I believe these characteristics are commonly displayed in pet-owners who are intelligent, resourceful, self-motivated, independent and creative thinkers, responsible, and are devotedly compassionate toward their pets. I think these traits are naturally linked to an intrinsic desire of the pet-parent to collaborate with any veterinarian on a beloved pet's care and treatment plan.
Conversely, Dr. Allen's portrayal of these attributes indicates that such pet-owners are not only time-consuming to deal with, mentally exhausting, annoying and potentially threatening (in terms of suing for veterinary malpractice), but some of them may not even be playing with a full deck of mental cards. He cites these characteristics are indicative of a person who may not be able to understand the realities of medical risks and outcomes because he or she childishly expects to receive unrealistic, magical resolutions to the pet's medical crisis. Therefore, Dr. Allen's assessment of such pet-owners seems clear: these are mentally unstable pests who are determined to assassinate the veterinarian's character and destroy his or her practice.
I have valid, personal reasons why such an article offends me, for recently, my family and I lost a pet due to what I sincerely believe was a case of veterinary malpractice. You can read more about this experience on my blog: how-and-why-annabelle-died/
I seriously considered filing a lawsuit against the veterinarian in question. I did my research on this matter and communicated with other bereaved pet-owners who did litigate. My decision was not to take legal action, for my family cannot afford the high emotional, mental, spiritual, and monetary costs of a lawsuit that would probably result in our losing the case anyway.
My research on veterinary malpractice lawsuits in the United States indicates that plaintiffs (bereaved pet-owners) usually do not win for various reasons. One reason pet-owners are not vindicated, I feel, is that they must try to muscle against a well-oiled, powerful legal machine which is funded by big corporate profits, covert deals and cover-ups in the veterinary (and medical) field. Corruption rules in this country and the legal courts are no exception.
Equally to blame is the belief of the courts that a pet is considered property which is only worth the monetary value of the usual price of the animal purchased from a breeder, pet shop, adoption agency, etc. It is rare for a plaintiff to win large sums for emotional pain and suffering as a result of veterinary malpractice. It is even rarer for a negligent veterinarian to lose his/her medical license or to suffer any punishment at all. Their usual "punishment" is a slap on the wrist from the state board and an order to undertake more continuing education classes in veterinary medicine. Such medically negligent veterinarians usually continue their practice until retirement; there is no way to know how many patients are harmed during their careers because details of complaints are not usually made available to the public. Attempting to bridge this unjust gap between what the courts will recognize as compensation and vindication for pet-owners of an animal killed by medical negligence, most attorneys recommend the plaintiff pursue justice in a court of small claims. If there is any victory and justice at all for the plaintiff, it is only a small one based solely on the pet's monetary value, which is, at most, only worth a few hundred dollars' in small claims court.
I believe many veterinarians (and many physicians who treat humans, also) either have lost or will be at risk of losing sight of the honor, duty, respect, and personal and professional responsibility of practicing medicine. Some of them seem to have disdained the overall goals of healing and promoting wellness and quality of life. Defensive posturing threatens to replace genuine respect and compassion for patients, whether they are animal or human. Certainly, the state of our stressed, imperfect health-care system is partly to blame for this callous shift in attitude among many doctors. Moreover, the stresses of practicing medicine and job-burnout weigh heavy on doctors' minds. To play devil's advocate for a moment, I know that doctors are greatly burdened by two factors in particular, both of which are focused on monetary fears: a great amount of student debt from medical school (which often takes many years to repay) and the constant threat of litigation. Are we Americans not bombarded daily through every type of media to file a lawsuit for any type of real or perceived injustice? The abuses and corruptions of the legal system have thwarted our attempts to gain real justice for real wrongs at the times when we most desperately need it.
However, Dr. Allen's disturbing article on identifying "potentially litigious veterinary clients" is a clear example of defensiveness and a hardened, cynical, unrealistic view of most veterinary clients today. With the exceptions of a minority of pet-owners who may actually be seeking a frivolous (i.e., unwarranted, indefensible) lawsuit exclusively for monetary gain, most pet-parents are ordinary people who are honestly seeking the best medical care for their pets.
Therefore, I offer my rebuttal to Dr. Allen's discourteous and coldhearted guidelines by creating some guidelines of my own. I hope these insights will aid the veterinary client/pet-owner to recognize and avoid potentially negligent veterinarians. Also, all of these guidelines can very well apply to medical doctors who treat human patients.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
4
4
