Microchip numbers don't match!

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:11:10 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Seems we're more alike than you care to admit, then. Welcome to the club. [/quote]

Sounds like the closing scene from the movie, when the baddy turns to the hero and says: "You vill neffer admit it, Herr Guthrie, but you unt me, vee are so alike", before falling out of the aeroplane / spontaneously combusting / the cliff collapses under his feet. Of course it is clear to everyone except the baddy that the two characters are polar opposites.

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]When did Arlo ever promise to be any of those? This is a private forum he owns, operates, and lets us use for FREE!

If that doesn't allow him to make the rules, then nothing does. [/quote]

I do appreciate the support Mark. Sometimes it can feel like a somewhat lonely battle. But that makes me sound rather too generous! This site is a business. My livelihood, in fact (hence why I guard it so carefully). So it's not at all magnanimous of me to let you use it for free. It was my calculated business decision to allow free access a) so as to build the largest possible community, which would be of greatest interest to advertisers, and b) because I genuinely (and passionately) want this to be the best information-sharing platform there is for veterinary surgeons, and charging for it would be a bar to that.

As to the rules, I don't especially want to make them. I don't see it as some sort of privilege. There's no ego thing going on here! I do what I think I need to do in order to maintain civilised discussion / debate.

Moderation is subjective. Has to be. Not everyone is always going to be happy with every decision. But I am open to being told I've got it wrong, and correcting my mistakes.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

David Mills — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:58:33 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]When did Arlo ever promise to be any of those? This is a private forum he owns, operates, and lets us use for FREE!

[/quote]

This is a peculiar line of argument to say the least. I haven't said he promised anything. Nor have I said anyting about the origins or parentage of the forum. Find the 'lets us use it' like some favour particularly strange - do you think he has any choice if he wishes to turn a profit?

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

Honestly, are you that desperate to have the last word?!

[/quote]

Hmmm. Not really. Was trying to draw a line. Bit of a needless reaction if you ask me.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:08:48 GMT

When did Arlo ever promise to be any of those? This is a private forum he owns, operates, and lets us use for FREE!

If that doesn't allow him to make the rules, then nothing does.

Honestly, are you that desperate to have the last word?!

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

David Mills — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:10:03 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

need to call a spade a spade (I'm not entirely joking here!). Actually, calling your argument refined crap was pretty tame. You should have seen the draft of my post.

...

I won't take offence, and I do listen to all rational points (ie those that agree with my own viewpoint )

[/quote]

Seems we're more alike than you care to admit, then. Welcome to the club.

Don't think we'll ever agree on your moderation. You see it as justified, and I can see why it has reason behind it.. It remains, to my mind, inconsistent, and overly subjective. You seem to agree with the latter, so as long as we all know where we are then, ho hum, that's the way it goes. Not sure if you'd ever make a Law Lord, however.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

An On MRCVS — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:47:27 GMT

Arlo I think your moderation is spot on - it's time people learnt to be civil to each other.

I'm impressed that the OP came back to this thread as well - that shows guts given the irrational reactions to her request for advice. As far as I can see it was dealt with in a professional adult manner.

Also it's odd that these people who claim to be so concerned about the possible ill effects of the OP on her colleagues seem to have so little regard for the effects their vitriol may have had on the OP, and others on this forum!

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Gillian Mostyn — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:44:52 GMT

Another way to look at it is would you say the same thing to your mother or spouse if you were debating a point with them? Even if you felt their argument was foolish. If not, why not? Perhaps because it may appear you are being unneccesarily rude?

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:16:24 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]So. Let's get down to brass tacks then Mr G. Where is this imaginary line between acceptable and not? And does is change according to poster? [/quote]

The line between acceptable or not is based on my own entirely subjective judgement as to whether a post is obviously rude or written with the intent of offending. In making that judgement, I look to see whether the poster has crossed the line from debating the point, to insulting the person. It's a pretty thankless job at the moment!

