need advice!!!! ethical question

[winglessflight]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Your story reminds me of something I saw on the news a few years back. There was a couple with a small dog that had I think kidney failure. I could be wrong about the disease, but it isn't important to the story. Anyways, the dog wasn't doing so well, and the vet told them there was nothing more they could do for it. The owners elected to euthanize, which they stayed in the room for. The doctor gave a solution, "euthanizing the dog" and the owners left the body. A while later, the owners were at home and their "dead" dog came running up to them. What ended up happening was the vet had injected it with a sedative so that the owners thought it was dead (they didn't notice the breathing, although if they were upset/it was shallow I can see that), and kept it at the hospital treating it until one day it got loose while it was being walked and it ran home to its owners. When the article was published he was up for review, but I think in the process of losing his license.

 

[david594]

whether he intended to charge for treatment or not is irrelevant to whether he was right or wrong. the dog was already stiff and cold when they came in. and the dog came in as an emergency, also the vets do the estimates themselves. so. . .we tried to revive the dog, the dog died, he went and wrote the estimate. what was the point of writing an estimate for a dog that was already dead?
end of story.

Did the owners actually pay for anything? After hours emergency fee, intubation, epi, whatever else might have been done. Thats got to be a $400 bill right there.

 

[VAgirl]

Your story reminds me of something I saw on the news a few years back. There was a couple with a small dog that had I think kidney failure. I could be wrong about the disease, but it isn't important to the story. Anyways, the dog wasn't doing so well, and the vet told them there was nothing more they could do for it. The owners elected to euthanize, which they stayed in the room for. The doctor gave a solution, "euthanizing the dog" and the owners left the body. A while later, the owners were at home and their "dead" dog came running up to them. What ended up happening was the vet had injected it with a sedative so that the owners thought it was dead (they didn't notice the breathing, although if they were upset/it was shallow I can see that), and kept it at the hospital treating it until one day it got loose while it was being walked and it ran home to its owners. When the article was published he was up for review, but I think in the process of losing his license.

What was the vet's goal in lying here?? Did he really wanted the dog for his own?😕

 

[winglessflight]

What was the vet's goal in lying here?? Did he really wanted the dog for his own?😕

The article did not directly give much on why he did it, but I got the sense that he felt that he would take better care of the dog than the owners could. However, in the article the owners said that they would have done more and he told him there was nothing more that could be done. Granted, at the time they may have been limited financially, and were only able to do as much as they could afford. Obviously thats not an excuse for the vet to do what he did. If that was the reason, he could have seen if they wanted to sign over the dog to him to continue more extensive treatment.

 

[Hobiecat1642]

I also would really like to know the point of lying about that.

 

[winglessflight]

...

 

[lenadeb]

so basically that's it. he is being fired as soon as they find a replacement. and i know that he was reprimanded cause he came in today and didn't even make eye contact with me. . . .GOOD!

Why keep him a single day longer? It is OK to reward and pay for behavior you know is unacceptable until you find better help?

What else is the vet fabricating? Ear infections? Skin infections? Misreading blood work to have expensive treatments? Perhaps saying poo in an x-ray is a "foreign body" and wanting to do surgery?

Bad is bad. When trust is broken, it is broken.

There is no "half-way" when it comes to ethical behavior - it is or it is not. You can no more be "partly unethical" than you can be partly pregnant.

That vet lacks ethics - pure and simple.

We know how far he will go WITH a witness ... how far does he go when he thinks nobody is watching and he can't get caught??