Electronic survey investigating UK veterinarians' perceptions of the potential for veterinary prescription medication misuse or abuse.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate veterinarians' experience and perception of the risk of veterinary prescription medication (VPM) misuse and abuse by the public and veterinary professionals and to determine the clinical context in which respondent veterinarians prescribed certain VPMs. STUDY DESIGN: Anonymous online voluntary survey. POPULATION: A total of 361 of 7126 veterinarians registered as practicing in the UK, who provided e-mail contact details to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Knowledge for participation in research. Respondents included general practitioners, with or without further qualifications, and European specialists, covering charity, private or academic small, large or mixed animal practice. METHODS: The anonymous online survey, open from September to December 2021, posed 27 questions regarding personal experience and perception of VPM misuse or abuse, including which VPMs were considered most at risk of abuse by clients or veterinary staff. Thematic analysis was performed on free-text sections. RESULTS: The participation rate was 5% (361/7126), and the completion rate 60% (216/361 respondents). Of these, 88% of respondents somewhat agreed, agreed or strongly agreed that some VPMs were at risk of abuse. A third (29.9%; 107/358) had suspected an owner of taking VPMs, and one fifth (20.1%; 72/358) had suspected veterinary staff. Perceptions regarding the likelihood of public VPM abuse ranged from not suspecting a problem to having first-hand experience. Drugs considered most at risk of owner abuse were opioids, benzodiazepines and gabapentin, and those for veterinary staff were opioids, benzodiazepines and ketamine. Numerous 'red flags' prompting suspicion of VPM abuse were identified alongside ways of mitigating risk. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Veterinarians in the UK reported varied experiences with, awareness of, and attitudes towards VPM abuse by the public and veterinary staff. Although not quantified, the UK veterinary industry could be a source of abusable drugs.

Ethical dilemmas in clinical practice: a perspective on the results of an electronic survey of veterinary anaesthetists.

Medical progress has greatly advanced our ability to manage animals with critical and terminal diseases. We now have the ability to sustain life even in the most dire of circumstances. However, the preservation of life may not be synonymous with providing 'quality of life', and worse, could cause unnecessary suffering. Using the results of an electronic survey, we aim to outline and give examples of ethical dilemmas faced by veterinary anaesthetists dealing with critically ill animals, how the impact of these dilemmas could be mitigated, and what thought processes underlie decision-making in such situations.

Welfare, law and ethics in the veterinary intensive care unit: (A discussion of the different types of suffering that patients may endure in the veterinary intensive care unit, the legal limits to that suffering, and the ethics underpinning at what point that suffering becomes 'un-necessary').

OBJECTIVES: In UK law, allowing an animal protected under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA 2006) (as devolved) to suffer 'unnecessarily' may render the person responsible for it to prosecution. The act does not define suffering, although 'case law' suggests that suffering encompasses more than pain. Clinicians responsible for animals under their care in the intensive care unit (ICU) are likely to also be responsible in law for the welfare of those animals, and may be called upon to justify why any suffering was necessary, or more likely, why they did not act to end any suffering when it became 'unnecessary'. As animals are considered to be 'property' in law, the legal requirement to prevent 'unnecessary suffering' may conflict with the owner's property rights. Additionally, professional conflict may arise between the clinicians whose opinion of where the border between 'heroic treatment' and 'futile treatment' lays. Different types of suffering that might be relevant to clinical and ethical decision making for patients in the ICU are discussed, with suggestions for how these might be categorised, measured and recorded, so that objective data is available on which discussions about the animal's actual and projected welfare can be held with the animal's owner, and other clinicians involved in the case. CONCLUSIONS: The development of 'welfare scoring systems' for the ICU may assist clarifying the point at which heroic treatment is becoming futile, and therefore suffering becoming unnecessary, and place veterinary anaesthetists in an even stronger position to act as 'advocate for the animal' in their care.