Premium
Comments on the dilemma in the June issue: ‘Offering neighbourly advice’
Author(s) -
Mullan Siobhan
Publication year - 2012
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.e4326
Subject(s) - dilemma , disclaimer , advice (programming) , ethical dilemma , face (sociological concept) , fence (mathematics) , medicine , public relations , medical education , psychology , law , political science , sociology , engineering , computer science , social science , philosophy , structural engineering , epistemology , programming language
The dilemma in the June issue concerned a next door neighbour asking for advice about her grandson's rabbit, which had been taken to its local vet with a swelling on the side of its face ( In Practice , June 2012, volume 34, page 366). The practice had diagnosed an abscess and offered to remove it at a cost of £300, but you were not sure you would have recommended this. David Williams commented that this was both a clinical issue and an ethical dilemma. Abscesses arising from an infected tooth root could be difficult to manage and the ways in which vets dealt with them varied. The ethical dilemma concerned whether advice offered over a garden fence could be classed as a second opinion. It was possible that your comments would have repercussions in terms of the management of the rabbit and the relationship between the client and their vet. One option was to refuse to give an opinion, which seemed hard‐hearted. Another was to ask the owner to contact their vet before you gave your opinon. However, it was probably easier to preface any comments with a disclaimer that different vets had different views on treatment options and to emphasise that you were making suggestions without even having seen the animal. It was important to keep the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct at the forefront of your mind when offering advice in such circumstances.