I too am torn about this subject.

As a pet owner, it's my responsibility to use the best doctors I can find.

However, if one of my critters were mistakenly euthanized, I'd really have to weigh the circumstances and only possibly take action. A clinic must have sign authorization to euthanize so it's difficult to imagine how this might happen in a clinic setting.

If it were a shelter situation AND the shelter is doing a lot of good, you don't want to hamper their efforts. If the shelter is something you see on the 10 o'clock news for infractions, I might take a different route.

More than anything, it would most likely be an individual that should be removed from the situation.

I think it would depend on the circumstances, i.e., did the pet have a microchip? Any i.d. If not I would have to re-examine my ability to care for a pet properly. Accidents certainly do happen but it is not an excuse. As for a pet sitter, I would have to hold the individual responsible

OldBroad, yes, the most fitting thing would be that the culpable individuals be "removed" but that will never ever ever ever happen. The vet boards do not do anything. Really.

Vets around the country have literally beaten patients to death, smacked them off tables causing fatal head injuries. IN front of witnesses. The vet board does not "remove" such individuals, they are still "practising" in some cases in entirely literal terms.

I have heard of some Vets out there that are in it for the $ only...Please be careful with the Vet you pick for your Pet'. Check with the Better Business Bureau. Talk to friends and neighbors...hear what they have to say. If I ever witnessed such an act, especially from one sworn to take care of their patients/animals, I would report them and sue them..There is no room for abuse, neglect, mistreatment of animals. The Vets that are out there now, taking your money and behind closed doors, hurt animals, all I have to say is:"God sees, and He waits!"
TeresaNorman

Also re -- vets needing to have a signed euth consent. Nope. Not really. Here near me, in neighboring suburban virginia, a woman snatched a dog from apparently the sidewalk/street area in front of its home, took it to a vets, and because it was old and infirm, when the vet called the shelter to report the "stray" the shelter said just go ahead and euthanize him there. The vet did. NO ATTEMPT was made to locate the dogs owner.

Lest you think this is some hole in the wall, they are AAHA accredited.

The laws vary in different states but I do know that here where I live a shelter cannot euthanize a stray for at least 72 hours. Neither can a veterinarian unless it's for a necessary cause (i.e.; HBC (hit by car) and patient is so far gone that euthanasia is the most human thing to do at that point).
We work with a lot of rescues - dogs and cats. Every animal that walks through the door under a rescue group is scanned for a microchip.

I don't know how I feel about this. I haven't read the case in its entirety so I am not familiar with the details. I can say, however, that if it were my pet someone would have to answer a lot of questions. I mean a LOT of questions.

http://fairfaxstation.patch.com/articles/owners-of-euthanized-dog-may-file-lawsuit

Good or Bad......or should I say to Kill or not to Kill.I only support Non-Kill Shelters....This is why I take-in old Pet Kids.....no-one wants,Some or should I say A Lot of Families have lost their HOMES. I hope, when they are back on their feet, they will want them back,But after a year they are
home. I get no help, But Thank God, a very few help with the food, Only ONE,
helps paid Her Pet- Kids Doctors Medical Bills, when She can. Now this Wonderful Lady will get her Pet-Kids back, no-matter how long it takes.

I too am always torn on this issue. Well maybe not torn, but I can certainly see both sides of the issue. As a pet owner I know my pets are worth more to me than any property I own! But as a Registered Veterinary Technician I am constantly faced with client who are unable, or simply refuse, to pay for services our doctors recommend for their pets. We, as Veterinary professionals, utilize many of the same medications and treatments our Human-Medical counterparts use. I suggest you compare an invoice from a Veterinary case and human case which show the use of similar treatments and drugs and look at the price difference. Your veterinarian, regardless of how high his prices may seem, is most certainly not "over-charging" you. We are constantly undercharging to appease the pet owning public.
Our support staff is largely underpaid because our clients simply cannot provide our hospitals the kind of profit margins that would allow adequate and justifiable wages for our staff. Lets not forget that the people working at your veterinary clinic or hospital, while they surely love animal, are working their to support themselves and their families, and are not there on a voluntary basis. The cost of services, medications, hospitalization, surgeries, etc; not only have to cover the cost of products and supplies utilized in the care of your pets, they also have to cover the wages of the people working to improve and maintained your pets' health. Pet ownership is a privilege, not a right. Unfortunately many people who are unable to provide proper care for their pets due to financial constraints don't see it that way. When an emergency arises, and they are unable to foot the bill for medical expenses for their pets, the medical staff who wants to help that pet become the enemy. They fail to realize that the Veterinary staff in most cases cannot, and certainly should not be expected to, take on the burden of caring for someone else's pets. They have their own pets to care for.
Increasing the amount of monetary compensation a pet owner could sue for in the event of a loss will certainly have a ripple effect on the cost of veterinary services. Veterinary malpractice insurance will likely sky rocket, and that cost will be passed along to our clients, just as the insurance costs of human-medical professionals is passed onto their patients. The number of pets who's owners are unable to seek veterinary care for them is likely to increase, were this to occur. And the victims would be our animals.
Do I think pets should be valued more in litigious proceedings, absolutely!
Do I think clients will be understanding with the increased cost of medical care for their pets which may result from this, absolutely not.

The increased cost of care will be on the order of 25 cents per year per client pet. Please read Christopher Green's analysis of this issue. (link provided in my post below.) It uses data from the AVMA insurer.

Don't believe everything you hear. That includes the reason why your practice owners don't pay you more. Believe it when you see their tax returns.

Really, this should be only for those bad shelters, or should they be called abitoirs, where they kill, kill, kill. Or for the gun happy neighbors who shoot pets because "they were on my lawn". Really, in 40 years of pet parenting I've only met one vet who I thought was a really bad vet. And I didn't want to sue him, I wanted to kick him in the nads, punch him in the throat and whack him on the head with a baseball bat. Yeah, he was that bad!

Kat, but you didn't do that with the baseball bat, did you? No you didn't. Because it's illegal and you would have gone to jail. That wouldn't have helped anyone least of all your pet.

You need LEGAL means of recourse. It is nonsensical to say essentially, "I don't think there are many bad vets, therefore, there should be no veterinary liability." It does not make any sense to place ANY profession, any class of people, above and outside the reach of all laws.

Do you realize that in half the states in the United States, veterinarians are immune from prosecution under animal cruelty laws? In South Carolina, a case in which a veterinarian physically aggressed against a patient, banging the cats head on the steel table causing it's canine tooth to pierce it's tongue, ultimately the first in a sequence of events leading to the cats death (in which the ASPCA found evidence of a trauma injury to organs) was thrown out for one reason and one reason only:

As a veterinarian, this man was immune from prosecution for ANYTHING he did. A vet cannot be held to account for animal cruelty in South Carolina or half the states in the US.

