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

An amendment to regulations establishing grounds for unprofessional conduct (Section 140) is adopted to include “committing an act constituting fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in dealing with the board or in the veterinarian-client-patient relationship.”

Question: If this regulation were to beome part of unprofessional conduct, Would telling the pet owner that the pet needs to stay overnight in the clinic to "keep an eye on her" when the vet knows the clinic will not be staffed overnight be considered "misrepresentation"?

Especially in light of the fact, that when the client signed the disclosure that staff was not on site 5 years earlier, it was not given to the client as a separate document as is currently required by the regulations but was included in all the initial documentation that goes with the first visit to the clinic.

Especially in light of the fact, that the a copy of the discloure regarding staffing is not given to the client at the time the client signs the document.

Since, the staffing disclosure is given with other documents, the owner is only notified at the inital visit, since the owner is not given a copy of the document at the time of the initial visit and then 5 years later is told the pet has to stay overnight so they can "keep an eye on the pet" when they know that they are going to turn off the light and leave the helpless kitten all alone to die in the dark,  I believe that this scenario rises to the level of deceit and misrepresentation and possible fraud, when in cases the owner is charged for overnight "care".

This Board believes that it would be redundant to provide the owner a copy of the disclousre statement, to have a new disclosure statement signed at the time a pet is being left alone with an exception for a true emergeny situation or to post signs clearly notifying the owner as to the real truth as to what "keeping an eye" on the patient really means.

And this does not even begin to discuss the deceitful action of the vet promising to notify the owner of any changes, when the pet is waking up at 2:30 and is "non responsive" at 4:40 and the vet does not notify the owner.  I would think this also rises to deceit and misrepresentation.  But I think this already violated the duty to provide a reasonable standard of care, but this Board believes it is a reasonable standard of care to leave a non responsive helpless innocent kitten all alone to die, without notifiying the owner.

Just my thoughts.  Thank you for this forum.  Respectfully submitted.