Case study and reflections library - Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria
Back Main menu Next

Case study on providing veterinary care to injured wildlife

Published in the September 2017 issue of Vetboard Victoria's newsletter

The following case study provides an opportunity for general reflection. The case study is based on a complaint about an individual set of circumstances at a particular time. As veterinary knowledge and professional and community standards and expectations change over time, readers should not assume that the Vet Board would make the same decision when presented with a similar complaint.

Background

An injured native animal was presented to a veterinary clinic by a wildlife carer after being hit by a car and suffering a suspected fracture to its hind leg.

The veterinary practitioner informed the wildlife carer that the clinic did not treat wildlife. After a short discussion with the wildlife carer, the practitioner agreed to go to the car to assess the animal. At the car, a discussion about euthanasia of the animal and subsequent disposal of the body became unproductive. The wildlife carer became frustrated at what was perceived to be the practitioner’s lack of action and after about 15 minutes left to find another veterinary clinic to treat the animal. The animal died before reaching the next veterinary clinic.

The wildlife carer alleged that the practitioner failed to provide emergency treatment (pain relief and/or euthanasia) to the animal and that the delay in undertaking veterinary treatment caused unnecessary pain and suffering to the animal.

After a preliminary investigation, the matter was referred to an informal hearing into the professional conduct of the practitioner. It was alleged that the practitioner failed to exercise reasonable skill and care as a veterinary practitioner in that they:
  1. unreasonably delayed assessing by proper clinical examination an injured animal, and
  2. failed to provide emergency treatment to the injured animal as soon as practicable.

Findings

The practitioner was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct in regard to allegation 1, but not allegation 2.

In regard to the first allegation, the informal hearing panel determined that the practitioner be counselled.

Counselling is a determination that may be made following a finding of unprofessional conduct.

It is a formal process during which the veterinary practitioner is informed of how their conduct failed to meet the minimum required standard and how that standard might be met in future.

A panel may counsel in any way it sees fit. The counselling may be oral, written, given immediately or within 28 days of the determination.

Counselling is permanently recorded on the veterinary practitioner’s file and may be referred to in any future Hearing or action taken by the Board.

Reasons for findings

The Panel made its findings based upon the following reasons:

  • Allegation 1: Unreasonable delay in assessing the injured animal by proper clinical examination

    The practitioner advised the informal hearing panel that they would not euthanase an animal without first assessing the nature of its injuries. The panel accepted that it was reasonable for the practitioner to assess the condition of the animal before performing euthanasia.

    However, at no stage did the practitioner examine the animal in any significant way while at the car. The panel considered that the practitioner did not take reasonable steps to prioritise the animal’s welfare during this time but allowed themselves to be distracted by an argument with the wildlife carer.

    While the panel acknowledged that both the practitioner and the wildlife carer may have contributed to the dispute, the panel determined that the practitioner’s delay in examining the animal resulted in unreasonable prolonging of the animal’s pain and suffering and that this constituted unprofessional conduct because it was of a lesser standard than that which might reasonably be expected of a veterinary practitioner.

  • Allegation 2: Failure to provide emergency treatment to the injured animal as soon as practicable.

    The panel acknowledged that although the practitioner had not examined the injured animal, they had indicated to the wildlife carer that they would do so.

    While the panel determined that the practitioner’s delay in examining the animal was unreasonable (as stated above), the carer’s decision to leave to seek assistance elsewhere meant that the practitioner did not have the opportunity to provide emergency treatment to the animal.

Relevant guidelines