To add insult to injury, when the witnesses and the bereaved pet parents (and in the case of this vet, there were MANY -- they filed a joint suit along with the employees who were witnesses) spoke out, he threatened them with defamation lawsuits. He may even have filed one. He intimidated people with threats.

Can you imagine a vet beats your cat to death, and you speak out about it, and then he threatens to essentially bankrupt you on top of killing your pet through a lawsuit? Great guy.

Remember a person doesn't have to win a lawsuit to force someone without means to pay for legal defense to shut up and comply with his demands. If one of his human victims didn't have money to defend themselves and were looking at losing what little they had in the world, it would have been compelling for them to just shut up, thus becoming entirely complicit with the legal and regulatory system that allows a vet to kill their animal.

Not only would you NOT pick up a baseball bat, but you would become silent against the killer of your pet in fear. YOu would essentially become an ally of your beloved pets murderer by helping hide his crimes. You think you wouldn't but you would. You may not have a choice. This happens to people ALL the time.

Oh, I didn't say bad vets shouldn't be held accountable. Every profession should be held accountable for truly bad/incompetent behavior. And veterinary boards need to step up and truly punish bad vets. But if a vet makes a legitimate mistake they shouldn't be paying the "emotional value" but they should be, at the least, made to take another class to 'refresh' them in knowledge and pay for the value of replacing that pet or paying to fix what they messed up. And the truly bad vet I had the displeasure of dealing with...yeah, I did hit him with a verbal bat. No, I didn't swear or even yell, I told him exactly how I felt about his ignorance. A week later I got a letter of apology from him, but, it was to little to late, and less than a year later he had so little clientele he declared bankruptcy and went out of business.

KATTONIC MOM SAID: Oh, I didn't say bad vets shouldn't be held accountable. Every profession should be held accountable for truly bad/incompetent behavior. And veterinary boards need to step up and truly punish bad vets. But if a vet makes a legitimate mistake they shouldn't be paying the "emotional value" but they should be, at the least, made to take another class to 'refresh' them in knowledge and pay for the value of replacing that pet or paying to fix what they messed up.

KATTONIC MOM, with all due respect, I went that route with physicians who failed to diagnose me for ten years with endometriosis. All that I asked the board to do was to have the two in question take continuing education on how to recognize the clinical symptoms so that another woman would not have to suffer as I did for so long. Nothing happened to them. Nothing. When you have physicians overseeing physicians or vets overseeing vets, it is more than likely that they will put themselves in the place of their colleague instead of putting themselves in the place of the one truly wronged....the victim . You must remember that not all lawsuits are frivolous. I am completely agsinst frivolous lawsuits. However, there are times when the only thing that will get the attention of a physician/vet/profession is having to face the music in a court of law. How could you not think that that would make them more mindful the next time? It is human nature to be more careful if you know that someone is looking over your shoulder. If you know that no matter what you do, you will get away with it, how can you possibly think that that is a good thing in ANY profession?



KATTONIC MOM SAID:
And the truly bad vet I had the displeasure of dealing with...yeah, I did hit him with a verbal bat. No, I didn't swear or even yell, I told him exactly how I felt about his ignorance. A week later I got a letter of apology from him, but, it was to little to late, and less than a year later he had so little clientele he declared bankruptcy and went out of business.

KATTONIC MOM, how much do you think that letter of apology did to help you heal, to make you feel better? You admitted yourself that it was "too little, too late." While this one particular vet's clientele may have dwindled so much that he went bankrupt and had to give up his practice, that is the exception, not the norm. All of the cases that Stefanio has cited prove that there will be no change in the modus operandi of the vet boards. The only thing, in my opinion, that will effect change, is what goes on in a court of law. Those of us who love our pets are elated over the TX decision and are anxiously awaiting a case that will set precedent so that our pets are no longer considered "things."

I'm in agreement, boards, whether medical or veterinary, police/fire, plumbing/electrical, should not be run by the very profession who has 'done wrong'. They should be by regular citizens who don't have something to lose by punishing the bad. And sometimes the only way to take a virtual baseball bat to someone is by suing them. However, an honest mistake can still take your pets life and should we be punishing a vet for an honest mistake? I'm done with this subject now.

Kattonic, I am glad that we have some common ground on this. But I am puzzled as to why you would be "done with this subject whe there is still so much to discuss. How does one categorize a 'mistake". if, for example, one brings medical records to a vet and those records are ignored , would that, in your mind, constitute a mistake or negligence? If, for example, a diagnostic test were available , yet not done, which would have correctly diagnosed the problem, would that be negligence or a mistake? How does one differentiate between a "mistake " and "negligence"? If one is in the medical profession , one is much more apt, in my opinion, to make excuses for bad behavior or negligence of a colleague than if one if not a member of the same profession.

Re: honest mistakes.

It depends.

If the "honest mistake" was made possible by negligence, then yes, they should be held responsible. The son of my former vet did not overdose my cat on purpose. He didn't know what syringe to use, and used a tuberculin instead of insulin syringe. This is the most common dosing error with insulin, but no well trained veterinary staff member would make it. The problem is this person was not well trained, and had in fact no formal training at all. He also was all alone, with no supervision.

So even though it was an "honest mistake" it occurred in the context of what I believe is very very clearly negligence on the part of the managing veterinarian.

There are "honest mistakes" that occur in spite of the fact that a veterinarian (or doctor, for that matter) is well trained, complying with standard practice, and behaving conscientiously. Fatigue, distraction, momentary lapses can all cause a good practitioner to make a mistake.

Most normal humans will not want to prosecute such an individual as long as he/she is honest and takes responsibility for such a lapse. That includes paying for associated care.

However, it is an entirely different matter when negligence is involved. The medical harm doesn't have to be deliberate, it can be inadvertent and still a result of negligence.

Let’s take a different approach to a pet’s value absent any reference to veterinarian’s malpractice consequences. Suppose I was walking my life-long best friend, Reesie, on a leash, on the sidewalk, in broad daylight, and a drunk driver jumped the curb narrowly missing me but killing my beautiful and wonderful chocolate lab soul-mate. What is Reesie’s value under those circumstances? I would re-mortgage my house and spend every penny I have to provide the best possible care for Reesie were she suffering from some illness that could be treated and possibly be reversed. That’s the value I place on her, but that is not enough. The bond and love we have for each other has no price. Would I take a million dollars and give Reesie up. Not on your life. So why isn’t the value I establish for Reesie not worthy of being upheld by the justice system?

Tpschmitt1 -

Your hypothetical situation is similar to what happened to veterinarian, Dr. Kenneth Newman's, dog.

