Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Mammals
FerretsGuinea PigsHamstersRabbitsRats
Aquaria
GeneralMarine ReefFreshwaterPlantsCichlidsGoldfish
Birds
BirdsParrots
Miscellaneous
Animal HealthPet Loss
PetKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Pet Forum / Miscellaneous / Animal Health / April 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Hypothetical Ethical Dilemma

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Dale Atkin - 24 Apr 2007 21:56 GMT
So as many of you know, I've applied to vet school for this coming
september. I just finished my last final exam for the term today (guess why
I've been fairly quiet around here lately). A bunch of us hopefuls were
chatting after the exam about the interview, and we came up with an
interesting ethical problem. I know how I'd react, and I'm curious how the
vets around here would react (and how the non vets feel the vets should
react).

A client brings in an illegal exotic. The animal is well cared for. The
species is relatively simple to care for, but is illegal in your location.
What do you do? Seize and destroy the animal? Send the animal away? Treat
the animal? (The animal isn't in distress, and you do have the knowledge
required to treat the animal)

The specific example we were talking about was someone brings in a pet rat
for you to vaccinate (rats are illegal outside of a research setting in
Alberta). Your legal responsibility (here) is (apprently) to seize and
destroy the animal.

So, what would you do?

Dale
diddy - 24 Apr 2007 21:59 GMT
<labrador1@ibycus.com> whittled the following words:

> So as many of you know, I've applied to vet school for this coming
> september. I just finished my last final exam for the term today
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Dale

When I picked up a Great Horned Owl that was stranded in a wheat field, and
another time, a duck hit by car, both times the vets i took them to sent me
to wildlife rehab.
They weren't allowed to treat wild animals.
I would specify that you are not allowed to treat illegal pets.
Deborah, DVM - 24 Apr 2007 23:57 GMT
I think it would depend specifically on what type of animal we're talking
about.  I've had plenty of people want to bring in wild birds, squirrels,
raccoons, etc...animals that I'm not supposed to treat and that aren't
supposed to be kept by anyone other than a trained rehabber.  I decline to
treat these animals, and refer people to the wildlife center, but I'm not
going to turn them in.  Now if someone walked through my door with a tiger
cub or a poisonous snake or something with the potential to be dangerous not
only to that owner but to other individuals, I might be inclined to report
it.  Although quite honestly I doubt anyone with that type of animal would
be dumb enough to walk into a vet clinic and give over their name and info
without having verified before hand how the vet in question was going to
react ;-).

Deborah, DVM

p.s.  so what would your reaction be?

> So as many of you know, I've applied to vet school for this coming
> september. I just finished my last final exam for the term today (guess
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Dale
Dale Atkin - 25 Apr 2007 01:05 GMT
>I think it would depend specifically on what type of animal we're talking
>about.  I've had plenty of people want to bring in wild birds, squirrels,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> p.s.  so what would your reaction be?

Hadn't thought too much about wildlife. That one seems like a no brainer to
me. I'm thinking more along the lines of things which are often kept as
pets, but aren't indigenous to the area. (like someone bringing in a monkey
or some such thing, although being very unsure about proper care for a
monkey I don't think I can form an opinion there).
In the particular case of rats in Alberta there are actually two seperate
real scenarios that motivated the scenario.

Case 1: Someone brought in a rat with a lump to the clinic. They'd been
trying to find someone who would even look at their pet rat (they'd had it
for quite some time). The vet at the clinic had a look at the lump to see if
he thought it was something that needed removing (didn't feel comfortable
putting the rat under, as he had no experience with rats). This rat was a
hairless variety (so no chance of surviving our winters)
Case 2: Mentioned case 1 to a friend of mine (another hopeful) and she was
adament that she wouldn't look at the animal. She related to me a story of
someone who brought a rat in to her father to be vaccinated. They had just
moved to Alberta from another province where rats are legal pets. Her father
seized the rat and destroyed it.

Case 1. I would have looked at the rat. If that rat ever got loose, there is
no chance of it managing to successfully breed in the wild.
Case 2. I probably would have told them "You weren't here, I never saw you".
But I'm a little shakier on this one. The rat could conceivably get loose
and breed in the wild, and we are supposedly currently 'rat-free' in
Alberta. There have been cases of animals getting loose, and outcompeting
local populations (the local squirrel population is mostly decended from a
group that got loose from the zoo back in the 1960s). Then again, we aren't
*really* rat free, so it makes it difficult. Further seizing the rat will
damage the relationship between the vet and the community, and seems to
violate a trust.

Dale
John Hasler - 25 Apr 2007 02:30 GMT
Dale writes:
> Her father seized the rat and destroyed it.

