We can’t stress strongly enough how wrong this is. IF A DOG OR CAT GOES TO THE VET WITH AN OWNER THERE MAY BE NO CHECK FOR A MICROCHIP. For pets that have been kept by a finder or sold on to unsuspecting new owners this means they will NOT be reunited with their owners. The veterinary industry is inadvertently aiding and abetting dog thieves!
The full article follows below with some comments from our Facebook page, please note that even though the RCVS have created a ‘Flow Chart’ with guidelines for vets who do routinely scan, Robin Hargreaves president-elect of the BVA has said “The college should make sure pet owners understand there isn’t an expectation on vets to carry out all of the steps in the guidance.”
Please help us to change this for every owner of a microchipped pet, one day you may need microchipping to get your pet home!
Click this link, sign and share, you know it makes sense, why don’t they?:- http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/50401
Front page of the Veterinary Times!
MICROCHIPS: ONUS NOT ON VETS – RCVS College provides guidance on client confidentiality and data protection.
report by Rebecca Hubbard rebeccahubbard@vbd.uk.com
THE BVA has called on the RCVS to ensure pet owners are aware the college’s new guidance on microchipping is not an “expectation” on the profession. The guidance – updated amid fears vets and vet nurses could be taking on an “enforcer” role(VT43.09) in the process, especially as it becomes compulsory (VT43.07) –advises what to do when a client presents an animal registered in another person’s name or when a pet appears to have been stolen.
No expectation
Clare Tapsfi eld-Wright, chairman of the
RCVS advisory committee, said the college recognised the diffi cult situations vets and VNs find themselves in.“[The guidance] gives vets and VNs information about their options and providesadvice on client confidentiality and data protection issues.”
However, Robin Hargreaves, president-elect of the BVA, said it’s useful for vets to know and understand “how far they can go” to resolve ownership disputes, but “it must be made clear to the wider public this is broad legal guidance and is not an expectation on
veterinary surgeons”.Citing individual circumstances, time constraints and varying degrees of client cooperation, among other factors, he added: “Vets and veterinary practice staff will always do their best to find owners and resolve ownership issues, but it has
to be workable. The college should make sure pet owners understand there isn’t an expectation on vets to carry out
all of the steps in the guidance.”
He also felt some responsibilities could be taken on by other organisations.“For example, the guidance states vets need to seek consent from the registered keeper to change the details on the database, but in most cases, we would expect the database to take on this function rather than the vet.“Essentially, vets will need to do as much as they are able to do within their own practice resources to ensure the public and their own clients continue to
have confidence in them.”
He also said the college should consider the impact the compulsory system – which will be in place in Northern Ireland, Wales and England by 2016 – will have on the guidance.
Future updates
However, Mrs Tapsfield-Wright insists the guidelines “help vets decide what they can do to facilitate identification of lost dogs, not what they must do”.“The guidance makes it clear we do not expect vets and VNs to ‘police’ their clients or become involved in resolving ownership disputes,” she said. “For example, although consent needs to be obtained to change details on the microchip database, we do not insist the veterinary surgeon obtains this consent.”She also said the college was in discussion with Defra about how the guidance will need to be updated as the compulsory system beds down
.
Michael Day, BSAVA president, said the association welcomed “clear and simple advice” for the profession, but understood further meetings between Defra and veterinary associations to produce “joint professional guidelines for vets with advice about scanning” would be taking place.
The Kennel Club said the new guidelines were timely ahead of changes to legislation as it is “important that vets are fully supported in the vital role they play [in microchipping] and have guidance as to best practice in certain situations”.
Celia Walsom, executive for the club’s lost and found database
Petlog, said the key to the success of microchipping is ensuring
owners keep details up to date.
“Furthermore, should they lose their pet, they need to report this to the microchip database immediately,” she said. “Petlog will continue in its drive to raise awareness of this with all pet owners ahead of 2016 to take as much pressure off vets as possible.”
The new guidance falls under Chapter 14 in the supporting
guidance to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, and includes a flow diagram to help decision making in practice. Visit rcvs.org.uk/confi dentiality for more information.
Mr Hargreaves said the BVA would be interested in hearing members’ views on the issue through its community forums.
COMMENTS FROM OUR FACEBOOK PAGE:
Am getting on the backs of my vets to routinely scan any animal coming in, if everyone does this at their vets we might, just might, get through to them.