To his credit, here is ONE veterinarian who doesn't sit "on the fence." He is trying to pass a law in Florida to establish value for our companion animals. Bravo to him.

http://www.pettrustlawblog.com/2010/09/articles/general/florida-veterinarian-proposes-legislation-for-loss-of-pets/

I would consider accidental euthanasia pretty egregious. I have a small pack at home but my rottie is "my boy". Aside from the emotional trauma this would cause, what other issues might this create? I have many many hours invested in him making him an ambassador for his breed. He not only has his CGC but is also the dog I use for CGC evaluations when doing them. He is an integral part of my training and rehabilitating dogs. The interesting twist is that I don't charge for training. My time is donated to local rescues and shelters for people who need behavioral training and can't otherwise afford it. If I were to lose him, I would have to start over which could take years to accomplish. How do you put a price on that? Would I sue them? Probably not. That is not my way but until they had proven to me they had done something to prevent something that egregious from happening again, I would spare no effort in making their lives miserable through public and social media outlets. Others aren't so creative.

Greg

Sadly Greg, until and unless there are better laws to protect our pets, and more value of our pets lives in the eyes of the law, publicizing what happened to your pet would be your ONLY recourse.

This is a very nice perspective from someone who gets it. Keep up your great work. The only thing that comes to mind is that your dog, “your boy,” is priceless and the courts of law need to change their thinking when valuing a pet’s intrinsic worth based on a misguided and disturbing property concept. Remember when people were bought and sold as property?

Dr. Coates, you said:

" . . . Would I file a lawsuit in response? Probably not, unless the case was so egregious that I felt some form of punishment was necessary. If I did sue, however, having the person at fault only be required to reimburse me for my pet’s economic value would be an insult to the relationship I have with my animals. Equating something we become emotionally involved with to a toaster has always seemed inherently unjust to me."

I want to ask you to let this guide you, this feeling and impulse that you have, NOT some economic calculation about malpractice rates or fear of needing to practice defensive medicine. Because those two latter concerns are based on FALSE perceptions and fear tactics used by your industry to defend this untenable two-faced position: Yes, we know your pets are family, but we support them having ZERO value in the eyes of the law. It is, as you know, our very love for them and the value they have to us that even creates a small animal practice in the first place.

Here are some thoughts I posted on Dogster about this:

Notwithstanding increasing claims related to vet malpractice in the courts, the price of veterinary liability insurance has GONE DOWN in both real and relative terms in recent years. Here is the AVMA announcing declining rates: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/nov11/111101e.asp

Moreover, lawyer Chris Green conducted a study on (the lack of) veterinary liability, including what would happen if vets actually could be held accountable legally for non-economic damages. His conclusions, backed by facts, including those from veterinary insurers, prove that this boogeyman of “vet costs . . . rising out of reach” if vets are held liable is a lie, a false claim that flies in the face of quantitative evidence showing that the impact on the cost of care if vets could be held liable would be negligible, literally pennies a year for the pet owner. (See http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus10animall163.htm)

On the topic of lawsuits and the possibility of people filing lawsuits for monetary gain or frivolously -- This cannot, and will not, happen. Here is why:

1. Even if damage recovery is allowed for the loss of a pet, it will likely be capped. Even if it’s not capped, we are talking tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

2. Because of the low recoverable damages, lawyers cannot (and will not be able to) take these cases “pro bono” (for free) or “on contingency” (free up front, for a percent of the award if you win). They do now, and will continue to, require plaintiffs to pay the lawyers hourly rate up front in order to prosecute the case.

3. Lawsuits of this type are not simple matters. A product liability or veterinary malpractice lawsuit is hard to win, and hard to prove. A plaintiff will need to pay for expert witnesses. Most of this type of case is lost. This is also true of medical malpractice cases. Although medical errors and iatrogenic injury are the third leading cause of human death, only a small fraction of those individuals harmed file cases. I cannot remember the exact percentage, but something on the order of 80% of those cases are lost. The damages awarded are on average MUCH lower than the rare cases generally publicized to mislead the American public into supporting "tort reform," poor suckers that we are.

So . . . you can see that the math does not provide an incentive for a plaintiff to file a frivolous lawsuit. A plaintiff can expect to spend $10-$100K (thousand) prosecuting the case, out of their pocket, in hourly lawyers fees and expert witness fees. All the while the plaintiff will be reliving the emotional hell of losing their pet, taking days off work to prosecute the case, etcetera.

If and when the plaintiff wins, the amount that can be won will not come anywhere near the amount of money the plaintiff spent on the case. If laws are passed that allow the recovery of legal expenses, it will at least recompense the successful plaintiff (who, as you must realize, has PROVEN THEIR CASE IN A COURT OF LAW, which means that the product manufacturer or vet truly did cause injury or death and was negligent etcetera — this has become a proven legal fact) for the cost of the lawsuit, but the recovery will not be enough to motivate such a suit.

Again, if non-economic damage recovery ends up where I think it will, with capped awards in the $25,000 range, a plaintiff would have had to spend perhaps $100 thousand out of pocket AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, prove his or her case in court in order to recover that. No one is going to do that unless they are motivated not by money, but by a search for justice.

So these cases will only be brought where compelling evidence of wrongdoing, negligence, etc. exists.

We pet owners should have that recourse.

Conscientious veterinarians should have nothing to fear. Like you, most of us would not even think of suing (or even, for that matter, filing a board complaint) UNLESS we felt that some truly egregious malpractice occurred. Moreover, we will be unable to find a lawyer willing to take the case EVEN on a pay-by-hour basis unless that lawyer is convinced of the merits. This is never going to be a money maker for lawyers or plaintiffs. What it hopefully will be is a DETERRENT.

Also, frankly, if you would like to see these kinds of things (vet malpractice) not end up in court, you might want to become an advocate within your profession for stronger enforcement of veterinary rules and standards of care. Vet boards really do not do a good job. They are a self-regulating industry and we saw with the "Minerals Management Service" and the BP oil spill the kind of lack of enforcement that inevitably results when industry insiders are tasked to enforce standards on their peers.

There is a veterinarian, licensed in the tri-state area of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, who was convicted in a case in which he beat his patient with a "tack" (I am not a horse person, that is apparently a metal rod of some sort) until he blinded the horse. He was convicted of animal cruelty for something he did while practicing as a vet -- acting on duty with a patient. Why is such an individual allowed to continue practicing?

Bill Baber in Tennessee was videotaped heart sticking fully conscious cats. The president of the veterinary board opined in the press about what an ordeal this poor man had gone through when his actions came to light. Not a word of sympathy for the cat he was videotaped stepping on before he shoved the needle in his chest.

Yes, these people are the exception. And then there are the truly negligent, like the vet I filed a complaint about. Leaving all the patients with his son, unsupervised. That was bound to lead to an injury sooner or later, and my cat drew the lucky number.

I believe that ONLY cases in which clear and convincing evidence exists would ever see the inside of a court, much less prevail. But for those cases we absolutely deserve our day in court, in which the value of our pets is fully recognized.

FYI here in my state of Maryland, you cannot even recover economic damages over the state cap. At the time my cat was overdosed by the unlicensed unsupervised son-of-a-vet, the cat was $5,000. His care, due to neurological injuries sustained from prolonged untreated hypoglycemia (apparently after administering the overdose of 30 units of insulin, he left and no one checked on the animals until at least 10 hours later, and then left him again for 13 more hours without treatment) cost me $16,000.

