After the ratting-on-a-vet post from earlier this week I received an interesting story courtesy of a fellow vet. It detailed the subject of his own brush with a nearby state’s Veterinary Board a few years ago. Here’s the story, paraphrased, with some identifying details altered:
Vet sees a new client with a young black shepherd. After congratulating the owner on her stunning dog, vet innocently asks where said client sourced such a gorgeous creature. Client confesses to having found the dog. No microchip. No tags. No tattoo. And no signs, client says, when vet asks. Strange.
The next day calls flood every vet practice in town looking for a dog matching this one’s distinctive description. It seems a pet sitter lost the dog while bathing it two days ago. The owners cut their vacation short to come home and scour the city for it, personally calling every animal hospital first in case someone had hit it with their car or tried to determine whether it carried a microchip (this was in the days before microchips were as commonplace).
Vet then calls the black shepherd’s client and leaves messages to say he’s likely found the dog’s true owners. After a day or two of no returned phone calls, the dog’s owners arrive personally with signs to place in the waiting room. Vet tells father and young son he knows who might have the dog but that she’s not returned his calls. Vet hands over the telephone number, thinking he’s done good deed. The family is elated at the break in the case.
The family can’t get this woman to return their calls. They find the address using the number and arrive on her doorstep. She calls the police.
Eventually the dog is returned, but not without a fight. Client calls the Veterinary Board to file a complaint against the vet. Vet Board “investigates” and vet is sanctioned for disclosing client records without consent. It’s just a $500 fine but it’s also a mark on his public record and an embarrassment to him (lots of vets read the Board’s bulletins recording veterinary transgressions like this). And it’s just plain unfair, he thinks. After all, he did the right thing for the dog’s real family.
In retrospect, he wishes he had called the Board to find out how to handle such a case. “I wish it had been them the ones to see this kid’s face in my waiting room,” he writes.
Today’s more widespread microchip use makes this scenario easier to sort out, you might think. But they also add another level of complexity:
Say the dog had borne a microchip vet discovered upon first visit. Would it have helped to have this number in hand? What’s a vet required to do if he suspects someone of having stolen the dog? Call the police? Let the microchip registry know? What if the “owner” claims the microchip is registered to her? How would we ever know? Unfortunately, “stealing” pets is still a simple business, microchip or not.
We’d like to think that we vets would always do the right thing by the real owners but if this vet’s case is any example, getting involved must be done through appropriate legal channels. Having the true owners subpoena your records is costly, but it might’ve been the only avenue in this case.
Vets are not enforcers of the law. We’re not required to act in these cases. But we, more than others, are in a far better position to intercede. Too bad that in this example, as in so many others I’ve discussed here on Dolittler, the truism holds: no good deed goes unpunished.
Add Comment18 Comments
And what are your options if an owner tells you they don't want you to scan for a chip, or you scan and find a previous owner, but the new owner tells you they don't want to contact the old owner ("Obviously they didn't really love their dog if it was running around in the streets! This is my dog now!").
What a snafu. I feel really bad for that vet just trying to do the right thing- and if I were the people whose dog was returned thanks to the actions of that vet, I would give that vet a great big Christmas hamper, a la Tricki Woo.
Megan November 15th, 2008 10:54:17 AM
I hope this vet at least feels good about the fact that he did the right thing. This is yet ANOTHER example about why my head explodes on the topic of veterinary boards. If said vet had killed a pet through negligence, I doubt he would have received the same degree of discipline. When vets bend the rules, or break them, to do a GOOD thing, the vet boards go after them, to teach them a "lesson." $500 may seem like nothing, but it's a fortune on the scale of vet board actions. In my review of hundreds, if not thousands, of veterinary disciplinary records, I've run across a couple of cases where a vet was presented with an animal who the owner requested euthanasia for, for a treatable condition. In a couple of these cases, the vets involved agreed to do the euthanasia, took he money, had the owner sign the euth request form, and then -- instead of euthanizing the animal, treated it back to health. In one case, the vet was naiive enough to call the owner after the animal was healed, and happily announce that not only was the dog not dead, but that he was healthy enough to go home. Well the owner did in fact demand the pet back, then file a complaint with the board. I recall that the fine and punishment in that case was at the HIGH end of what that board did compared to other cases -- you know, ones where the vets involved may have KILLED their patients instead of saving them. In another case, the vet kept the animal as a pet. The owners learned of it and filed a complaint. Did the vets break the rules? Yes. Should they have been disciplined? Maybe. But disciplined more strongly than those whose acts of negligence or substandard care may have contributed to or caused the death or injury of pets? Not unless the vet board's priorities are all wacked out. Which, of course, they are.
