Odd disciplinary issue... Any advice welcome!

Emmzi

they are looking for a satisfactory explanation.

there is one - a) distance b) my husband decided, not me

That'd be satisfactory to me! And more importantly enough to let the employer save face. Then is can be asll about the "stupid husband" and not the employee.

lizzielondon

emsywoo123 wrote: »

She might get a warning, she might not, down to her practice really.

She won't get dismissed for it.

In my experience, Vets are very keen on professional courtesy, not displayed by a member of staff taking their pet (don't bother flapping about if the dog is her's or OH's) elsewhere without even notifying her practice.

I have nothing further to add, I have shared what I know but I'm not sure that I am either a) explaining it clearly enough or b) certain posters aren#t listening so I will bow out now

emsywoo is the issue she didn't tell them? that surprises me but I can accept it

But the issue being she took her elsewhere? just seems extreme

Where does it stop? Like a poster said above asda/morrison situation surely can't be enforced?

DVardysShadow

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

That might be true but Vet B was not actively treating the animal, it went there to have a particular test carried out.

I'd be doing something along the lines of the "DVardy defence". But I'd probably be leaving the threat of referring the practice to RCVS for unethical behaviour up my sleeve for later.

I tend to agree. When I wrote it, I knew it needed working on, but I did think it important to show how this could be taken forward.

Emmzi wrote: »

they are looking for a satisfactory explanation.

there is one - a) distance b) my husband decided, not me

That'd be satisfactory to me! And more importantly enough to let the employer save face. Then is can be asll about the "stupid husband" and not the employee.

I think that this is the way forward. But husband should not be undermined as 'stupid'. A letter may be required from him if this is not stopped off to show the practice where this could go - and painting husband as stupid will tend to suggest that there is a crack into which a wedge can be driven. It has to be about "husband whose judgement on this I respect"

emsywoo123

lizzielondon wrote: »

emsywoo is the issue she didn't tell them? that surprises me but I can accept it

I don't know, I'm not the Vet, but in my experience, yes.

emsywoo123

Uncertain wrote: »

You seem to have a very narrow view based on working for a couple of vets. Whilst that experience is obviously useful to this thread I think you are falling into the trap of assuming that what you have experienced defines the law or even common practice.

My experience is not limited to "working for a couple of vets" but I didn't know I was expected to fully qualify my opinion!

magenta22

Weird_Nev wrote: »

Her reasons for using that vet practice and not her own were many - they are specialists in the tests and the results come back in a day. It is closer to her husbands work and she was on a course a hundred miles away, so he could drop the dog off and pick it up more easily. In short, it made sense to take the dog there.

Surely this is a valid enough reason, her dog was ill, she was on a course and her husband could take him to the vet.

emsywoo123

OP, when is your friend's meeting?

Uncertain

emsywoo123 wrote: »

My experience is not limited to "working for a couple of vets" but I didn't know I was expected to fully qualify my opinion!

Well, in post 37 you said......

I can only speak of my experience of a VN in 2 practices.

"Only" .......

emsywoo123

Uncertain wrote: »

Well, in post 37 you said......



"Only" .......

Yes, I have only been a VN in 2 practices, but that is not the limit of my experience.

DVardysShadow

mountainofdebt wrote: »

actually I'm surprised that Vets B actually saw the dog in the first place whilst being a patient of Vets A.

I always understood that Vets, whilst not operating a closed shop, were funny about seeing an animal that usually went to another practice

I can see that for anything involving treatment, the reason seems sound enough. But for tests, which reveal info about the animal's condition, I can't see there is a real issue.