I was advised by my lawyer that I could not file suit to recover that amount, since his insurance company had already paid up to the state cap of $5,000, the suit would be thrown out as "frivolous."

To add insult to injury, the veterinarian had the nerve to tell me that my cat's intensive care doctors had nicknamed him "veggie-cat." This was part of a conversation in which he was trying to talk me into euthanizing him. A conversation he later claimed NEVER occurred. Just as he claimed, in front of the vet board, that he never had a conversation with the neurologist at the referral hospital during the day while he still had my cat, let alone one in which he acknowledged (as the neurologist told me) that they'd given my cat an insulin overdose (all the while telling me he thought my cat's condition was caused by a brain tumor or seizure disorder, till later he admitted the overdose, only to turn around and retract his admission ludicrously months later when he realized I was going to file a board complaint). Well, at least the neurologist had the scruples to show up and tell the truth at the vet board hearing. So, the board got to see what a duplicitous individual he was yet they only fined him $250. And frankly they fairly SNEERED at me the entire time, they have total disdain for pet owners who file complaints with them. It is really maddening to witness and I've seen them interact with others who have filed complaints and its the same -- they clearly are on the side of defending the vets.

So you are so worried about the cost of practicing defensive medicine. It's kind of funny, because there are a lot of hospitals around here -- the good high end ones like the VCAs -- that run the entire battery of tests for every single "differential diagnosis" possibility given a set of symptoms.

Once I was in a VCA paying the bill, and saw a big sign on the wall in the reception area which said: "We are BLEEDING MONEY!" and then "Charge for everything.!"

At another hospital the vets wanted to run the same set of tests for the same set of symptoms three times in two weeks.

A local vet who owns one of the largest ER practices her bragged in his online blog about the "gravy train" of prescription markups (200% at his practice before the online retailers became competition), and yet when he testified at the City Council opposing a law that would have allowed CAPPED non economic damages recovery (the highest recoverable amount proposed was $7k) his argument against it was that he would be forced to price veterinary care out of the reach of clients. He was sooooooo concerned about what his clients could afford. Yeh, so concerned that he brags about marking up prescriptions 200%.

And it kind of made me wonder: The $7k damage recovery would only be available in cases where a plaintiff proved, in a court of law, that someone had deliberately and with malice killed their pet. Not negligence (that was the lower capped amount of I believe $2,500).

So if he is so very sure this law will affect his practice, that must mean that he is sure some of his vets would be defendants in cases where a plaintiff had credible evidence that his vets had deliberately and with malice killed patients (NOT euth).

What does he know about his vets that the public doesn't?

Of course, notwithstanding passionate testimony from those of us whose pets have been harmed in favor of this legislation, and NO personal testimony from anyone taking the other position (only PIJAC and the DCVMA, and other "animal enterprise" reps) slickster vet/pet industry lobbyists went up to chum around with the council after the meeting, and that was one of the first things stripped out of the bill.

There were other provisions in the bill, and by the time the "lobbyists" and opportunists were done influencing the markup, the original sponsors of the bill were lobbying against it because they found it SET BACK the cause of animals.

Stefanio, a local vet who has a very lucrative practice bragged to one of his neighbors about all of the money he was raking in, not the quality of care that was being rendered.
It's clear that all that it will take is one large award for pain and suffering to set precedent. If that happens, the veterinary profession will wish that they had been reasonable and backed Gracie's Law.

What's there to be so torn over? Pets do have a sentimental value. Any doubt about it? That's the issue, not what the consequence of acknowledging their sentimental value for various dubiously interested parties will be. They do have a sentimental value. Got that? Now live with it. Practice safe medicine. Hire good techs. Work more hours to train them and watch over them while they are still learning; don't leave them unattended while you go off to play golf. Increase your safety margin. Then the consequence of "winning such a case" won't be of any concern to you. Not that when such a legal matter is decided, it should matter what the consequence is because pets do have a sentimental value, and to establish the consequeces of winning "such a case" shouldn't be relevant.

Of course there are some bad apples out there, but for the most part, people who work with animals for a living do so because they value them....

Not only are there BAD apples out there, the VET BOARDS and states are doing their best to PROTECT their butts! New Hampshire has stooped so LOW as to change the veterinary practice act in 2008 to specifically state that GOOD MORAL character can include FELONIES and misdemeanors to become licensed!
Why would "I" wonder about that? Surely I do NOT, after all, Veterinarians in the substance abuse /and or mentally ill program are given free pass to illegally and inhumanely murder a person's pet in the owners PRESENCE , no less.

Why? Because the couple of grand (if that) is a pittance to pay out. No matter the real LIFE financial, emotional, and mental damage to the individual that witnessed abhorrent cruelty and deceit , not too mention taking that person's future happiness away FOREVER!

Bad apples? Yes, teachers, doctors, football coaches, priests have all been loaded with their share of bad apples for DECADES; but you know what? Society no longer turns its back on it and eventually they pay up and ship out. So eventually will be the egregious and low-lives enjoying the weakest of all: "voiceless animals".

Defensive medicine? Get real, people can and DO DISCERN between: a mistake , and negligence, cheating the public, malpractice, and yes: BLATANT cruelty and disregard for just plain life whether human or animal.

Pocket's Story from New Hampshire
a case of complete and utter scamming and cruelty , complete with names and description

The major problem I see with establishing a monetary value to for pain and suffering over the loss of a pet due to malpractice, is that one person, who makes $30,000.00 a year might be compensated to a much lesser degree than someone earning $200,000. / year. The party making the higer salary could claim a much greater financial damage from pain and suffering, as they could claim a much greater financial loss, due to the pain and sufferin effect on their work performance. I employed over 20 Veterinarians for 16 years and never turned in a mal practice claim. Yes, we had Veterinarians make mistakes in practice, but we were upfront with the clients involved and asked them to tell us what they wished. We bought new pets on 2 occassions and gave them free life time veterinary care. I actually had these 2 clients buy more pets and payed us our regular fees to take care of the. The point is, the present system can and will work, as long as the professional and the client work together to solve the issue. It is usually a Veterinarian that takes a " I can do no wrong" attitude that gets in trouble .

Organized veterinary medicine, corporate veterinary medicine, and the spokesvets for my profession have been a huge disappointment as I have tried to push for legislation allowing for non economic damages when a pet is killed through negligence or malice. I climbed off of the fence the day that a Geico attorney told me that my beloved Gracie was property. My current concept for Gracie's Law protects veterinarians who prescribe adequate treatment plans.