Typical selfish “I don’t want to be involved attitude” from a lot of people today, but really we should not only “expect” more, our pets surely “deserve” more particularly from so called professionals ……
This just absolutely disgusts me!! It makes me wonder if the only reason for the microchip is another bloody money maker for the Government not to actually get these dogs back to their owners!! Come on guys we need to all sign this petition!!
Yes my dog is missing and they said the same thing!
Which is exactly why my dogs have never been found. Stolen over 6 years ago now
What’s the point of microchipping if no one scans it to check! The data protection act is there for benefits but when people use it as an excuse in these cases it gets in the way of dogs who get lost or stolen and resold to unsuspecting owners, how are they meant to be returned to the registered keeper? I know it would be upsetting to any new owner, but if they are decent they would be ok with the pet being scanned and if registered stolen or lost for it to be returned to the original owner.
Data protection is used/quoted simply as a way of wriggling out of doing it. How can it be a breach of the data act? In what way? It’s no different to a police officer stopping say a car driver and checking his driving licence is it?
We shall have to start just taking our pets to vets who do scan. I have a feeling that hitting them a bit in their profits will make a difference!! My vets scan and have no problems doing it.
My vet scans all new animals that are registered. It just seems, as usual that it is the rights of the criminal element that are upheld. Those who are trying to retrieve or defend their pet or property are the ones that lose. MADNESS.
They are always quick enough to take the money for microchipping but dont seem to have any conscience about “after sales service”!!! I am changing my vets to one who supports this campaign!
Ignorance is no defence. Is that the real reason they don’t want to do it?
Whats the point other than if your dog gets out and the council pick them up. No other bloody use at all! Should be part of any vet consult. But really what do they care as long as they get the money.
If you inadvertently buy a stolen car it has to go back to the original owner. To me a car does not have the same emotional attachment. My vet scans all new dogs. It took him 2 minutes tops to check mine. If a dog is flagged as missing or stolen surely it and the original owners should at least have the same rights as a car, to be reunited.
So legally we must microchip our pets YET just like an MOT, does not make your car road worthy! What a new useless law to make money ……. aiding and abetting springs to mind …. also doctors and nurses are legally obliged to report knife, gunshot and dog bite wounds to police, I would of thought this breaks patient confidentiality ….
It would take the receptionist less then 1 minute to check a dogs microchip details are correct and up to date. All records will be on their data base along with medical history. This information would probably be used as a reference point during the consultation.
As the owner of two stolen dogs, it makes me want to scream….I am also an implanter and trustee of a cat rescue….The first thing i do is scan an animal for a chip grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
What the hell are we paying vets to microchip out pets for then if they then make it a pointless procedure?!
When did we decide that thieves were protected by client confidentiality…. makes vets no better than the lawyers who protect the Mafia!
What a cop out for the vets !! They have us stitched up good and proper!! We need their help !!!
Scan – quick simple – agreed? now the “Confidentiality! – as a vet no-one is asking you to confront the person bringing the animal to your practice – all we ask is that you record it – and report your findings. Its not rocket science is it? and you happily take the fees for consultations/microchipping – a sad case of double standards. Losing a pet is devestating, knowing that many vets wont help must be gut wrenching for those that live in hope that one day their animal will be scanned.
Gut wrenching doesnt even cover it. I was absolutely DEVASTATED to learn that my own vet doesnt routinely scan – and I only learned that when I reported Harvey missing to them. And they are the ones who microchipped him! The halo costs less than £40 with a discounts for 3 or more. I am sick and tired of being accused of “selling” these scanners when I bring the Halo to attention of vets. I and others have PERSONALLY BOUGHT HALO SCANNERS TO GIVE AWAY TO OUR VETS – SEE MY PAGE VETS WHO SCAN ON FACEBOOK! If I as an ordinary person feel so strongly that I do this WHY CANT MY VET!???? They charge £40 for a consultation then mark up drugs by 300% and they cant afford a Halo???? Disgusting!
If a Vet persuades you to microchip your pet which most do as it is profitable, they then have a responsibility to check all animals in their care to make sure the animal relates to the person, responsibility is 9/10ths of the law……… BVA has a responsibility to its vets to advise them of this not the other way around. They are in breach of their oath…..
Happy to take our money for implanting but not willing to support the purpose!
They don’t tell you this when charging you for the chip!
Had a long discussion with one of the partners at my vets today………… the short answer was if missing Ragsie was sitting under her lost poster in the waiting room, they would not scan her unless the person with her requested it…………… absolutely ……. useless!!
