Following a dog ownership dispute that went to court last year, a veterinary surgeon removed a microchip from the dog because it contained details of the unsuccessful party in the dispute. In closing a subsequent complaint related to this case, the Preliminary investigation Committee considered that the removal of this chip had been ‘unwise’, but asked the Advisory Committee to consider whether additional guidance was necessary.
The Advisory Committee emphasised the importance attached to the accurate identification of animals and that, given the potential for fraud, a microchip must only be removed where this can be clinically justified. This justification should be documented and, where required, another microchip or alternative method of identification used.
The committee also highlighted that the removal of a microchip in any other circumstances would be an unnecessary mutilation. While the insertion of a second microchip may be problematic, this is itself does not justify removal of a microchip and an audit trail of additional microchips/identification must be maintained.
Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who wish to seek advice about ownership disputes or related issues are encouraged to contact the Professional Conduct Department.