Time and time again, David, you accuse me of pandering to those crying foul. You just don't geddit, do you. Nobody has cried foul. Nobody complained about your ill-mannered oik of a post, for example. So yet again, your argument falls flat: I can hardly be listening to those that shout foul, if they aren't shouting.

No, it was entirely me that read your post the other day and thought: "What a patronising, arrogant and ill-mannered way to talk to someone."

I hasten to add that there are many times when I also look at things and think someone is being oversensitive; that they have taken offence when they should not have done. So David, I do not just sit here looking for things that I can stamp on for being offensive. In fact, on the scale of things, I'd say I am reasonably thick-skinned myself.

In answer to your next question, I try to be even-handed and not let things depend on the poster. But hey, I'm human. I guess I am likely to be swayed to some degree by someone's track record, if I can remember it. Thankfully, I can't remember much beyond about five minutes ago, so that is not often a problem.

I made a special exception when I said you talk crap. I've tried to explain to you at very great length, both in the forums and by private message, what I think good manners are, and why they need not stifle good healthy, heated debate. You have not once accepted that good manners are even remotely important; you seem to suggest that everyone should just be given free rein to say what they like, because you think it's healthy. You make no allowance for other people, or that other people are entitled to be more offended about something than you are. You make no allowance for the fact that many members of this site and the profession are women, and in my experience, women often do take greater offence at things than men. In the end, I thought perhaps I'm using the wrong language, and in order for you to understand me, I need to call a spade a spade (I'm not entirely joking here!). Actually, calling your argument refined crap was pretty tame. You should have seen the draft of my post.

[quote user="David Mills"]I think you (are we still allowed to use 'you'?).[/quote]

I'd rather you didn't. I'd prefer 'Sir' if you don't mind.

[quote user="David Mills"] Why not, to allay these concerns, and if you want to make this more democratic than knee-jerk, set up a panel to judge on these things?[/quote]

A panel. Oh for God's sake. Talk about politically correct. A panel to decide on whether a post is rude? Would that not be pandering to the small minority who just want to sit here shouting at others?

David, I have spent a lot of time trying to explain myself to you. As much time as I am prepared to, in fact. I won't be discussing the moderation of these forums with you any more. That's not to say I don't listen. If anyone else thinks I'm out of order or that my moderation of these forums is wrong in some way, please do post your feedback (separate thread please, this is going off-topic). I won't take offence, and I do listen to all rational points (ie those that agree with my own viewpoint )

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:47:18 GMT

It's the OP I feel sorry for. Poor person come along asking for advice, using an alias so as not to identify him/herself asking a little advice.Can't drop anyone in hot water if they are not identifiable.

They get little help from us, but boldly take the trouble to let us know how things get on. I hate it when threads are left hanging with no conclusion, then all they get is this crap. Pathetic really.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:24:14 GMT

Good manners are good.

"Political correctness" is bad.

Reprimanded for the lack of one, some people start whinging about the other.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Simon Neuhoff — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:19:51 GMT

Minority David? Check the post ratings. Most on here are silent - probably for fear of attracting outbursts from such as you. But they are not the minority.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

David Mills — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:50:02 GMT

[quote user="fluffygirl"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Honestly, David, you do talk some highly refined crap at times.[/quote]

Couldn't have put it better myself! Actually I could but I would have probably received a yellow card.

[/quote]

QED, Mr G. Can you yellow card yourself? Or at least apologise. I feel a tantrum coming on.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

David Mills — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:48:25 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Overt stifling political correctness? Honestly, David, you do talk some highly refined crap at times. Political correctness is the avoidance of language designed to further marginalise (usually) minority groups. This isn't about political correctness. It is about good manners. That is all.

[/quote]

So. Let's get down to brass tacks then Mr G. Where is this imaginary line between acceptable and not? And does is change according to poster?

