Odd disciplinary issue... Any advice welcome!

SarEl

I'm afraid that I can't add anything to what I have already said, except to say that I am truly appalled that any veterinarian would put their own self-interest above the care of an animal. As a private citizen seeking care for her pet (which is what she is since this has nothing at all to do with her employment) she is entitled to as many opinions as she wants if it will help to cure her pet, make it's life easier, or put her mind at rest that she has done everything she can for it. Any vet who does not understand that doesn't deserve to be in practice.

d123

emsywoo123 wrote: »

Nope, Vets are not bound by any sort of confidentiality agreements/laws

Not even the Data Protection Act?

dandelionclock30

They wont dismiss her over this, they would make themselves a laughing stock if she took them to an employment tribunal. Its just silly.

anamenottaken

emsywoo123 wrote: »

Nope, Vets are not bound by any sort of confidentiality agreements/laws

Just like the rest of us in business - if they are keeping personal data (name, address, phone number for example), they should be registered as a data controller and are bound by data protection legislation.

However, to phone the veterinary practice they would need to know which one to call. Presumably whoever took the animal to the second practice told them - but may not have given permission for the contact to be made.

emsywoo123

SarEl wrote: »

I'm afraid that I can't add anything to what I have already said, except to say that I am truly appalled that any veterinarian would put their own self-interest above the care of an animal. As a private citizen seeking care for her pet (which is what she is since this has nothing at all to do with her employment) she is entitled to as many opinions as she wants if it will help to cure her pet, make it's life easier, or put her mind at rest that she has done everything she can for it. Any vet who does not understand that doesn't deserve to be in practice.

SarEl, I normally agree with you 100% and think you speak real sense when helping people BUT

You are trying to make this far too emotive!

Saying it has nothing to do with her employment? She is a trainee VN! It is with reference to a Vets practice! It is common courtesy. She *should* have been referred from her practice, or failing that at worst she could have at least told them.

emsywoo123

anamenottaken wrote: »

Just like the rest of us in business - if they are keeping personal data (name, address, phone number for example), they should be registered as a data controller and are bound by data protection legislation.

However, to phone the veterinary practice they would need to know which one to call. Presumably whoever took the animal to the second practice told them - but may not have given permission for the contact to be made.

Permission does not have to be sought-and seeing as everyone is up in arms about the welfare of this animal, surely they can realise that the dog would benefit from past history being made available to the current vet?

emsywoo123

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

They wont dismiss her over this, they would make themselves a laughing stock if she took them to an employment tribunal. Its just silly.

Has anyone mentioned dismissal anywhere?

emsywoo123

d123 wrote: »

Not even the Data Protection Act?

Not for the dog.

For example, a practice can call another and ask for details on the dogs history, i.e. "Fido Smith belonging to one Mary Smith" But they can't discuss Mary Smith IYSWIM?

SarEl

emsywoo123 wrote: »

Approaching this from a different angle, I used to be a VN, and I *do* understand why her practice are pee'd off.

Ease, location, speciality and other excuses aside, she could have got a referral from her practice. It does undermine the confidence and morale in a practice, and I can understand why they want to talk to her and possibly take it further.

That said, I do not think she has broken any laws, but they will take a *very*dim view of her

So you are saying that a nurse isn't allowed to have a second opinion if she isn't satisfied with a doctors failure to diagnose her parent in case the morale of the NHS is damaged? Why should the dog have less rights than a human being just because it isn't a "person". She has a responsibility for her pet, and for its care. And if they couldn't help it then that is unfortunate - but to blame her for seeking a second opinion is in poor taste and lacks morality. They should be supporting her in the care of her pet.

And if "referrals" are so critical - if they couldn't diagnose the dog and didn't know what was wrong, why didn't they suggest a more specilaised practice? It cuts both ways, if they are more concerned for its care than their own pockets. When one of my own dogs was critically ill some years ago and my practice couldn't work out what was wrong, that is what they did - sent me somewhere else. As it happens, the second practice couldn't diagnose the problem either and the dog finally recovered but without anyone ever having understood what had made him so ill. But at least they cared enough to say that they didn't know and someone else might!

emsywoo123

anamenottaken wrote: »

Just like the rest of us in business - if they are keeping personal data (name, address, phone number for example), they should be registered as a data controller and are bound by data protection legislation.
.

Quite right, apologies, I mean no "extras" such as Doctors etc