Letter to the Editor Courrier des lecteurs Ethical question on food animal practitioner treating mange — A comment Dear Editor, I do not agree with the position taken in the Letter to the Editor in the March 2014 (Can Vet J 2014;55:201) issue of The Canadian Veterinary Journal by Dr. Saul and Ms. Robinson of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario regarding the ethics of a veterinarian on a farm call to treat the farm dog for mange. A similar case was discussed in the Ethics column of the Journal a year or two ago regarding whether it was ethical for a veterinarian on a farm call, and with the appropriate anesthetic and surgical instruments, to neuter a cat at the farm. In both cases, the veterinarian was competent to do the procedure, but could run afoul of licensing regulations. Licensing authorities should recognize that cats and dogs on farms are legitimate farm animals and most are not considered “companion animals.” The farmer can reasonably expect that the veterinarian who comes to treat the cattle or horses would also treat the dog or cat while on the call.
What Dr. Saul and Ms. Robinson fail to take into account is that if the veterinarian had not treated the dog, it would have been left untreated. The farmer would not pay for an extra farm call or a trip to town to another clinic. The cat would have been castrated by sticking it in a boot and cutting it with a pocket knife, rather than going to town to have the procedure done at the clinic. The regulations cited in the letter by the College of Veterinarians are those regarding the granting of permission to run a business. The veterinarian in question has already demonstrated his/her competence as a veterinarian. There is another set of laws that come into play here; those regarding the humane treatment of animals. This was a question of ethics. In that regard, the humane treatment laws are more important than those of a business license. Florence Barton, DVM Penticton, British Columbia
Constructive and professional comments made in the spirit of intellectual debate are welcomed by the Editor. Writers are expected to be respectful of others and to ensure that letters are considerate and courteous. The Editor reserves the right to remove comments deemed to be inflammatory or disrespectful.
Erratum May 2014 – President’s Message/Mai 2014 – Mot du président The CVJ regrets that in the May 2014 issue (CVJ 2014;55:409) President’s Message (3rd paragraph) the spelling of Dr. Duane Landals was incorrect. Dr. Landals, please accept our apologies for this error. La RVC regrette que, dans le Mot du président (3e paragraphe) du numéro de mai 2014 (CVJ 2014;55:409), il se soit glissée une erreur d’orthographe dans le nom du Dr Duane Landals. Dr Landals, nous vous présentons nos excuses pour cette erreur.
CVJ / VOL 55 / JUNE 2014
513
What Dr. Saul and Ms. Robinson fail to take into account is that if the veterinarian had not treated the dog, it would have been left untreated. The farmer would not pay for an extra farm call or a trip to town to another clinic. The cat would have been castrated by sticking it in a boot and cutting it with a pocket knife, rather than going to town to have the procedure done at the clinic. The regulations cited in the letter by the College of Veterinarians are those regarding the granting of permission to run a business. The veterinarian in question has already demonstrated his/her competence as a veterinarian. There is another set of laws that come into play here; those regarding the humane treatment of animals. This was a question of ethics. In that regard, the humane treatment laws are more important than those of a business license. Florence Barton, DVM Penticton, British Columbia
Constructive and professional comments made in the spirit of intellectual debate are welcomed by the Editor. Writers are expected to be respectful of others and to ensure that letters are considerate and courteous. The Editor reserves the right to remove comments deemed to be inflammatory or disrespectful.
Erratum May 2014 – President’s Message/Mai 2014 – Mot du président The CVJ regrets that in the May 2014 issue (CVJ 2014;55:409) President’s Message (3rd paragraph) the spelling of Dr. Duane Landals was incorrect. Dr. Landals, please accept our apologies for this error. La RVC regrette que, dans le Mot du président (3e paragraphe) du numéro de mai 2014 (CVJ 2014;55:409), il se soit glissée une erreur d’orthographe dans le nom du Dr Duane Landals. Dr Landals, nous vous présentons nos excuses pour cette erreur.
CVJ / VOL 55 / JUNE 2014
513
