 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Cat Anecdotes / March 2005Veterinary Malpractice
This story was run in my area paper today. Thought some folks might find it interesting. When pets die at the vet, grieving owners call lawyers By Laura Parker, USA TODAY The patient had dental surgery, there were complications, and he died. Now his family members are accusing the doctor of negligence and claiming that the episode caused them emotional distress. It's a typical medical malpractice case except in this 3-year-old dispute, the patient was a sheepdog named Lucky. Barry Silver, the attorney for Lucky's owners, says that when the case goes to trial this year in Broward County, Fla., he intends to ask jurors to award hundreds of thousands of dollars to the dog's owners, Adam Riff and his mother, Ellen. If Silver is successful, Lucky's case would join a series of recent court decisions that essentially have treated animals as human under the law. In a reflection of the special place that pets have come to hold in Americans' hearts, U.S. courts are bucking centuries of legal decisions that have defined animals as property. In recent years, courts in New York, Maryland and Texas have resolved custody disputes involving pets by deciding what's best for the pet. Judges in 25 states have administered financial trusts set up in pets' names. And as Lucky's case indicates, there has been another turn in animal law: Courts have begun to take claims of veterinary malpractice seriously. Since 1997, courts in Kentucky and California have awarded damages to pet owners for loss of companionship, emotional distress and other factors that go beyond the way courts have long assessed animals' worth: by their market value. continued at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-14-pets-malpractice_x.htm Jeanne Hedge, as directed by Natasha ============ http://www.jhedge.com > This story was run in my area paper today. Thought some folks might > find it interesting. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > factors that go beyond the way courts have long assessed animals' > worth: by their market value. > continued at > > http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-14-pets-malpractice_x.htm > Jeanne Hedge, as directed by Natasha > > ============ > http://www.jhedge.com Hmmmmmmm *VERY* interesting! However, at this point I would be will to *GIVE* thousands of dollars just to have Bandit get better!!! Hugs, CatNipped > If Silver is successful, Lucky's case would join a series of recent court > decisions that essentially have treated animals as human under the law. In a > reflection of the special place that pets have come to hold in Americans' > hearts, U.S. courts are bucking centuries of legal decisions that have > defined animals as property. Wow. I have mixed feelings about this. Setting the legal precedent that pets are something more than just property is a good thing, but I hope that vet fees don't soar in response to overzealous grieving owners who want someone to blame for bad luck.  Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca >> If Silver is successful, Lucky's case would join a series of recent court >> decisions that essentially have treated animals as human under the law. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > someone to > blame for bad luck. I'm afraid we would also see vets refusing to treat many animals. This would be far easier for them than it is for a physician to refuse to treat a person. At the very least vets will likely start to insist on getting signed waivers before treatment limiting their liability and I don't see how that can be a good thing. We had a dog that probably dislocated her hip 7 or 8 times in the last few years of her life. The choices were surgery or to put her down. And our vet said it always almost made him sick to operate on her as he was quite fond of her and she was high risk. He didn't want to let her down. If he had been held to human malpractice standards there is no way he could have treated her. Jo > I'm afraid we would also see vets refusing to treat many animals. This > would be far easier for them than it is for a physician to refuse to treat a > person. IIRC vets have malpractice ins. now. The difference is, judges are now awarding pain and suffering and the like. > At the very least vets will likely start to insist on getting signed waivers > before treatment limiting their liability and I don't see how that can be a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > had been held to human malpractice standards there is no way he could have > treated her. When your choice is euthanasia or surgery, and you choose surgery, you are also choosing the risks. That's not an unusual scenario, by any stretch of the imagination - it takes place in vets all over the US every day. I'm glad judges are starting to see animals as more than chattel. Maybe now we can get stiffer sentances for animal abuse. -L. > > If Silver is successful, Lucky's case would join a series of recent court > > decisions that essentially have treated animals as human under the law. In a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca Took the words right out of my mouth, Monique. Yeah, really GROSS incompetence on the vet's part that caused death or severe