GRACIE’S LAW


To recognize the emotional bond that exists between pets and people, the human animal bond, this law entitles the owner of a pet that is deliberately killed through an act of malice or accidentally killed through an act of negligence to the sum of $12,500 for loss of companionship and pain and suffering, plus all legal fees required to prove the negligence or malice. An equal amount, $12,500, will be donated to a pet rescue organization of the bereaved pet owner’s choice in honor of their lost pet. This law does not supersede the laws already in existence which entitles the pet owner to the value of their pet as property. In the case of an act of malice, all laws relating to criminal prosecution remain in effect. A veterinarian who prescribes an appropriate medical or surgical plan by community standard that is declined by the owner of the pet would not be held accountable under this law, should the medical record state that the owner of the pet declined the appropriate treatment.

The veterinary profession has promoted the human animal bond to encourage pet parents to spend ever increasing amounts for pet care, but feels they should be immune from prosecution. This is hypocritical and self serving. In his article, Christopher Green uses Veterinary insurance company estimates that a capped award of $25,000 would only increase liability insurance be $200 per year.

By refusing to work for legislation, veterinarians run the risk that a jury will award a much larger amount which could adversely affect our profession.

The public knows that pets are family. All that is required of veterinarians to right this injustice is an admission that pets are family. We have told the public this for over 30 years.

Please go to Gracie's Law-Pets are Family on facebook.

Kattonic Mom's comment about beating to death a bad vet with a baseball bat is ironic in that if a vet were to do that to one of his/her patients, he/she would more than likely get away with it, given the laxity of vet boards to punish. Yet, if Kattonic Mom did that to her "bad vet", she'd be in jail for murder.
It is sad that veterinarians and techs who claim to love animals are so silent on this issue. Those of us who love our pets would only admire them for taking the position that our court system should recognize the value of the human animal bond, an issue whose time has come. The veterinary profession will one day regret not having weighed in on this issue on the side of the pets. In fact, when Amendment 3 (to cap non economic damages in human med mal cases) was on the ballot in FL, vets failed to uphold their fellow colleagues, physicians, for a very self serving reason....because it would bring attention to the fact that they, veterinarians, were held blameless when they harm a companion animal through negligence. Talk about hypocrisy.....

'That'll just get us into trouble, admitting to the courts that pets are worth more. They have a hard time suing us now, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Isn't that what they say?'
-- Dr. Robert Greenwald, Venice, Florida, quoted in DVM Magazine, April 1, 2003, recommending that the profession lay low in backing laws that would fix caps on malpractice awards for emotional distress. Read full article here

When the AVMA, Texas VMA, AKC, and the insurance industry appealed the Texas ruling that pets have sentimental value, they are preventing all people who have lost a pet through negligence or malice to have their day in court. Veterinary malpractice is only one side of this issue. The decorated war hero, Marcus Luttrell could not be made whole again because his dog DASY, killed by derelicts in his back yard, was property. My Gracie, killed by a driver who backed up 25 yards without looking, as I lifted her into the rear of our station wagon, was legally property.

The Christopher Green article, The Future of Veterinary Malpractice should be mandatory reading by anyone with an opinion on this issue. It is easily found on the Internet with a google search.

Thank you Dr. Ken!

This is one thing the lobbying groups like AVMA should realize too when they are fighting legislation such as this:

THEY are the reason that a person whose estranged boyfriend takes their cat, tortures it, beats it, kills it, cannot really sue, because the pet is worth "nothing."

They are the reason that the neighbor who shoots your dog out of vengeance for the unmowed lawn cannot, for practical purposes be sued.

AVMA and vets who fight these laws are responsible for the deplorable lack of value pets have in the law in ALL circumstances -- not just those involving vets -- and the deplorable, heartless, unacceptable lack of standing human survivors of pet murder have in the eyes of the law.

It's simply not a tenable, believable, or honest position. It is totally contradictory to veterinary ethics to argue that pets (their patients) have zero value.

Veterinarians see a daily onslaught of legalized neglect and abuse because our pets are property and there are no legislated requirements for preventive care. Unvaccinated dogs and cats die from infectious,contagious, preventable diseases such as Distemper, Parvovirus, Panleukopenia, Feline Leukemia, etc. Dogs die from heartworm disease because bad or uneducated owners do not use preventive medicine. Puppies still die from hookworms. Roaming dogs are hit by cars. Euthanasia is practiced for convenience because it may be too expensive or inconvenient to treat.

If organized veterinary medicine truly believed in the human animal bond, it would be impossible to remain quiet. When pets have a legally mandated inherent value, maybe pet owners will have a responsibility to provide minimal care, as a parent must care for a child. Pets are living sentient beings. They suffer when they have bad owners. The property classification allows bad owners to neglect and abuse pets with immunity from consequences.

I, too, thank you Dr. Ken:

While I may not get behind 100% of your thoughts or legislation proposal , I can't help but see how close to my "home", you are.

My consumer protection complaint (public upon request) cited very similar resolution: not a DIME to me, if prosecuted and won, but money to an animal-related charity .

Yeah, well, that's before figuring out, as in many states, that the Attorney Generals Office is not for the consumer, but to PROTECT the state BOARDS of licensing as # 1.

Dr Ken: your proposal is so measly and minor, your profession should JUMP on it wholeheartedly. It amazes me that they don't. Why? Because just my example of extreme negligence and WILLFUL cruel behavior was documented into nearly 6 figures of actual and related out-of-pocket expenses. That does not even include insurance covered medical costs.

Are WE laughing here today? Do we all find this ludicrous? That an individual witnessing "in-your-face" cruelty could be so medically and financially compromised over "just an ANIMAL"?

Have it happen to you or a relative or friend, then tell me differently.

Pocket's Story from NH

Dr. Ken, I completely agree with your idea that the property status of pets not only allows bad vets and abusive people, as well as bad owners, to hurt animals.
Just today, I saw a kitten who was riddled with flea bites so badly that she was anemic. Thankfully, there is a wonderful tech with a heart of gold who has become this kitten's guardian angel. We are all here because we love animals, and I believe that the majority of vets and techs love them as well. But just as there are bads vets, there are also bad owners, who should be differentiated between pet parents. There is a big difference between a pet parent and a pet owner. A pet parent would never think of abandoning their family member, no matter how tough things get. A pet parent would go without for themself before they would deprive their pet of medical care, good food, and shelter. Unfortunately, just as there are some people who have no business having children, there are also people who have no business having a pet. Having a pet requires a lifetime committment, and unfortunately, there are those who do not honor that committment. It all boils down to the fact that pet parents see their pets as family and bad owners see their pets as property.

Amen. The alpha and omega, the heart of the matter. Are you a pet owner or a pet parent, Dr. Coates? I once again invite you and all of your spokesvet colleagues to climb over the fence and do the right thing. Please support Gracie's Law state by state and end the antiquated, self serving hypocrisy of organized veterinary medicine. Pets are family! The parent of a pet that is killed through negligence or malice is entitled to compensation for emotional distress, pain and suffering, and loss of companionship. The loss of Gracie has made me a more compassionate veterinarian, but the daily pain from walking on a crushed leg is a constant reminder that Gracie died from a careless driver's negligent act, that insensitive profit motivated insurance company attorneys have the law on their side, and my profession adds insult to injury by their belief that pets are property. Pets are Family. The times they are a changing. Time is on my side. I implore you all to simply do the right thing.

