Comments on the dilemma in the May issue: ‘Pet insurance problem’

The dilemma in the May issue concerned a veterinary surgeon who was reprimanded by their manager for including details of a newly identified condition in the clinical notes of a long‐standing client's dog (In Practice, May 2011, volume 33, pages 237–238). The owner had recently taken out pet insurance and risked being refused cover for the investigations and treatment being proposed. The manager suggested that such details should be omitted until the owner had secured the necessary pet insurance, but the veterinary surgeon was uncomfortable with this instruction. Glen Cousquer commented that, from a legal perspective, the practitioner was essentially being asked to defraud the insurance company. However, a utilitarian approach to the dilemma might well try to weigh up the good that might arise through turning a blind eye and judge that the benefits to the patient, client and practice outweighed the damage to the insurance company. He noted, however, that this might be an overly simplistic view of the problem, as the veterinary employee also had duties to the profession, society and the greater good. These wider duties could be easily overlooked, especially when faced with more immediate concerns, including the veterinary surgeon's wish to please their employer (or at least not displease them) and avoid placing their own employment in jeopardy. As a possible way forward, the need to behave honestly could gently be explained to the client, with help provided to check the terms of any insurance policy. A careful evaluation of all the clinical options could be made and the client fully supported in making the right decision for their pet. It would also be appropriate to carefully review the advice and information provided to clients about pet insurance and the anticipated costs of veterinary care, and how they could plan to meet these costs over the lifetime of a pet.