Ethicists’ commentary on the veterinary-client-patient relationship
Ethical question of the month, August 2024
A veterinarian sees a cat with respiratory issues and prescribes appropriate support care. The cat’s condition declines over the next day (which is a holiday). The veterinarian agrees to see the cat again, having explained the practice policy of payment at the time of service. The client does not have the financial means to have the animal treated so does not arrive for the appointment. Instead, they make negative posts on social media about the practice and attempt to find veterinary care with a practice that has a payment plan, but they are not successful. They contact the initial practice that declines to see the cat due to the missed appointment and the social media posts. The cat dies in respiratory distress because of the illness. Should the veterinarian be seen as responsible? Is the veterinarian obliged to treat the animal despite the limited prospect of payment and after being subjected to online harassment?
Clare Palmer, Peter Sandøe, & Dan Weary comment on this dilemma and you can read it here: Ethicists’ commentary on the veterinary-client-patient relationship (pdf)