That was very eloquent, Dr. Ken.

Dr. Coates, I'd be really interested in a response to this question. Vet costs have skyrocketed in the past ten years. You admitted that you only pay $173 per year in insurance costs.
To what do you attribute the rise in veterinary care, since it can not accurately be blamed on frivolous lawsuits?

Dr. Coates, first of all, I think that your response in indicative of many people in your age bracket. Just because you decided to go to veterinary school does not mean that your clients should have to be charged more just to pay back your loans. Since when does the consumer have the responsibility in ANY venue, to pay for the education of someone else?
Secondly, I am going to give you an pragmatic example. I just pulled out old records from the year 2000. A Superchem screening was billed at $33.71. A CBC was billed at $18.70. Those prices were affordable for the masses. Fast forward to today, and the same tests that cost $52.41 now cost $135. Over twice as much. I pay more for our cats' labs than I do for my own. Yet, as a pet ages, those of us who are pet parents and not pet owners, know that CBC/chem should be run twice per year, and more often if the pet is exhibiting a clinically observable problem. How many people in today's economy have that kind of money, and particularly if they have MULTIPLE pets, as many of us who love animals do. Contrary to what an expert witness specialist testified to in court, a chem panel and a CBC are MINIMUM database in order to assess organ function, overall health of a patient. I am sorry , Dr. Coates, but I am not buying your veiled "entitlement" and "higher standard of care", argument.
If you are not careful , you and your colleagues are going to price your services into oblivion and your clientele will dwindle even more than it already has in this rough economy. And it will have NOTHING at all to do with frivolous lawsuits, Dr. Coates.

Pet Mom I will reply to your query. I have practiced veterinary medicine for 33 years and have a longer historical perspective than Dr Coates.

The federal government decided in the 1970's that a shortage of professional people including physicians, dentists, and veterinarians was leading to higher fees and that the laws of supply and demand would lead to lower fees if more students were trained in the medical professions. There were some canaries in the coal mine who warned that the opposite would occur. The medical pie is finite, and the more pigs feeding at the trough, the smaller the piece each can receive.

Human medicine was able to absorb far more new physicians due to specialization and third party payment, but that model is now broken.

Veterinary medicine has had a tremendous increase in specialization, but because veterinary expenses are usually out of pocket, many pet parents cannot afford the highest level of care.

Overhead is higher today, but a large part of the increase in veterinary fees comes from the fact that there are now too many veterinarians in many communities competing for a finite piece of the pie. To take in more money, you can either see more patients or raise fees. Since there are no more new patients to see, the fees have escalated.

You can also perform more services per patient. In some cases that is good medicine. In other cases, it amounts to unnecessary services for compensation.

All I can think of is "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" if you can't afford to practice, then maybe this isn't the right job or the right location..

I don't see how if there isn't enough money out there to survive, that raising your fees is actually going to get you more money. The laws of supply and demand say that the greater the demand then prices usually go up on the supply side. If there is less demand, then the prices go down. Inversely if you increase your prices, the demand will go down.

By raising your rates and then making more money, you aren't really in the supply/demand economics, you are more in the monopoly type of model.. You have what they want and you are the only one they can get it from so thus an increase in prices does not result in major drops in demand.. Yes, some people won't be able to afford it and will do with out.. but on the whole monopolies can get away with this.

It is a shame that supply / demand economics isn't in play here.

Thanks not only for being vocal about the "pets as family", issue, but for offering an opinion that makes more sense and is more plausible than that of Dr. Coates.
As more and more people have more and more trouble just putting gas in their cars, food on their table, and paying their mortgage, the escalating vet fees will more than likely result in many vets having to struggle just to stay in busines., Sadly, those of us who are dedicated pet parents will have to make up for the loss of clientele by being charged higher prices. Not fair, but probably what is and will happen.
Sadly, as much as my husband and I love animals, we have both decided that when our elderly "babies" pass on, that will probably be it for us when it comes to pets. Number one, because we are both getting old and would worry about what would happen to our pets should we pass on, and two, because the very high costs of care are difficult to afford with the escalating prices of the bare necessities in life. ( we do not have iphones, we don't have ipads, we don't even have a flat screen TV...we spend any "extra" that we have on our pets.

Re: honest mistakes.
STEFANIO'S POST IN LOWER CASE. (SINCE THE POP UP TO REPLY WILL NOT ENGAGE...NOT MY FAULT, I TRIED TO RESPOND IN THE NORMAL FASHION.
It depends.

If the "honest mistake" was made possible by negligence, then yes, they should be held responsible. The son of my former vet did not overdose my cat on purpose. He didn't know what syringe to use, and used a tuberculin instead of insulin syringe. This is the most common dosing error with insulin, but no well trained veterinary staff member would make it. The problem is this person was not well trained, and had in fact no formal training at all. He also was all alone, with no supervision.

So even though it was an "honest mistake" it occurred in the context of what I believe is very very clearly negligence on the part of the managing veterinarian.

STEFANIO, WELL PUT. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAKING AN "HONEST MISTAKE" AND BEING NEGLIGENT. IN THE CASE OF OUR DOG, THERE WERE REPEATED MISTAKES/NEGIGLENCE. NOT REVIEWING LABS THAT WERE HANBD CARRIED (AND LYING ABOUT HAVING RECEIVED THEM IN COURT), NOT MONITORING, LYING ABOUT A VET BEING ON PREMISES 24/7, NOT ORDERING THE PROPER TESTS GIVEN THE CLINICAL SYMPTOMS. MISSING A PRECIPITIOUS DROP IN HEMATOCRIT (INDICICATIVE OF INTERNAL BLEEDING) , ZEROING IN ON ONE DIAGNOSIS AND EXCLUDING THE MORE SERIOUS ONES. AND THIS WAS A SPECIALTY CLINIC.

There are "honest mistakes" that occur in spite of the fact that a veterinarian (or doctor, for that matter) is well trained, complying with standard practice, and behaving conscientiously. Fatigue, distraction, momentary lapses can all cause a good practitioner to make a mistake.

YES, AND AT TIMES, I TRULY THINK THAT SOME, NOT ALL , PRACTITIONERS REACT DIFFERENTLY TO A WOMAN THAN THEY DO TO A MAN. HOW MANY WOMEN HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THEIR PROBLEM IS "ALL IN THEIR HEAD" ONLY TO FIND LATER THAT THEY HAD AN ADVANCED STAGE OF DISEASE? SO, AT LEAST FROM MY EXPERIENCE, IT IS NOT ONLY DISTRACTION AND MOMENTARY LAPSE OR FATIGUE THAT CAN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MISTAKE/NEGLIGENCE, BUT ALSO GENDER BIAS AS WELL AS EGO.

