divorce and she does not want the bitch
to be put to sleep. All the records are in the husband’s name; even
the original consent form. Although the wife purchased wormers,
she always paid in cash. Without possessing any documentary
evidence to link the dog to the woman, how should you proceed?
Issues to consider
In a small animal practice a lot of
different things can sometimes
happen all at one time. Therefore,
the vet needs to multitask,
sifting through the information
provided to retain and discard
many different ideas at one time.
This situation is an exercise in
prioritisation, which is a necessary
part of practising ethically.
Have you faced a dilemma that
you would like considered in a
future instalment of Everyday
Ethics? If so, e-mail a brief
outline to [email protected].
310
Fortunately, very few people are
extremely good and so talented at
lying that everyone is taken in. This
may be one of those situations and,
until you gather more evidence,
you should consider both the
husband and wife to be potential
liars.
Lots of permutations appear
possible here. If the dog is
owned by the woman, or at least
jointly owned, the man may
be committing an offence by
destroying the property, ‘chattel’,
of the woman and, therefore, there
is a possibility that the police could
be involved.
Equally, the man could be the sole
and rightful legal owner of the
dog and, therefore, have a legal
(if not moral) right to destroy his
property, even if it causes distress
to others.
Depending on the experience
and seniority of the vet in this
situation, it might be best to have
a more senior member of staff
conduct the formalities of working
through this tangled web, as their
knowledge and experience can be
invaluable in such a difficult and
bizarre situation.
The more a practice knows about
the character and behaviour of
their clients the better. Without
descending to outright gossip
it is good idea to allow or even
encourage staff to discuss the
behaviour and background of the
clients involved.
Possible way forward
First and foremost, keep the dog
alive. Therefore, immediately
make sure no one is ‘helpful’ (eg,
finds the cage with the signed
documents and puts the dog to
sleep). Also, double check that the
microchip is correct. Secondly, it
is vital to keep clear and accurate
records of what has transpired and
is about to occur.
As sensitively as possible, you
should move the woman out of
the reception area. Assign one
member of staff to stay with her
and inform her that the bitch is still
alive but that you have to check one
or two things first.
Even if you think you know how best
to proceed you should also check
with another body. For instance,
the BVA has legal advisers and
the Veterinary Defence Society is
In Practice June 2015 | Volume 37 | 310-311
310-311 EE.indd 310
04/06/2015 16:25
Downloaded from http://inpractice.bmj.com/ on June 18, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
Ever yday Ethics
check with a body you trust and get
their advice. Secondly, it depends
on whether any members of your
staff are willing to give evidence
that, in their opinion, the woman
is one of the owners. Given that
the man wanted to destroy the
dog, you could offer that she be
allowed to take over ownership,
depending on the legal advice you
have obtained. In addition, it is
important to consider the safety
and welfare of the dog; the woman
needs to demonstrate that she has
the proper means to look after the
dog.
Assessing rightful legal ownership of an animal is not always easy but it
can impact dramatically on a vet’s obligations and responsibility
always available to help members
as well. If you are really concerned,
you may even want to call in the
police.
Common sense suggests that the
dog should not be put to sleep.
However, this is dependent on
several things. First, you should
Any thoughts?
Readers with views to
contribute on ‘Possession is
nine-tenths of the dog’ should
e-mail them to inpractice@
bva-edit.co.uk so that they can
be considered for publication
in the next issue. The deadline
for receipt of comments is
Friday, July 3. Please limit
contributions to 200 words.
The bottom line is, don’t put the dog
down unless you are 100 per cent
sure it is correct to do so. The act is
irreversible.
doi:10.1136/inp.h3223
In Practice June 2015 | Volume 37 | 310-311
310-311 EE.indd 311
311
04/06/2015 16:25
Downloaded from http://inpractice.bmj.com/ on June 18, 2017 - Published by group.bmj.com
Possession is nine-tenths of the dog
Richard Brown
In Practice 2015 37: 310-311
doi: 10.1136/inp.h3223
Updated information and services can be found at:
http://inpractice.bmj.com/content/37/6/310
These include:
Email alerting
service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the
box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to:
http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
To order reprints go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To subscribe to BMJ go to:
http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/