Gazette
Gazette
Letters DOG IDENTIFICATION
Getting ready for compulsory microchipping I WAS pleased to read the letter from Peter Scott (VR, May 2, 2015, vol 176, p 469) because it raises some important points in the debate on compulsory microchipping as we work towards an understanding of how this is going to work in practice. So far the RCVS has said that it does not 498 | Veterinary Record | May 9, 2015
anticipate the issue of who implanted the chip becoming an issue of professional conduct. The problem we practitioners have revolves around the central question ‘Who is responsible for an unidentifiable dog when nobody except the practitioner has got involved?’ We need to prepare for the reality – much of which we are already living, with ethical and professional conflicts and dilemmas. The example I relay to you is the question ‘What should the practitioner do?’ when faced with having to deal with a client who finds a stray dog and refuses
to take it to the pound, which is closed, the council has gone home and the dog warden is unavailable for four to 24 hours, and there is no kennel space left in the practice. Some councils now have a requirement that stray dogs need to be isolated in the pound for a period of time before they can be placed in a less biosecure zone, which also makes the handling of stray dogs by private veterinary practices more challenging, adding to the already difficult choice of taking in a potentially lethal infection such as parvovirus. The choices are (1) get the finder to keep the dog at home until the dog warden
Letters arrives or can be contacted, (2) let the dog go, and (3) euthanasia. The protocol for handling this requires some thoughtful preparation because the question is, ‘Who is responsible if the dog is unidentifiable due to not having a collar and tag and not having a readable microchip?’ Additional factors to consider would be whether the dog is injured and whether the injuries warrant treatment to relieve pain and suffering. In the event of the finder refusing to take the dog home after finding no microchip or identification or injuries, the question is, ‘Who is responsible if the dog is released and then causes a road traffic accident which results in injuries to humans and vehicles?’ Having thought about this for some time, as we lead up to April 2016, when I can guarantee not every dog will have been microchipped, so far nobody is willing to pay the costs of involving all veterinary surgeons for their part in this. Do I rightly or wrongly assume that my practice protocol should be to ask the finder of the dog to wait on the pavement outside the building and practice car park awaiting attention by my team? When the dog is scanned with the finder holding it by a lead and no identification is found, the instruction to the finder could be ‘You can either keep the dog at home until the council sends the dog warden or release it’. Does that maintain responsibility for the dog in the hands of the finder rather than the veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who scans the dog? Is there any way that the RCVS could find an issue of professional conduct in this suggested practice protocol and if so why? And then what is suggested as a change of plan to what has currently no alternative? Paul R. Manning, Astonlee Veterinary Hospital, Tickford Street, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire MK16 9BA e-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1136/vr.h2396
May 9, 2015 | Veterinary Record | 499
Gazette
Letters DOG IDENTIFICATION
Getting ready for compulsory microchipping I WAS pleased to read the letter from Peter Scott (VR, May 2, 2015, vol 176, p 469) because it raises some important points in the debate on compulsory microchipping as we work towards an understanding of how this is going to work in practice. So far the RCVS has said that it does not 498 | Veterinary Record | May 9, 2015
anticipate the issue of who implanted the chip becoming an issue of professional conduct. The problem we practitioners have revolves around the central question ‘Who is responsible for an unidentifiable dog when nobody except the practitioner has got involved?’ We need to prepare for the reality – much of which we are already living, with ethical and professional conflicts and dilemmas. The example I relay to you is the question ‘What should the practitioner do?’ when faced with having to deal with a client who finds a stray dog and refuses
to take it to the pound, which is closed, the council has gone home and the dog warden is unavailable for four to 24 hours, and there is no kennel space left in the practice. Some councils now have a requirement that stray dogs need to be isolated in the pound for a period of time before they can be placed in a less biosecure zone, which also makes the handling of stray dogs by private veterinary practices more challenging, adding to the already difficult choice of taking in a potentially lethal infection such as parvovirus. The choices are (1) get the finder to keep the dog at home until the dog warden
Letters arrives or can be contacted, (2) let the dog go, and (3) euthanasia. The protocol for handling this requires some thoughtful preparation because the question is, ‘Who is responsible if the dog is unidentifiable due to not having a collar and tag and not having a readable microchip?’ Additional factors to consider would be whether the dog is injured and whether the injuries warrant treatment to relieve pain and suffering. In the event of the finder refusing to take the dog home after finding no microchip or identification or injuries, the question is, ‘Who is responsible if the dog is released and then causes a road traffic accident which results in injuries to humans and vehicles?’ Having thought about this for some time, as we lead up to April 2016, when I can guarantee not every dog will have been microchipped, so far nobody is willing to pay the costs of involving all veterinary surgeons for their part in this. Do I rightly or wrongly assume that my practice protocol should be to ask the finder of the dog to wait on the pavement outside the building and practice car park awaiting attention by my team? When the dog is scanned with the finder holding it by a lead and no identification is found, the instruction to the finder could be ‘You can either keep the dog at home until the council sends the dog warden or release it’. Does that maintain responsibility for the dog in the hands of the finder rather than the veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who scans the dog? Is there any way that the RCVS could find an issue of professional conduct in this suggested practice protocol and if so why? And then what is suggested as a change of plan to what has currently no alternative? Paul R. Manning, Astonlee Veterinary Hospital, Tickford Street, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire MK16 9BA e-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1136/vr.h2396
May 9, 2015 | Veterinary Record | 499
