An American Staffordshire Bull Terrier was taken to a veterinarian several times over 12 months, until its owner passed away. The dog was then brought into the same clinic by its new owner.

A few days after their most recent visit, the animal and its owner came back to the clinic after the dog collapsed during a walk. The veterinarian performed a physical examination, noting the dog had abdominal distention, discomfort on palpation, and increased abdominal respiratory effort. They were concerned about an abdominal neoplasia and did a blood test, which identified significant liver disease, and a guarded prognosis was given.

The next day, the veterinarian discussed the prognosis with the new owner and whether euthanasia was appropriate. The owner chose to proceed with euthanasia and signed a consent form before the dog was put to sleep.

Several months after this, the former partner of the dog’s original owner contacted the practice asking for clinical information about the dog and claimed they were its real owner.

The former partner made a complaint to the Vet Council. They said that the veterinarian did not contact them to gain consent to euthanise the dog, would not provide them with any clinical information, and breached their privacy by sharing information about the dog with its new owner.

The complaint was referred to the Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC). The CAC is a preliminary screening body, which decides what should happen after a complaint has been made about a veterinarian. The CAC can conduct a formal investigation and decide what steps, if any, need to be taken to ensure a veterinarian is fit to practise and public interest is protected.

The Code of Professional Conduct says that veterinarians must be satisfied that the person presenting an animal to them is the owner or is authorised by the owner to make decisions. In most cases, the veterinarian is entitled to trust the client’s confirmation that they are the owner or have the authority to consent to any procedures or treatments the animal needs. This will often be supported by the client signing a consent form or declaration.

Veterinarians can use their professional judgement to determine who the owner or person in charge of an animal is. In some situations, the veterinarian may want to investigate the claim of ownership. Some guidance is included later in this case summary.

Client consent must be obtained before sharing information about a patient. Under the Code, veterinarians must treat all client information related to the provision of veterinary services as the private information of the client, unless consent is given, or the information is disclosed in accordance with the principles of the Privacy Act 2020.

The CAC must first consider whether there are any concerns about a veterinarian’s fitness to practise, and whether these concerns require further action under the Veterinarians Act. The CAC cannot make a decision about ownership as this falls outside its remit, which is defined in the Act.

If animal ownership is disputed, a veterinarian could consider indicators such as who has been bringing the animal to the clinic for regular veterinary care, registration with the local council, the name on clinical records, the name of the person paying any invoices, and the name of the owner on a new client sign up form.

The CAC’s view, in this case, was that it was reasonable for the veterinarian to rely on the authority of the person in charge of the animal, which was the new owner. The dog had been recently registered in their name, and they had possession of the dog at the time of the consultation. There was no information on the new client form or the clinical records to suggest that they were a joint owner of the dog. The CAC noted that the new client form used by the clinic had also specifically asked the original animal owner if they wanted to register a partner or spouse, to which they had answered no.

Ownership of the dog was not disputed when the decision was made to euthanise it. The veterinarian was unaware of the complainant’s existence until several months after the dog had been put to sleep.

The CAC acknowledged that the veterinarian was placed in a difficult position and was required to make a judgment call about ownership of the animal, following the passing of the client.

They felt that the veterinarian acted in the best interests of the dog’s welfare. The CAC believed the veterinarian was entitled to use their professional judgment to determine who had authority to consent to the treatment, and believed that they followed a logical and considered decision making process.

The veterinarian was entitled to rely on the fact that the new owner was a long-standing client of the clinic; the dog was registered with the clinic under their name; they signed a consent form; had possession of the animal; and there was no other owner recorded in the practice’s system except for the original owner.

The CAC decided no further action was needed.

Proof of ownership is varied and there is no absolute record of title that can be used.

Evidence of ownership can include:

The above factors are all indicators that may point towards proof of ownership.

The Vet Council believes it is reasonable for veterinarians to rely on information provided by someone who says they have the authority to make decisions about the care and treatment of the animal they are presenting.

There are several things that veterinarians can do to mitigate the risk involved with disputed claims to ownership. This includes checking for evidence of ownership (using the indicators listed above); using a signed consent form that has a declaration; allowing a ‘cooling down’ period where any treatment or procedure such as euthanasia takes place several days after presentation; and by keeping records of the conversations and decisions that are made.