Premium
Comments on the dilemma in the November/December issue: ‘Tethered dog dies’
Author(s) -
De Beukelaer Edward
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
in practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.211
H-Index - 25
eISSN - 2042-7689
pISSN - 0263-841X
DOI - 10.1136/inp.c7332
Subject(s) - misconduct , estate , dilemma , law , tying , political science , criminology , medicine , psychology , philosophy , epistemology , computer science , operating system
The dilemma in the November/December issue concerned a vet who transported a dog between clinics in the boot of an estate car ( In Practice , November/December 2010, volume 32, pages 514–515). The animal was secured with a lead, but on arrival it was found dead, trapped with the lead around its neck. The noises the dog had been making seemed to be agitation, and when they stopped the vet assumed the dog had gone to sleep. Pippa Swan commented that it could be assumed that the cause of death was strangulation and that the dog had suffered. It might have been a tragic misjudgement, but that could not absolve the vet's responsibility for the animal. A possible way forward would be to consider whether a vet who had behaved in this way should be judged more harshly than a member of the public. While vets should know the consequences of tying up a dog without proper supervision, they were also human and could make mistakes. Were the incident to be reported, the consequences for the vet might not stop at going to court; the RCVS Disciplinary Committee might decide that the vet was guilty of serious professional misconduct. If there was no evidence that the behaviour had any implications for future conduct, a decision for no further action, or a warning or reprimand might be sufficient.