Content area
Full text
Issues to consider
This is a complex scenario in which there are many stakeholders, including the vet, his practice and staff, the emergency centre vet and staff, the student, the university staff and fellow students, the client and the dog. The student has breached confidentiality by publishing a photograph of a patient without authorisation. The post is, at best, a negligent misrepresentation of the facts or, at worst, a malicious untruth.
The implication is that the primary vet is incompetent and this account is credible to the client as the student is known to them. The client is understandably indignant that she has paid for a procedure that she now perceives was the fault of the primary vet. She is also concerned for her dog, which she believes has undergone an additional procedure due to the incompetence of the primary vet.
This post reflects poorly on both the original vet and the emergency centre, harming the reputation of both. The primary vet and his practice and the emergency centre vet and staff are concerned about the actions of the student and their relationship with the university. The university is concerned about its relationship with the profession and the reputation of its students.
The client is demanding compensation on the grounds that the surgery was 'botched' but, as this was not the case, simply refunding the cost of...