Requirement of Veterinarians in the Event of an Emergency Case

Policy

Veterinarians, when presented with or alerted to an emergency case, should act to minimise the pain, suffering and distress of the animal as far as reasonably possible, irrespective of the prospect of receiving financial return.

Definition of 'Emergency Case'

An emergency is a life-threatening situation, or one causing severe suffering, distress or illness that needs immediate attention.

Further it is one in which delay in the provision of treatment would be likely to cause or prolong unnecessary pain, suffering or distress to the animal, or one in which an examination of the animal is required at the earliest possible opportunity in order to assess whether or not its condition is life threatening.

Explanation

Veterinarians in clinical practice have an obligation to provide a 24 hour emergency service and to relieve an animal's suffering.

Members of the public often have genuine concern for an animal's condition, which may not always be justified.  Their concern should be accepted by the veterinarian and the response should be appropriate for both the animal and the concerned member of the public.

Veterinarians need to be seen primarily as caring animal professionals and only secondarily as business persons.

The Code of Professional Conduct (2007) states: In an emergency, veterinarians must give or arrange aid to injured or sick animals within the limits of their competence and available resources.

Guidelines

When alerted to an emergency, the veterinarian should establish clear priorities for action.

The first priority must be to the animal and an assessment made either by phone or by examination of the animal's condition.

The range of options available for dealing with the animal should then be clearly communicated to the person presenting the information.

Guidelines for particular circumstances

A         Owner unavailable/not known

Where no owner is available, the veterinarian must accept responsibility for minimising the distress of the animal. This includes the cost of emergency treatment unless an arrangement with the SPCA or other body (expanded later) is in force.  Under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, a veterinarian who finds a severely injured or sick animal (other than a marine mammal, which must be reported to a Marine Mammal Officer as soon as possible), which, in his or her opinion, should be destroyed because its pain or distress cannot be reasonably and quickly and cost-effectively relieved must, without delay, destroy that animal or cause it to be destroyed.

B         Owner involved

Where the animal’s owner is involved the veterinarian should communicate clearly the diagnostic and treatment options and the approximate costs. The veterinarian should gain acceptance for these costs and agreement that they will be met. It is appropriate to ask for some immediate payment.

If no payment is forthcoming, reasonable effort should be made to minimise the animal’s distress. It is not appropriate to allow the distress to continue while financial negotiations are held.

If full diagnostic methodologies and appropriate treatment are not consented to by the owner and/or the veterinarian judges that the animal will suffer unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress if it continues to live, whether the owner consents or not, the veterinarian must, without delay, euthanase that animal, unless either the veterinarian or the owner obtain, within a time frame appropriate to the condition of the animal, a second opinion regarding the animal’s condition. It would be appropriate for the first veterinarian to provide minimum treatment commensurate with relieving the animal’s severe distress until that second opinion can be obtained.

C         SPCA involved

In areas where the SPCA is prepared to meet some costs of veterinary attention for distressed animals where the owner is either unknown or unable to afford the full cost of veterinary treatment, a clear understanding between the staff of the local veterinary clinic and the local SPCA Committee through its warranted inspector, preferably in writing, should be reached and observed.

Dialogue should include:

1. Is the SPCA willing to make some payment?
2. Do they wish to be contacted in each and every case before any expense is incurred?
3. Is the SPCA willing to meet costs to a certain figure without being contacted first, and if so what is the maximum amount?
4. Even if the SPCA do not require prior contact do they expect contact as soon as reasonable to obtain an order or authority number for each case?
5. Where the owner is involved but unable to pay, will the SPCA contribute?  If so is the basis part of a clear understanding, or will this be done on an ad hoc basis with direct involvement of the SPCA each time?
6. Where the case is presented by the SPCA, there should be a clear communication of diagnostic and treatment options, including costs and prognosis to the SPCA in each case unless a clear standing arrangement is in place.

A financial contribution by the SPCA towards relief of an animal's distress is not mandatory.  It should be considered as a voluntary contribution unless a specific request for a service is made.  Willingness to assist should not be abused.

Note

Further information clarifying the role of the SPCA can be obtained from the “Agreement Between Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Inc and the New Zealand Veterinary Association Inc” available in the NZVA Members’ Manual and in the members’ section of the NZVA website (http://www.nzva.org.nz/files/sharedimages/MOU_NZVA_RNZSPCA_24_April_2008...) .

References

Animal Welfare Act 1999 (particularly s138)

Veterinary Council of New Zealand Code of Professional Conduct

Policy Files: 

1k - Emergency Cases - Mar10.pdf