Stefani November 15th, 2008 11:55:59 AM
HIPAA (the health insurance info act) covers human patients, but I would be VERY surprised to find a similar law exists for dogs anywhere, and it certainly does not exist at the national level. Remember almost NO law covers human-veterinary interactions; dogs are mostly treated as objects, like tractors and trash cans. The problem here, I suspect, is not the law (specifically, what law was broken?), but the Veterinary Board which seems to be comprised of fools in this case if the story is indeed true. In fact, I suspect this is not a true story or is incomplete. Most veterinary boards are stacked AGAINST consumers, and for vets. Veterinary boards are self-regulating institutions (as are most medical boards) with almost all the members comprised of Vets, and maybe one or two consumers as a fig leaf. In this case, I cannot see a Veterinary Board in Florida (five licensed vets and 2 consumers), voting to sanction a Vet under the conditions described. I cannot imagine the consumer reps voting to do it either. I suspect an urban myth, but if there indeed a HIPAA for dogs I am all ears! Patrick
PBurns November 15th, 2008 01:08:18 PM
To my knowledge, "Doctor-Patient Privilege" is defeated by potential criminal liability of the doctor and by relevant lawsuits. You mentioned subpoena power, but I wonder if the simple observation of potential criminal liability would be sufficient. There must be at least one local "Accessory after the fact" or "Conspiracy to commit" law that would apply.
Although the issue here isn't really local or national criminal laws, but the Vet board, which can probably do what it wants. It's a little surprising that the miffed thieves would even contact the Vet board, as most non-professionals don't even realize such boards exist and think that the police or the courts are the only avenues of retribution.
Still, I'd be much more likely to give this Vet my business if they advertised their good deed, ethics complaint or no. While I've never seen a Vet even advertise, this one could probably have gotten some free "advertising" by being interviewed for a local news story that are typical of the "investigative reporters" who track local interest stories dealing with consumer fraud.
Christopher Landauer November 15th, 2008 03:50:41 PM
I have to agree with Christopher on this one. I suppose said vet probably should have contacted the board for advice before divulging the information.. but, by the same card, I would imagine there would have been greater potential for disciplinary action if they had advised him not to intervene and he elected to do it anyway. I've frequently wondered what would happen if one of my (chipped) pets were to find himself in the hands of an unscrupulous "good samaritan" intent on keeping him at any cost, particularly if the vet became aware that he was microchipped. I had the first chipped because, when he was younger, every time I'd take him out in public, strangers would approach me and inquire about purchasing either A) offspring or, B) the cat himself. (He's kind of an unusual specimen.) A couple of these would-be buyers were persistent to the point that they made me uncomfortable, and I became very concerned that if N. ever snuck out, he wouldn't be returned. At least with a chip, I reasoned, if a vet happened to scan him or I spotted him peering out of a neighbor's window, I'd have recourse.. and a chance to get him back. He may have been wrong on some level in giving the information directly to the client, but, seriously? This was a slap-on-the-wrist-worthy case if I've ever seen one.. at worst. If I were living in the area and seeking a vet, I think it would probably make me more likely to consider giving him my business as well.
