|
|
||||||||||
PRACTICE MANAGEMENT |
BVA Ethics and Welfare Group, 7 Mansfield Street, London W1G
9NQ
Myrtle Cottage, Stock Lane, Langford BS40 5EW
The dilemma in the last issue concerned a cat with small skin lesions that was presented by a woman who asked whether the lesions could be zoonotic (In Practice, May 2008, volume 30, page 292). After being informed that this was unlikely, she requested that the cat be euthanased, and stormed out of the practice without the animal when this was refused. The animal was rehomed, but a year later, a young man, who claimed to be the son of this woman and had just returned from university, insisted that he was the owner of the cat, which had been abandoned without his permission. He demanded to know where the cat was as he wanted it back. Niky Forrest commented that there was currently no foolproof way of identifying a pet as belonging to an individual. The vet had a responsibility to the original client, and her confidentiality should be upheld. The same applied to the new owners, and information about either party should not be divulged without their consent. It was suggested that the vet should seek legal advice before taking further action, the key factor being that there was a lack of consent from the original woman for rehoming the cat. A possible way forward would be to verify the man's ownership of the cat; the current owners could then be asked if they were willing to return the cat due to the extenuating circumstances. Ascertaining why the young man's mother abandoned the cat might also show that the vet was acting in the cat's best interests. The case highlighted the importance of definitively linking owners with their pets.
| HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | TABLE OF CONTENTS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | SUBSCRIPTIONS | EVENTS | FEEDBACK | HELP |