I'm having trouble understanding it, see. You accuse me of talking crap: impolite. Martin is accused of 'verbally abusing' someone, which he categorically did not, and accuser gets no more than a slap on the wrist. Wait - I hear you mouthing 'mitigation'...not a defence.

This is exactly politically correctness. You are pandering to the cries of what are minority groups, who, like adolescent Spanish footballers, call foul at the slightest disagreement with their argument, and trying to 'control' what most people, I'd wager, would consider adult, heated, healthy debate. Martin Atkinson made reference to a rugby match, which is an accurate representation

I think you (are we still allowed to use 'you'?) are listening to those that shout foul/affect offence the quickest and with the minutest provocation. I'm uncomfortable with the didactic judgements on such. Why not, to allay these concerns, and if you want to make this more democratic than knee-jerk, set up a panel to judge on these things?

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

fluffygirl — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:44:04 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Honestly, David, you do talk some highly refined crap at times.[/quote]

Couldn't have put it better myself! Actually I could but I would have probably received a yellow card.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Rob Davis — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:45:54 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]

[quote user="Rob Davis"]

If this is the case, then what is the problem, Martin?

[/quote]

I suspect a little disingenuousness there, Rob; this is a topic which has caused a fair bit of heated debate on the forum in recent months. The bigwigs view horse vaccination forms and passports as being certificates rather than simple records, which means that the principles of certification need to be followed; for example, that you only record details for the correct animal and that if you sign your name to something which is inaccurate, that's automatically your fault, regardless of intent.

In this case, it's probably a case of mistaken numbers on a microchip from years ago - we all see them from time to time, and nobody necessarily suspects foul play. BUT: an imported horse has come through a system where a number of checks should have been made - ironically by the same border officials that play merry hell with the most minor of smudges on a rabies passport, and the same horse must be identified against an official document in order to certify that it has been vaccinated.

Nobody in their right mind - and unfortunately common sense isn't always brought into play - would suggest that this isn't the same horse that has been present with the owner for three years and which was imported prior to that, but it's not enough to claim that this is the same horse that has been vaccinated previously, because it looks like it, or the owner claims it is, particulalry where the documentation would indicate that the horse is chipped.

I'd be the first to roundly condemn any action taken against a veterinary surgeon in a case like this - and have been in the past when a not dissimilar occurence led to consequences for an old acquaintance; but I'd also be the first - and have been - to suggest that telling the world that one's colleagues have been remiss in their duties on several occasions is a really poor thing to do. It's not enough to riposte that it's unlikely to have consequences.

I don't think this debate has much future, outside of opportunities for more mud-slinging. I re-engaged to apologise for my comments, and also to point out that we all live in glass houses of some kind, which makes crying foul a bit of a minefield at the best of times. That's all from me, which I'm sure will be a blessed relief.

[/quote]

I didn't mean to be stirring, Martin (and it wasn't me that gave you 1 star!). I agree that in a perfect world microchips should be checked before signing the certificate, BUT if it's not a legal requirement, then nobody will be dropped in the sh1t if it's not been done. Sloppy, but not going to get them into trouble.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:06:12 GMT

Well, most of this was posted before the new three strikes rule came in, and I'm not doing anything retrospectively.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]I have had the temerity to re-read the original post. At no point does it discuss colleagues' actions, still less display rapidity and severity of condemnation.[/quote]

I agree. And ironically, it was Martin that highlighted the fact that Busybees colleagues may not have behaved appropriately (although even this appears not to be the case in the end, anyway).

Regardless of anything, though, Busybee does not give her real name, nor the name of her practice. So Martin, I think you are quite wrong to accuse her of potentially landing her colleagues in the SH1T by posting in the forum, and going off on one, as you did.

[quote user="David Mills"]The guy just feels strongly about what you did, and more importantly, posted sensitive details on a public internet forum after, in the grand scheme of things, something pretty mild such as an illegible certificate[/quote]

And for the same reason, David, your argument fails.