Ramen Connoisseur November 15th, 2008 04:23:08 PM
I have to say that this situation concerns me. I specifically chipped my labrador who has Addison's Disease and happens to be a rescue because the previous owner found out where he was and showed up on my doorstep wanting to take him for the "day". Not a chance that was happening but she got quite angry and said she would be back. I had him chipped the next day just in case she should come back and some how take him. I figured without his meds he would get sick and hoping he might be taken to a vet my plan was to contact every vet in the province with his info.. So now you are telling me this would be a total waste of my time because anyone that brought him would be the presumed owner and the Vet could not help me without getting fined... Absolutley insane... This makes absolutely no sense.
So what would have happened if the vet had previous knowledge of a missing/stolen dog and it came in for treatment and they were concerned this was the lost/stolen dog?
Elizabeth - From Nova Scotia November 15th, 2008 05:46:59 PM
Megan: I'm powerless in the case you describe. If I were to write down the microchip number and call the company I'm technically overstepping my legal bounds. I have heard that exact line many times by owners who refuse to advertise that they've found a pet, and at least once by the new "owner" of a microchipped pet. It's heartbreaking in a way, knowing someone might actually be desperately searching for their lost dog. In this latter case, the new owner finally has a crisis of conscience and contacted the old owner--they agreed he should keep the dog. I'm jus glad I didn't have to be an unwitting party to a deception.
Dr. Patty Khuly November 15th, 2008 05:52:43 PM
PBurns: It may well be urban legend...no one can vet this one for me--unless I pressed my source for confirmation. But you have to admit...we're sometimes placed in tricky situations when it comes to assessing the identity of our patients. For example, I've personally observed owners try to fudge the OFA process by offering the wrong dog for X-rays.
At issue (with your comment) is whether boards are as responsive as they should be. And everyone knows they ain't.
Dr. Patty Khuly November 15th, 2008 05:59:56 PM
Hot dawg! What a PERFECT case for the vet board to give disciplinary action on....surely he must have been that years "volunteer"! Since most states are the same system as NH, let's go through the steps: case is filed, case rises to the level of investigation OR becomes public, board votes to not find for discipline---case is sealed from public forever OR discipline is imposed and case becomes public record. What better case to become public record for all the public to review and become printed...gosh, probably every vet in that state chipped in a buck for the $500 fine, right?? As far as a law being broken? Hmm, I don't think any professional is held to client privelege when "theft" is involved...but who knows...lots of "privelege" goes on in my state...http://clik.to/scotty
Barbara "Pocket's Story from NH" November 15th, 2008 06:29:18 PM
What if the situation had happened like this. A person, who just happens to be a vet, observed the missing dog with the person and not necessarily in the vet clinic who found it and was saying it was theirs. They could have observed the dog on the property of the person. They saw the lost dog posters and contacted the owners and informed them of where they had observed the dog. If the police had been called, a report filed and the board notified would they have still been able to discipline him? I think in this case it is just shades of gray........makes it less likely that people(vets) are going to get involved and help in the future if we worry that we can be punished for doing the right thing.
Jessica November 15th, 2008 06:43:47 PM
oh poopies, let's spell "privilege". I guess the vet boards are still a mystery to most, I have to admit, I never gave it a thought in all my pet-owning years, nor investigated existing animal laws either. I forgot to add how much of a win-win the above scenario is....disciplined vet is "public hero", vet board gets a point or statistic of doing their "job", and public wrongly assumes vet board is "picky" and definitely protecting the public....little does 99.9% know. On a serious note, a good friend chipped both her pups before placement & registered the information in her name. Less than a year later, she receives a call from NYC animal control to inform her they are holding dog. Frantic owner gets call from frantic breeder, all ends well with happy reunion & happy dog!!
Barbara "Pocket's Story from NH" November 15th, 2008 07:21:33 PM
I have mixed feelings on this. I do think the vet did the right thing, in helping the dog get back to his owner, however, I do not like the idea that he released information on a client.
Perhaps this is a case where the police could be more helpful. I'm not sure....
