|
Dr Melody Heath wrote in the “Hot Button” column of the June 2009 Veterinary Economics about the minefield and ethically dangerous path of criticizing other doctors.
I agree wholeheartedly. When presenting their pet for a second opinion, we know that clients may not have understood the previous doctor’s instructions, or may intentionally misrepresent or withhold information in order to induce you to provide evidence of malpractice.
Dr Heath wisely advises calling your colleague to discuss the case directly, which helps to avoid misunderstanding third-party information. Many times the client declined to perform the diagnostics tests they approved for you to perform. Likely the prior doctor could have successfully made the same diagnosis, if allowed to perform sufficient diagnostics.
However, sometimes the prior veterinarian did make a mistake. Dr Heath provides a list of some of the many actual blunders by colleagues that she’s seen in 15 years of practice: ureters ligated and urethras transected during sterilization; demodectic mange treated repeatedly with steroids; patients that died after a spay because of hemorrhage; iatrogenic tracheal ruptures; heating pad burns; and sponges left in abdomens. Dr Heath contends that criticizing the prior doctor only causes the client's and team member's perception of us to be lowered or negatively affect their attitudes. Dr Heath warns that one slight accusation can lead the client to sue the prior doctor and subpoena you for testimony.
In my own practice, I saw a patient whose ureter had been ligated effectively destroying one kidney. The client chose not to pursue a complaint about the prior doctor's spay surgery. But we honestly disclosed to the client what our surgeon found during the exploratory that turned into a nephrectomy (remove one kidney).
I contend that by brushing such concerns under the rug, we are doing more damage to the profession as a whole. You don’t know that the prior doctor has ligated the ureter on three patients in the last 5 years. You don’t know that the two spays who developed septic peritonitis were operated on by a surgeon who wasn’t wearing gloves or a mask.
When you see such egregious errors, you are morally, ethically and sometimes legally obligated to report them to your licensing body and probably to advise your client to file a complaint as well. You don’t have the resources and expertise to conduct an investigation, but the licensing agency is required to do so.
Allowing a negligent or incompetent doctor to continue practicing only endangers the public and the profession. The public consistently rates veterinarians very highly compared to other health professionals in compassion, honesty, trustworthiness, intelligence, education and technical proficiency. We stand to lose that trust if we don’t self-regulate. We cannot turn a blind eye and ignore what may be serious patient harm.
All of Dr Heath’s list of errors would constitute negligence: below the standard of what a reasonable and prudent veterinarian would commit. Do we ignore our colleague's errors and protect him or her from an impartial investigation or do we uphold the standards of our profession and protection of the public?
|