[quote user="David Mills"]Hmmmm a little strong, I think, actually. Please point to this 'shouting down' and 'verbal abuse' (did Martin phone you up? Come to your house?). [/quote]

I'd agree that 'verbally abused' is a bit strong. But I don't think you can for a moment argue that Busybee wasn't shouted down. That is exactly what the capital letters in the quote below denote in a forum.

[quote user="Martin Jones"] I'd suggest you take the hint in my post and STOP TALKING IN PUBLIC ABOUT THIS BEFORE YOU COMPLETELY DROP YOUR COLLEAGUES IN THE SH1T. Or you could continue to fling ill-advised non-sequiturs around in a pompous fashion whilst completely missing the point. Choice is yours.[/quote]

Once again, then, David, you are incorrect. I would also say that saying someone is 'flinging ill-advised non-sequiteurs around in pompous fashion' falls within the yellow card rule, except it was posted before I introduced it. It's unnecessarily rude, and not befitting a professional forum.

Finally,

[quote user="David Mills"]Rather than this forum becoming in danger of losing members through these over-reactions to disagreement, I think it'll lose far more members through a determination people have to take offence, the bowing to the lowest common denominator of offence/complaint, and an overt, stifling political correctness. I think this thread is becoming another example.[/quote]

If you don't like it, you know where the door is.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Martin Jones — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:13:18 GMT

[quote user="Rob Davis"]

If this is the case, then what is the problem, Martin?

[/quote]

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Simon Neuhoff — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:58:42 GMT

[quote user="Busybee"]

Having been another one who, after just asking for advice on a sensitive topic, got shouted down and verbally abused, I was going to leave this thread to disappear. But I've now come up with some answers which I think will be useful to other people reading the thread who may find themselves in a similar situation so I will post these.

I managed to get a lot of information from the National Equine Database and the BSJA with regards the passport and microchip information and it confirmed the passport I was presented with didn't match the horse. I have also spoken with the VDS for legal advice on the situation and was told that

1) most important is not to sign the passport this time (I hadn't anyway)

2) tell the owner it is their legal responsibility to have in their possession, a correct passport for the horse and they must sort this out. Record this conversation in the clinical notes.

3) the previous vets who vaccinated the 'wrong' horse will not get into trouble as a) there is no guarantee they were presented with the same horse I was - it could, for some unknown reason, have been the correct horse all those times. b) there is NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY for a vet to check the microchip number of a horse before vaccinating it and c) the diagram on the passport is very obscure and the markings unclear.

The plan at the moment is to present all the information to the owner and leave the rest up to them. If they decide to continue by obtaining a new passport for the horse with the correct details, they must restart the vaccination course. They will also be told to return the 'incorrect' passport to the issuing authority in Germany.

[/quote]

Well done in sticking to your guns and following your principles.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Rob Davis — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:43:15 GMT

[quote user="Busybee"]there is NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY for a vet to check the microchip number of a horse before vaccinating it [/quote]

If this is the case, then what is the problem, Martin?

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Martin Jones — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:37:21 GMT

Read on. The OP baldly states that none of her colleagues ever bothered to scan the horse.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:33:19 GMT

I have had the temerity to re-read the original post. At no point does it discuss colleagues' actions, still less display rapidity and severity of condemnation.

Edit: I have just accidentally hit the wrong button and "suggested" my own post as an answer. I can't see how to undo it. I really did not mean to.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

David Mills — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:18:45 GMT

[quote user="Busybee"]

Having been another one who, after just asking for advice on a sensitive topic, got shouted down and verbally abused, I was going to leave this thread to disappear.

