September 2011 - Australian Veterinary Association

isk to our lives every day. The status of the disease
now is very different to what was seen in 1994. How
long will it take for the profession to refuse to accept the
public spin from government and ask for serious responses
to serious questions of veterinary science?
It may be time to seek Veterinary Surgeons Board assistance
to ensure an infection control program is a legal
requirement for every veterinary premise registration.
This may be the preferred option for government
as it will cost government nothing to implement and
compliance will be easy as they will come to the attention
of public health officials at each incident. Does our
profession want to be regulated by force?
Something needs to be done urgently.
Editor’s Note
In this issue there is an announcement by Minister Mulhearn
of proposed tracking of flying foxes and listing
other recently commissioned research initiatives. Also
in this issue is an article on the ecological importance of
flying foxes. Clearly the above comments of concern
underline that we may be dealing with an emerging disease
and problem, the dimensions of which have been
barely glimpsed. It is unsatisfactory for the problem to
be dismissed as a rarity requiring little intellectual input.
To treat or not to treat? That is the question. Whether it is nobler …
Dr Justin Schooth, Gympie Veterinary Services
Dr Justin Schooth, Gympie Veterinary
Services, writes to the Divisional Executive: We
are often presented with the clinical/ethical dilemma of
the client who does not have the money to pay for even
an initial consult. What are our responsibilities with regards
to seeing these clients/patients, either when the
animal needs urgent (but not emergency) treatment or
when the animal does need emergency attention?
A couple of not-so-hypothetical examples Dr Schooth
offers are:
Client rings up at night after hours with a fitting kitten
and wants to be seen but doesn't have enough
money to pay for initial after hours consult let alone
any treatment or further workup.
Client rings up after hours and has a horse that is
colicky and needs attention. The client lives 85 km
from clinic and has no money to pay for consultation
or travel.
The specific question is, are we required to see these
patients and if so what level of treatment do we need to
offer, given there is no prospect of receiving any remuneration
for treating these animals?
The Animal Care and Protection Act (AC&PA) address
a veterinarian’s duty of care responsibilities but not ethics.
The Registrar of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of
Queensland advises that the Board has no jurisdiction
in terms of ethics.
Duty of care responsibilities under the
AC&PA
The owner always has a duty of care, even when the
animal is temporarily in a veterinarian's care.
A veterinarian, when examining and treating an animal,
has temporary custody of the animal and so has a duty
of care. The duty of care in this situation would include
appropriate handling of the animal, providing appropriate
conditions and, when an animal is held, appropriate
housing. In deciding what is appropriate, regard must be
made for the species, environment and circumstances
of the animal and the steps that a veterinarian under
thecircumstances would reasonably be expected to
have taken. If an animal in the veterinarian´s custody is
in pain, analgesics should be used appropriately. Any
13
manipulations undertaken without analgesia (e.g. to assist
in diagnosis) should be kept to a minimum.
The veterinarian´s duty of care to an animal extends to
members of staff associated with the practice.
The veterinarian does not have sole duty of care −
rather it is a duty shared with the owner (or owner´s representative).
The owner always has a duty of care even
when the animal is temporarily in the care of the veterinarian.
The animal´s owner, for example, is responsible for deciding
what (if any) treatment that the veterinarian offers
is given. The veterinarian is responsible for providing
the owner with information on the animal welfare consequences
of such decisions. If an animal suffers because
of a decision (or lack of decision) by the owner who has
been informed of the possible consequences, the owner
is the responsible person.
If the owner indicates a preferred treatment but is unable
to pay for that treatment, the veterinarian may wish
to negotiate further options. There are obviously professional
ethical considerations that a veterinarian may
wish to consider, however under the Animal Care and
Protection Act 2001 (the ACPA), the owner is responsible
for the animal. A lack of ability to pay does not pass
that responsibility to the veterinarian.
If a person brings an animal that has been found injured
to a veterinarian, and the owner is not known, the veterinarian
assumes a duty of care obligation if he/she accepts
the care of the animal. If the animal´s owner is
located, it is again a duty shared with the owner.
There are numerous possible scenarios and circumstances
that may occur where an animal is presented
and the owner is not known. The ACPA does not define
all possible circumstances; rather it qualifies the duty of
care obligation to say that, in deciding what is appropriate,
regard must be given to the circumstances and the
steps a reasonable person would be expected to take. A
veterinarian, acting reasonably, has nothing to fear from
the AC&PA in this regard.
The AC&PA, while allowing a veterinarian to euthanase
animals, does not confer any right to do this. Inspectors,
under the ACPA, and the police do have the power, under
certain conditions, to destroy an animal if the in-