Most normal humans will not want to prosecute such an individual as long as he/she is honest and takes responsibility for such a lapse. That includes paying for associated care.

YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, HERE, STEFANIO. TAKING RESPONSIBLILITY AND OWNING UP TO A MISTAKE (AND NOTICE I SAID, "SINGULAR", NOT A SERIES OF MISTAKES, WHICH IS INEXCUSABLE) IS THE KEY. HOWEVER, EVEN WHEN THAT IS DONE, IF A LOVED ONE DIES AS A RESULT OF THAT 'HONEST" MISTAKE, IT DOESN'T BRING THEM BACK OR BRING ANY SENSE OF CLOSURE OR PEACE . IT DOESN'T GIVE ONE THE SATISFACTION OF KNOWING THAT THIS PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS HAD TO PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE SAME.

However, it is an entirely different matter when negligence is involved. The medical harm doesn't have to be deliberate, it can be inadvertent and still a result of negligence.

AMEN. GREAT POST, STEFANIO.

I am always so sorry to hear of experiences like yours. Re: "LYING ABOUT A VET BEING ON PREMISES 24/7"
-- it would make you pull your hair out to realize how often this happens.

So many clinics take patients for admission, without making it explicitly clear to the owner that their pet will be left alone overnight. Sick animal, alone? Is that such a good idea? And what exactly are they charging for when they leave your animal alone overnight? Sigh. I learned this lesson the hard way. I will never ever ever again let any pet within my circle stay overnight at any hospital that is not 24-hour for real, not pretend. I need to be able to call at 3am and get a human on the phone. Otherwise the pet is better off with me at home.

As for men vs. women . . . there have been studies that reveal that many men habitually overestimate their skill level and performance, and many women habitually underestimate theirs. Given that trait, all other things being equal, I'm more inclined to look for female health professionals knowing this. The vet who fooled me into leaving my cat with him was textbook overconfident. He's written a profile of himself online that is dripping narcissistic delusion. Sadly, I used to be impressed by overconfidence which I mistook for self-assurance and conscientiousness. I only hope I have learned my lesson and I never get duped again into leaving my pets with someone so irresponsible and arrogant.

Here is something interesting -- there is something called the Dunning-Kruger effect which demonstrates that incompetent people tend to overestimate their skills, whereas competent people do not do this; instead competent people tend to assume others have skills and competence comparable to themselves, thus essentially overestimating the competence of others and underestimatng their own comparative skill level:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201006/when-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-classic-dunning-kruger-effect

Here is a study about how male medical students tend to overestimate their abilities and female medical students tend to underestimate their abilities; this phenomena exists in spite of the fact that women generally objectively performed at least as well as and often better than their male counterparts; I would imagine the same would be seen in veterinary students:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081003122713.htm

Also interesting

http://www.scwist.ca/images/uploads/recognising_our_true_selves.pdf

Yippee, the pop window actually worked. Stefanio, very interesting post. Thank you for giving us such an interesting perspective. I think that most women, living used to underestimate themselves, at least those of my generation, but that may have changed as more women have broken the glass ceiling and gotten into professions generally dominated by men. However, in my nearly 60 years on earth, I sadly, have seen just as much gender bias from women against me as from men. For example, when I was so ill with what was, unbeknownst to me, Stage IV endometriosis, I switched to a female doctor, thinking she would better understand what I was saying, rather than a male doctor. She was actually worse than the male doctor.
Each of the vets who misdiagnosed our dog at the specialty clinic was a woman. The only male was the intern who was supposed to be there at night and obviously, was not.
Women, as a rule, seem to be more "detail " oriented, but you can not generalize. My current PC doc is a woman and I love her. She listens to me and does not talk down to me. She is the one who found the thyroid nodule. Our current vet is a male and he also listens.
On the other hand, to be fair, the vast majority of physicians who failed to diagnose my endometriosis, and who did not take my symptoms seriously, were men.
I think much of it has to do with the ego of the person with whom one is dealing, whether male or female.
What it all boils down to, at least in my mind, is the fact that no one knows their body better than the person living in it, and no one knows their pet like the pet mom or dad. Our vet, who is male, even made the comment that most often, if a woman tells you that there is something wrong with her pet, there usually is. He also made a comment that one of his best professors said that when you assume anything, you make yourself look like an a##.
I think if you go to a doctor or a vet and have legitimate concerns, and ask for a test, whether that test is to ease your mind, or to rule out a condition which may be genetic, if the doctor or vet will not perform that test, then they are not thinking of the best interest of their patient. There is something to be said for peace of mind. Too often, as least in human medicine, one physician is afraid to step on another physician's toes, instead of thinking of the welfare of their patient first and foremost.

Stefanio. Ninety percent of veterinary students are now female. This plays into the hands of corporate ownership of veterinary practices. The female veterinarians are more accepting of mandated treatment protocols motivated by profit. They are less interested in owning their own practice. They are graduating with large student debt load which also makes commission based compensation attractive. I have not found them to be any more compassionate than male veterinarians. I do know that few of them want to work 85 hours a week as I did in 1982 managing an emergency clinic. With that said, the parent of a pet should carefully consider whether or not they trust their veterinarian, whether the vet is available to treat their pet kid more than 25-30 hours a week, etc. There are great female vets and there are great male vets. I once heard it said that physicians are most skilled in their late 40's to mid 50's, and that one of the largest tragedies of medicine is that many retire in these prime years because of the hassles in dealing with the current practice climate. Veterinarians in this age group are predominately male. There is no substitute for experience when a life is involved.

It was a male veterinarian in precisely that age group that negligently left my cat with his son unsupervised, resulting in a massive insulin overdose that went untreated for 24 hours. And then lied about it.

Dr. Ken:

For the most part I believe that gender bias whether "good or bad" really shouldn't play into the malpractice vs. good medicine aspect.

I think the only segment that has a predominately "male" bad apple-predator bunch is the priesthood. Other than that, bad people can be male or female. Both can scam, adeptly lie, and perpetrate cruelty. And human-attached victims can be simply any trusting individual , both men and women.

I do see your point of the values that have evolved over the years and lack of work ethic. I have found this equally distributed among the sexes. No longer do some have the drive of long hours, 24/7 responsibility to their patients. Many clinics operate on a take a number , see whos available, no personal followup, hence very little invested in the client or the patient---just taking that paycheck at the end of the week.