He destroyed someone else's property without permission?  That would get
him in trouble in the US.
Signature

John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Rocky - 25 Apr 2007 04:08 GMT
John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> said in alt.med.veterinary:

>> Her father seized the rat and destroyed it.
>
> He destroyed someone else's property without permission?

In Dale's scenario, was the illegal rat property?

Signature

--Matt.  Rocky's a Dog.

John Hasler - 25 Apr 2007 04:33 GMT
Someone who Matt failed to attribute  wrote:
> Her father seized the rat and destroyed it.

I wrote:
> He destroyed someone else's property without permission?

Matt writes:
> In Dale's scenario, was the illegal rat property?

How could the vet know that it wasn't the property of the person who
brought it to him?  Seizure and destruction of "illegal" property is the
business of the government, not private individuals.
Signature

John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Dale Atkin - 25 Apr 2007 16:54 GMT
> John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> said in alt.med.veterinary:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> In Dale's scenario, was the illegal rat property?

To be honest I'm not totally sure I've been given the entire story. I
e-mailed a guy in the Alberta government who is responsible for information
on the rat control program in Alberta, and he told me a few interesting bits
and pieces.

1. Spayed and neutered rats are also illegal (this doesn't make sense to me,
but the source is reputable, so is probably true), all species of rat are
also illegal.
2. The law says that illegal rats have to be relocated or destroyed.
3. There was nothing in the e-mail he sent me about who would actually be
euthanizing the animal, but they expect a vet to report any cases of rats
being brought in.

What I suspect (although this wasn't what I was told, but seems to make the
most sense given the new information I have) is that the vet told the client
the law, and said the animal will have to be relocated or seized and
detroyed, and they said essentially "Ok destroy it then".

Dale
buglady - 25 Apr 2007 17:40 GMT
> To be honest I'm not totally sure I've been given the entire story. I
> e-mailed a guy in the Alberta government who is responsible for information
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> but the source is reputable, so is probably true), all species of rat are
> also illegal.
.........you need to see law on that to believe it.  Sounds totally
ridiculous to me.  What exactly is a S/N rat going to do?  Eat all the grain
crops in Canada?  Go out and purchsee new testicles so they can breed?   Or
are they worried about rabies?  Better start killing off all the wildlife
capable of catching rabies.......oh and cows too.  I'd be really interested
in the year this law was enacted - liable to be back in the dark ages.  OK
to keep ferrets in Canada?

> 2. The law says that illegal rats have to be relocated or destroyed.
> 3. There was nothing in the e-mail he sent me about who would actually be
> euthanizing the animal, but they expect a vet to report any cases of rats
> being brought in.
........they can expect anything they want, but  is it a legal requirement
that they do so?

buglady
take out the dog before replying
Dale Atkin - 27 Apr 2007 15:17 GMT
>> To be honest I'm not totally sure I've been given the entire story. I
>> e-mailed a guy in the Alberta government who is responsible for
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> also illegal.
> .........you need to see law on that to believe it.

I've been looking... I haven't been able to find a copy of it (which is why
I e-mailed to ask)

> Sounds totally
> ridiculous to me.  What exactly is a S/N rat going to do?  Eat all the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> interested
> in the year this law was enacted - liable to be back in the dark ages.

I think its roughly 1950s ish.

>OK
> to keep ferrets in Canada?

Yep. Its also Ok to keep rats in most of Canada, just not Alberta.

>> 2. The law says that illegal rats have to be relocated or destroyed.
>> 3. There was nothing in the e-mail he sent me about who would actually be
>> euthanizing the animal, but they expect a vet to report any cases of rats
>> being brought in.
> ........they can expect anything they want, but  is it a legal requirement
> that they do so?

You know I'm not sure... I think I'll e-mail the Alberta Veterinary Medicine
Association. They've probably got a better idea.

> buglady
> take out the dog before replying
buglady - 29 Apr 2007 12:44 GMT
> > ........they can expect anything they want, but  is it a legal requirement
> > that they do so?
>
> You know I'm not sure... I think I'll e-mail the Alberta Veterinary Medicine
> Association. They've probably got a better idea.

Dale, go read this for one vet's viewpoint on these kind of issues:
http://tinyurl.com/2bbdof

buglady
take out the dog before replying
John Hasler - 25 Apr 2007 19:15 GMT
> What I suspect (although this wasn't what I was told, but seems to make
> the most sense given the new information I have) is that the vet told the
> client the law, and said the animal will have to be relocated or seized
> and detroyed, and they said essentially "Ok destroy it then".

That's different.  I had the impression that the vet took it upon himself
to destroy the rat.
Signature

John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.