I've been on the other side in taking an animal that was allowed to run feel and be neglected as well. But I was honest with both the owners (when I returned the animal the first time after fully vetting him) and my vet. I made it clear that if the animal came to my home again he would not be returned.
ultimately I side with the vet on this one, and everyone knows no good deed goes unpunished. It is what makes people who do good deeds even more to be admired.
LorriM November 15th, 2008 11:43:46 PM
PBurns, you said: " and maybe one or two consumers as a fig leaf" LOL. Yes, most vet boards have a couple of "consumer members." Have you ever looked into the backgrounds of these consumer members? I cannot find a single one who represents the average "pet owner." Most are either: -- people with a long history in the agricultural use of animals, agribusiness, etc -- lawyers, with either no record in animal stuff, or a record HOSTILE to animal interestes -- rodeo people or the like (depending on the state . . . ) -- political appointees with no evident relevant prior experience -- industry hacks or lobbyists(in my state they just made some lady a public member who was a lobbyist for the fast food industry, fought against the public health lobby to keep sodas in school vending machines, if I recall correctly) Looking at the background of the "public members" I'm betting they are even MORE hostile to the complainants than the veterinarian members of the boards. It's worse than a joke, it's a travesty.
Stefani November 16th, 2008 01:29:14 AM
Stefani: Interestingly, my mother (an architect, foster-child advocate and human rights activist who had served on her own profession's board) was asked to be on the ethics committee for the State Bar. She served a couple of years so I like to think that consumer members are sometimes upstanding people who have no ties to the profession and little to gain from this time-consuming and ill-paying position. But then I'd have to agree--my mother's kind of special. ;-)
And Jessica: You see? There are ways. I like how you think.
Dr. Patty Khuly November 16th, 2008 07:54:14 AM
Dr. K, your mother does sound very special. You must be quite proud of her.
Since I come from the consumer perspective, I'd obviously like to see the public member slots on vet boards go to individuals who are reprsentative of consumers. After all, everyone else on the board has a "vet POV" -- seems only right to balance that.
OT: How does one enter line spaces in Dolittler 2.0?
Stefani November 16th, 2008 11:05:17 AM
The troubling conclusion is not that a Vet can get sanctioned, as this element of the story is up for debate (and of more interest to perfect record 4.0 seeking overachievers like our good Dr. K), but the FOR SURE reality that a simple "no, you can't scan 'my' dog" is enough for the thieves to live happily ever after.
I'm not one for more big brother, but I have to draw the line here. The police can pull me over and ask for my license AND REGISTRATION (i.e. do I own the car or is it stolen) for nearly any reason. The state has made Vets defacto licensers and revenue collectors especially for rabies. Why not give them them a little authority to go along with this reponsibility, which I believe Dr. K has written about before.
How about we empower vets to scan and confirm ownership (say, via the rabies vaccine database) when giving the vaccine or when any animal comes into their practice that has expired or no rabies tags? I know that said database is controversial and more big brother (i.e. a means to enforce other animal laws like limits) but this observation is defeated by the observation that people who microchip WANT to have their dog identified as their property.
It could even be as simple as having a national public database that simply lists the registration numbers of every dog scanned. No link to personal information, no other information at all. Simply this number was scanned on this date. Should you lose your dog, YOU know the number. And could have the website notify you if that number is ever scanned. Then you could subpeona or request the information on where, and by whom, etc.
and really, wrist slaps ar perfection seeking over achievers like our good Dr. K? I can tell she has an overactive justice meter, like me (I remember the first time
Christopher Landauer November 17th, 2008 06:24:50 PM
Seems to me that the person who found the dog, once informed that the dog's owner was looking for him could be charged with something along the lines of receipt of stolen property. If I had been the vet - I would have told the client that since dogs are property she could legally not keep someone else's property and that she could either do the right thing and contact the owner or I would contact authorities about the matter.
2CatMom November 18th, 2008 09:48:42 AM
Thanks for your sharing.This is a good access to Abercrombie and Fitch.
AF September 16th, 2009 09:15:40 PM
Add Commment