Recent VDS Newsletter

Re: Recent VDS Newsletter

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:55:49 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]It is the PIC/DC that decides what behaviour and actions are acceptable.[/quote]

In cases that might be professional misconduct, they do.

The semi-fictional cases described in the VDS newsletter are generally of alleged negligence.

Re: Recent VDS Newsletter

Bob Russell — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:59:31 GMT

My staff are covered by VDS and accept the limitations and confidentiality issues with the newsletter. The Daily Mail potentially would have a field day if they could link articles with specific vets!

I feel it is only right and proper that everyone here understands the mess it is easy to get into with just one slip up. A careless word by a receptionist could have far reaching consequences.

It is the PIC/DC that decides what behaviour and actions are acceptable. VDS has the job of defending us, right or wrong!

Re: Recent VDS Newsletter

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:51:32 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]These are generic cases but everyone in the practice reads the newsletter and we have a discussion of all the implications that there may be![/quote]That is as maybe but it does state that the newsletter is for members only so it shouldn't be left hanging around, least publicised in an open forum.

I do confess to a touch of hypocrisy here as i did once write a letter to VT discussing a VDS newsletter case in detail. That the above bold faced statement above started to appear on the newsletter a short time later may be just coincidental!

Re: Recent VDS Newsletter

Niall Taylor — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 08:16:48 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Not worried at all but the front page article showed me my PETS travel knowledge was not as good as it should have been.[/quote]

I wouldn't be so sure - I have a feeling there were some inaccuracies in that story.

Niall

Re: Recent VDS Newsletter

David Mills — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 19:07:23 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]VDS is about defending its members in an adversarial legal system.[/quote]

Granted.

To me, however, there were two avoidable f**k ups in those stories (We've all made f**k ups, I know). But the owners were left with the s**t to clear up, in one due to the actions of the vet and in the other due to an unavoidable disease.

The lack of culpability, and the legal rejoicing made me more than a little uncomfortable.

Re: Recent VDS Newsletter

Malcolm Ness — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 17:49:08 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Morally speaking,[/quote]

I can see your point, but it isn't about morals. VDS is about defending its members in an adversarial legal system.

Re: Recent VDS Newsletter

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:21:15 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

Morally speaking, was the right action taken in the farmer case and the cardiology case?

[/quote]

I'm going to have to read it again on Monday.....

Re: Recent VDS Newsletter

David Mills — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:38:46 GMT

Morally speaking, was the right action taken in the farmer case and the cardiology case?

Re: Recent VDS Newsletter

Bob Russell — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 10:56:47 GMT

Not worried at all but the front page article showed me my PETS travel knowledge was not as good as it should have been. Lesson learned (although have not been in the situation described!).

These are generic cases but everyone in the practice reads the newsletter and we have a discussion of all the implications that there may be!

Re: Recent VDS Newsletter

Martin Atkinson — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 10:00:27 GMT

Be careful what information you divulge here. I know the case examples are anonymous and often generic but the VDS newsletter is for their members only, not all readers of this forum will be VDS members.

Re: Recent VDS Newsletter

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 02:25:20 GMT

Erm, which three? I remember one taking a bit of following with Mrs thingamebob and the breech of confidentiality....