Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Health Professions
 
Board
Board of Veterinary Medicine
 
chapter
Regulations Governing the Practice of Veterinary Medicine [18 VAC 150 ‑ 20]
Action Addition to grounds for finding of unprofessional conduct
Stage Fast-Track
Comment Period Ended on 12/19/2012
spacer
Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
11/20/12  10:01 am
Commenter: Molly Mittens Mom

In support of holding veterinarians for fraud or deceit
 

As an owner of companion animals, I completely support adding the proposed text regarding committing fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in dealing with the board or in the veterinarian-client-patient relationship.  Since committing fraud is a criminal act, it seems redundant to have to add this.  Res ipsa loquitur.  The amazing point to this proposal is that the pet owners of Virginia did not already have this protection.  One would have thought that this proposed text would not have to be added in 2012 as part of unprofessional conduct.

 The more frightening part for animal lovers and pet owners is that in my opinion, the Commonwealth of Virginia has essentially no requirement that a veterinarian practice a reasonable standard of care.

I believe Virginia has no requirement of a reasonable standard of care for veterinarians despite the law 18VAC150-20-140 §7—“Practicing veterinary medicine or as an equine dental technician in such a manner as to endanger the health and welfare of his patients or the public, or being unable to practice veterinary medicine or as an equine dental technician with reasonable skill and safety.”

Point in case:

Molly Mittens a healthy kitten went in for a routine spay.

Her surgery ended at 1145 a.m.

Her owners were told at 2:30 p.m. that the surgery went well and that Molly was waking up fine.

At 4:40 p.m. the vet documents that Molly is “non responsive in her cage.”  The vet does not check Molly’s VS; the vet does not check Molly’s oxygenation and the vet does not notify the owner that Molly has a significant change in her neurological status.

No post op note was written.

Instead the vet turns off the lights and locks the doors and finds Molly dead in the morning.

This Board has determined that the veterinarian involved in Molly’s care did not violate any standard of care.  Thus it is acceptable standard of care in Virginia for a vet to leave a non responsive kitten that was waking up well from surgery 2 hours earlier, without any assessment, treatment or even notification to the owner.

I am not a veterinarian, but I can assure you that had I received a phone call, I would not have allowed Molly to stay overnight alone.  I would have immediately transferred her to an emergency vet clinic for treatment and monitoring. 

I am willing to share Molly’s records and my correspondence with any vet who would be willing to explain to me how this is acceptable care in any manner.  I have consulted several vets who all state emphatically, that Molly did not receive a reasonable standard of care.  

This Board feels her care was appropriate, but have refused to explain to me why it is acceptable to leave a non responsive kitten all alone to die in the dark without even notification to the owner to allow the owner to make an informed decision as to the kitten’s care. 

So in my opinoin, the pet owners in Virginia need to have as much protection as possible for their pets.  And in my opinoin, this is not the case currently in Virginia.

I can be contacted at mollymittens7@gmail.com

CommentID: 24506