injury to a basically healthy animal should be liable. But.... There aren't enough lawsuits, already??? Our animals can't tell us about unusual symptoms that might show us they had a serious disease or injury that might be treated in the early stages. They simply adjust to them, until the symptom becomes severe enough to be noticed by us. For example, the first time my regular vet examined Francesca a few days after I got her, HE missed the fact that she was pregnant, too. But I certainly wouldn't have taken him to court over it, since I totally missed it while living with her. Honest mistakes do happen. And I woulnd't want to see a responsible, good vet be forced to close his or her practice on account of a lawsuit from a grieving pet owner who had to have SOMEONE to blame for the death of his or her pet, even if the most competent and timely care in the world couldn't have saved it. Doctors whose patients can't talk operate under limitations doctors for people just don't have to deal with. I'd rather have a vet who could relax, and concentrate on caring for my cats, rather than have some poor nervous wreck who can't concentrate on his job for fear of being sued down to his skivvies by me. Melissa >>> If Silver is successful, Lucky's case would join a series of recent >>> court decisions that essentially have treated animals as human [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Melissa I agree with everything you said. I don't want my vet so afraid of a lawsuit that he would refuse to treat a pet for fear of reprisals. Having said that, I think most vets warn pet owners - any time a procedure requires sedation there is always a risk, especially the older the pet. Jill > I agree with everything you said. I don't want my vet so afraid of a > lawsuit that he would refuse to treat a pet for fear of reprisals. > Having > said that, I think most vets warn pet owners - any time a procedure > requires > sedation there is always a risk, especially the older the pet. Actually, while waivers are signed, this doesn't always sink in to a lot of humans, especially having outpatient procedures. One anesthesiologist cracked up a room of medical people by sniffing "ANYONE can put a patient to sleep. Getting them to wake up is the challenge." >> I agree with everything you said. I don't want my vet so afraid of a >> lawsuit that he would refuse to treat a pet for fear of reprisals. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > anesthesiologist cracked up a room of medical people by sniffing "ANYONE > can put a patient to sleep. Getting them to wake up is the challenge." Tomorrow night on the CBS news they are doing a piece on how animals are gaining in status in the eyes of the law. Just thought I'd give a heads up. > Took the words right out of my mouth, Monique. Yeah, really GROSS > incompetence on the vet's part that caused death or severe injury to a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > nervous wreck who can't concentrate on his job for fear of being sued down > to his skivvies by me. True, but I would also like to have actual recourse if my pet suffered under malpractice. I think the "value of the animal" awards are bullsh*t. What would a court say the strays I've taken in are worth? Nothing, since I didn't pay anything for them? People doctors diagnose, perform surgery, etc with the fear of being sued for malpractice. If anything, this has caused doctors to treat more cautiously and request more tests. Yes, this drives up the cost of medicine, but I guess this is the price we pay for the right to sue. Signature-Kelly kelly at farringtons dot net "Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG > > > If Silver is successful, Lucky's case would join a series of recent > court [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > down > to his skivvies by me. Remember there are physicians that have patients that can't talk. Obviously, pediatricians, especially neonatologists. Emergency physicians. If this happens, though, vets may not have the ego issues of human physicians, and do the thing that statistically prevents more malpractice than anything else: COMMUNICATE. That certainly includes telling people if there has been a problem, and taking responsibility for it if it was an error -- or, if it was unpreventable, try to offer the patient or family as much information as possible on what happened and why. Actually, I've seen vets do many of the things human physicians don't. Often, a vet will bend to the animal's height, or do other things that help them be nonthreatening. Sitting down to talk helps greatly. Many examining rooms have low stools and chairs, and, of course, there are times where the examiner must use the low stool. I've discussed interaction with some very fine clinicians, and they consciously sit on the stool with the patient on the table or in a chair -- having the patient look down on them rather than the other way around. Some methods probably aren't going to transfer from vets to physicians. I'd probably look strangely at an internist that gave me his paw to sniff. Now, I have nurses here that will offer their butts, which with humans...no, I don't want to go there...
|
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2008 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.