Seeing the Owner Practitioner sometimes changes this picture , and certainly one possessing driven quality and ethical values

Barbara,
I must say, having worked for both male and female bosses, I prefer working for a male, as from my experience, they are more apt to leave you alone to do your job, whereas a female, again, from my perspective only, is more apt to be competitive with another female and want to "lord" it over that she is the boss.
However, in the medical profession, I have seen some very, very compassionate males, and some very compassionate females as well.
I do think, though, that when a woman is sick, she is less apt to be taken seriously, so it would stand to reason that if a woman brings in a sick pet, or a pet that she feels may need a specific test to rule out a serious condition, based upon symptoms, she will be less apt to be taken seriously than a male.
I believe that there was some study done that when women have heart problems, they are much less apt to be diagnosed early enough to help them than when a man presents with the same problem/symptoms. I witnessed this firsthand when my mother's afib was not diagnosed until the sixth physician, a very astute cardiologist, correctly diagnosed her. Since the medical profession has, for so long, been male dominated, it is understandable, although not fair, that this might happen.
Imagine being very ill for ten years and having your pleas for help fall on deaf ears. I experienced that, and I can tell you that it is no fun. At one point, I was so ill that I truly didn't care if I lived or died because I was in so much pain.
I feel that much the same happened with our dog. I feel that because I am a woman, I was not taken seriously and my concerns fell on deaf ears. As a matter of fact, that is exactly how opposing counsel tried to paint me, as an overconcerned person, when my concerns were indeed, well founded, and what I thought our dog was suffering from was exactly what she was suffering from.
It is sad when a health care provider, be it a physician or a veterinarian, does not take the person LIVING in the "skin" and describing their symptoms seriously. Ditto for vets who fail to understand that the pet parent who truly cares and is observant and careful with their pets' health, is often right when their gut instinct, based upon living with the pet, brings them to the vet.

I must admit that as a male, I did overestimate the interest that the pet owning public and the media,including the annointed spokesvets of veterinary medicine, would have in the injustice of classifying our pet kids as chattel property.

Perhaps the most interesting thing that I read in this study is the fact that it is pervasive in American culture. I remember reading a study that showed that American students tend to overestimate their abilities in science and math, while their foreign counterparts then to underestimate theirs. (and actually outscore their American counterparts across the board) It seems that self esteem , the issue that has gotten so much play in recent years, has played a part in this effect. In other words, in my opinion, in American schools, as long as students feel good about themselves, it doesn't matter what they know, as long as they have high self esteem.

Regardless of how pervasive the phenomenon is, it is clear from Dunning's and others' work that many Americans, at least sometimes and under some conditions, have a tendency to inflate their worth. It is interesting, therefore, to see the phenomenon's mirror opposite in another culture. In research comparing North American and East Asian self-assessments, Heine of the University of British Columbia finds that East Asians tend to underestimate their abilities, with an aim toward improving the self and getting along with others.[10]

OK we are sooooo taking the topic into a totally other realm, so I just want to acknowledge that I realize that, but some of this stuff is interesting. RE: Americans and overconfidence. The field I work in is very diverse, and we have many people from other cultures working with us. I have been doing lots of interviews lately, and we ask people to rate their skill level in a variety of things on a numeric scale, then have them demonstrate knowledge in those areas with practical application questions. I just have observed that it tends to be individuals from China who seem to be the most accurate in rating their skills, based on the subsequent demonstrations. Another way of saying this is, least likely to over-inflate their own skill level. It's very interesting.

Message flagged Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:49 PM

You have been railing and pontificating for eight days now. You have made some great comments. According to your own words, "OK we are sooooo taking the topic into a totally other realm, so I just want to acknowledge that I realize that, but some of this stuff is interesting," you are abusing the blog.

But realizing that you are completely off topic does not seem to deter you from filling up my inbox with what you find interesting. Maybe, the rest of us do not. It is time for you to step down from your bully pulpit. Stop it.

If you want to carry on an off-topic communication with one or several other bloggers, do it outside the Fully Vetted blogship.

Thank you.

TPS - are you a moderator here?

I've been a regular poster to this blog for over 5 years. And i'm not the only one who has commented on other issues brought up on this thread. I'm going to ignore your "orders". Have a nice day!

No, I am not the moderator, and I do not make the rules. It really does not matter how long you have been a memeber of the blogship. I am simply reminding you of a Fully Vetted propriety.

I gave you your props for some great on-topic comments. Now I think it is time for you to observe the rules and confine you off-topic postulations to those whom you are directly addressing.

You have a great dat as well.

I do not think that you can generalize regarding which gender is more compassionate. It all depends upon the person. However, I have seen a male doctor cry when dealing with the subject of death, and I have never seen that from a female doctor. Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but it does mean that I haven't seen it.
I will say that the older (above 40) doctors/vets do seem to be much more compassionate, from my personal experience, than the younger ones. I know that I am doing just what I said not to do...generalizing, but that is what I have seen in my own personal experience.

I think Dr. Ken and I may have different reference points for our assessments. Anyway, I was talking about competence, rather than compassion.

But I have to admit that I have the strong feeling that women in general are more compassionate than men (sorry, Dr. Ken - present company accepted, since you are clearly compassionate) and although I have met both compassionate and not-compassionate vets of both genders, since my most horrifying experience was with a male vet -- and I won't even go into all of it again but it wasn't just the negligence, it was the fact that only an arrogant person would think he could change his story so many times and get away with it, all while speechifying about how morally superior he was (surreal) -- it has likely steered me more toward female vets.

I know of some female vets I wouldn't want anything to do with, but my short list of most trusted vets is entirely composed of females at this point. Maybe a coincidence, maybe just acquired aversion on my part.

Dr Coates. I believe that you have something to do with the speakers at next years NAVC. I would like to suggest that you have a panel discussion about pet valuation at the conference. I would love to participate and you could have Attorneys Steven Wise and Christopher Green, as well as the grand poohbahs of organized veterinary medicine to present the slippery slope argument. I bet that it would be well attended!

Dr. Ken, once again the pop up window will not download. I completely agree with you regarding the lack of interest in the pet "owning" population, the vet "talking heads" and the media on the issue of pets as family vs. pets as property. That is why I can not WAIT for a big award for pain and suffering to set precedent. It is clear that that is the venue by which this injustice will be changed.

I contacted all 42 Florida State Senators in an unsuccessful attempt to find a sponsor for Gracie's Law. I served as an expert witness in the Cody Baceol's malpractice case which ended in a hung jury and will be retried this summer in Pinellas County Florida. Maybe this will be the case to establish that our pet kids have intrinsic value above replacement value as property. Information on this case can be found at Gracie's Law- Pets are Family on Facebook or by searching Cody or Liza Baceols on the Internet.

Dr. Ken, I admire you for doing what it right, not what is "popular" with your colleagues.
Having been that route, and having "lost", I still could not have lived with myself had I done nothing. Liza Baceols must be a very strong and brave woman. And she must have loved Cody very much.
I wish you the best when the case is retried. I pray that you will be blessed with a jury that takes their responsibility seriously, that will listen attentively (without falling asleep, as ours did) and who will, when they retire to deliberate, put themselves in the place of Cody, and Liza, and weigh all of the facts instead of having their minds made up when they sit down.
Thank you for caring enough about Cody and about Liza and her son to help them to attempt to get justice, Dr. Ken.