Skip to main content
Veterinary Medical Ethics
June 19, 2025
Ethical Question Of The Month — March 2025
Is it ethical for veterinarians to use their credentials to act as an “expert” despite having limited or no knowledge of the issues in another aspect of veterinary medicine? This may happen innocently when veterinarians are asked for opinions on issues outside their expertise, or when veterinarians with an agenda try to undermine an aspect of animal use for which they do not agree. These individuals have much more credibility, given their educational credentials, than lay animal activists. For example, is it ethical for a small animal veterinarian to criticize veterinarians who care for feedlot cattle, despite not having exposure or experience with the conditions of these animals? Similarly, is it detrimental to the veterinary community if a swine veterinarian were to publicly castigate laboratory animal veterinarians for the use of animals in research? Should such egregious cases be potential reasons for complaints to the licensing body?
-- Submitted by Mike Petrik, M.Sc., D.V.M
Ethicists’ Commentary On Whether Veterinarians Should Comment On Veterinary Issues Outside Their Area Of Expertise
This month’s question concerns whether veterinarians should comment on veterinary issues outside their own narrow field of veterinary expertise (e.g., whether a small animal veterinarian should comment on veterinary practice with cattle). We think that there are, in fact, 2 questions here that should be separated: i). Should veterinarians be explicit about their degree of expertise (or otherwise) when making a statement that could be viewed as “expert;” and ii). Is it acceptable for veterinarians to speak out about veterinary issues outside their specialization?
With respect to the first question, being transparent about one’s degree of expertise when making public or professional comments is key — as much for us, as university professors, as for veterinarians. Clearly, there are areas in which specialists can speak with authority, based on their own research, skill, and practice. But equally obviously, specialists are not specialists in everything. It’s critical, then, to acknowledge the extent and limits of one’s expertise. For example, a small animal veterinarian commenting on castration of beef cattle should preface their comments by making it clear that they do not have specialist training in buiatrics. But if these veterinarians have expertise in pain assessment and multi-modal pain control, they could point out that this gives them some authority to comment on the pain mammals experience from surgical castration, and the opportunity to mitigate this pain, while avoiding specific treatment recommendations that require expert knowledge about the species or specific context.
In response to the second question, assuming this transparency in terms of expertise, we reject the notion that people should be censured for respectfully and honestly sharing their views. If not, how else could we 3 professors continue to write this column, where we often discuss matters in which we lack expertise? Indeed, we suggest that there can be real value in seeing problems with the fresh eyes of an outsider. Practices vary widely among different areas of animal use, and insiders can become enculturated to ‘routine’ practices. Thus, a small animal veterinarian might appropriately comment on the lack of pain control for beef cattle (just as a swine veterinarian might comment on the use of CO2 for killing laboratory rodents, etc.). In such cases the debate does not entirely hinge on knowledge specific to the specific form of animal use. Rather, differences in practice (e.g., providing effective pain control to dogs but not cattle) reflect differences in culture. The veterinary profession benefits by open, collegial discussions on such topics to better understand each other and, where possible, come to a common understanding regarding standards of practice. These open discussions will often be difficult, as they can challenge our assumptions about what course of treatment is most appropriate, and perhaps even what it means to be a good veterinarian, but in the longer term it is these conversations, and the sound policy that comes from them, that serves to underpin public trust in the profession.
-- Drs. Clare Palmer, Peter Sandøe, and Dan Weary
Ethical Question Of The Month — June 2025
You are the only practitioner on the backstretch of a racecourse. One of your long-time patients has just been claimed (change of ownership and trainer) and the new trainer, on behalf of the new owner, requests that you treat the front fetlocks with intra-articular (IA) steroids. You know this horse received IA steroids in those joints several weeks ago and ran once the withdrawal period had passed. Repeating the injections now would be contraindicated and risks the horse’s long-term racing soundness and welfare. You cannot release medical records for the horse without the previous owner’s consent, but you know that consent is never provided under these circumstances. What is the course of action in such a situation?