[/quote]

Hmmmm a little strong, I think, actually. Please point to this 'shouting down' and 'verbal abuse' (did Martin phone you up? Come to your house?). His tone, he admits, may not have been great, but this is somewhat of an over-reaction. The guy just feels strongly about what you did, and more importantly, posted sensitive details on a public internet forum after, in the grand scheme of things, something pretty mild such as an illegible certificate - what you fail to tell us is whether the situation invited suspicion, or whether (as I suspect) it was a woman with some old horse who just wanted it vaccinating, in which case, I agree with Martin that your rapidity and severity of condemnation comes across as somewhat pedantic and hardly in keeping with the spirit of the profession given the ease with which vets are disciplined re certification.

Rather than this forum becoming in danger of losing members through these over-reactions to disagreement, I think it'll lose far more members through a determination people have to take offence, the bowing to the lowest common denominator of offence/complaint, and an overt, stifling political correctness. I think this thread is becoming another example.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Wren — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:17:35 GMT

...and that is why I only check microchips when owners request it (and at vettings of course!).

I suspect there are many, many horses in the country with the wrong passport. Several dealers in Ireland have the infamous 'passport drawer' and just pick out anything that vaguely fits when they sell a horse (or promise to forward it - then, of course, it never arrives ). Some of the Dutch/German warmblood breeding operations are vast - a lot of stock ends up being sold to the UK and the chances of something arriving in this country with the wrong passport (innocuously or deliberately) aren't all that small.

I feel sorry for the owner as I would guess that the passport shows some fancy breeding whereas they probably own the equine equivalent of a pig in a poke.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Martin Jones — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:31:57 GMT

[quote user="Busybee"]

Having been another one who, after just asking for advice on a sensitive topic, got shouted down and verbally abused, I was going to leave this thread to disappear.

[/quote]

(my italics)

I was going to ignore this comment, but on second thoughts I'll reply.

You're right: my tone was inappropriate, entirely supercilious and simply got in the way of making my point. For that I apologise. Righting other peoples' wrongs doesn't give one the right to stoop. I am sorry for speaking to you in this manner, and I'll be watching both what I say and how I say it much more closely in the future.

But.

You asked a question, which was fair enough. In doing so, you took steps to demonstrate that your colleagues had failed to behave appropriately or properly - on several occasions - in dealing with an imported animal. In the past few years, a number of vets (one of whom I know personally) have had their careers derailed or destroyed for false certification, with offences as minor as signing certificates that have been thrust in front of them by support staff. You had absolutely no right to discuss your colleagues' actions in a public forum, and you should understand that to have done so was to put them at potential risk of PIC / DC action. The information was superfluous to the matter in hand, and could and should have been omitted.

Secondly, I'm deeply committed to my profession, to my colleagues and to my patients. Implying that I'm unprofessional was insulting and unwarranted. Perhaps you might refresh your acquaintance with the guide to professional conduct in respect of such actions. My reply to you - to brush it off - was actually more graceful than you deserved and you might wish to reflect on that: I could be rolling around on the floor like an Italian footballer, but feel it would be both a little hyperbolic and a failure to take responsibility for my own failings..

So I'm happy to apologise for being an @rse: it's happened before and will no doubt happen again. But my advice is to think about what you post, and leave other peoples' actions out of it.

And perhaps that's a good place to leave it.

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Louise6732 — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:21:23 GMT

Busybee, I'm glad you've been able to sort out the issue you had with the passport. I'm not and never have been in equine practice, so I had no advice to help you out on this one!

I have to agree that the tone of some of the replies to your question/advice seeking was not necessary. This forum is here for exactly the kind of thing you've used it for - help and advice on both clinical cases and in your case paperwork/legalities, and is also for debate on controversal issues.

If we continue to speak to each other in the way some people have been recently, there will only be a few members left, as I for one do not find that kind of thing constructive or helpful.

Louise

Re: Microchip numbers don't match!

Busybee — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:26:06 GMT

1) most important is not to sign the passport this time (I hadn't anyway)

2) tell the owner it is their legal responsibility to have in their possession, a correct passport for the horse and they must sort this out. Record this conversation in the clinical notes.