Pro and con
|
NATIONAL REPORT — Consumers chalked up another victory in the battle of the public's right to know vs. a veterinarian's right to privacy.
A new state law in South Carolina requires complaints against DVMs be made public earlier in the review process.
The change to the state's veterinary practice act opens disciplinary hearings to the public and allows for public disclosure
of complaints even before a disciplinary hearing is scheduled.
A majority of states typically have information available once a formal charge is established. Some do not release any notification
until the disciplinary hearing is concluded, explains Dale Atkinson, an Evanston, Ill., attorney who serves as general counsel
for the American Association of Veterinary State Boards (AAVSB). The line between protecting a veterinarian's privacy and informing the public of possible negligence appears blurred.
Vilifying veterinarians?
Opinions on the South Carolina action differ.
Some feel that releasing complaint information before it is properly investigated and substantiated by a state board can damage
a veterinarian's career and reputation unnecessarily.
"I think the outcomes (of disciplinary hearings) should be made public, but the complaints should be kept private," says Robert
Newman, an animal-law attorney in Santa Ana, Calif. "Anyone can make a damaging allegation that is not true and because people
tend to believe everything they read, this would be unfair to the veterinarian."
If publicized before wrongdoing is established, the complaint could create the risk "that the reputation of the veterinarian
will be damaged when he or she did nothing wrong," Newman says.
"The public is not held to the standard of knowing what is always appropriate or inappropriate in terms of treatment," he
continues. Reviewing and investigating complaints before they are released can help prevent unsubstantiated claims from tarnishing
a DVM's name.
The fight for transparency
But some consumers have a different perspective — that open disclosure gives information about a veterinarian's entire history
in order to make informed choices of doctors.
"My position all along has been the public has a right to know," says Marcia Rosenberg, a Mount Pleasant, S.C., animal advocate
and lobbyist who strongly backed the state practice-act change.
"I want a good source of information before I go to anybody and entrust him or her with my physical and mental well-being
or that of my animals," she says. "I want to know if a veterinarian has a long complaint history or any complaint history.
I feel there should be more disclosure and accountability."
In place of uninformed pet owners will be increased public awareness, Rosenberg contends, recalling her first experience in
an open disciplinary hearing — in which formal charges were dismissed — as an example. "Being in the room and hearing the
whole situation, I agreed [with the dismissal]. If I had to vote, I would have voted that charges be dismissed. I sat there
and said, 'My goodness, why didn't this happen earlier?'" says Rosenberg of the open-hearing format.
Internet vigilantes?
Yet many consumers are not waiting until laws are passed on open information — they are taking action on their own.
South Carolina veterinarian Thomas Sheridan, owner of the Folly Road Animal Hospital in Charleston, knows the power of the
Internet all too well after being named in multiple state-board complaints and lawsuits.
Featuring Information from:
