DDR-DSH - Page 1

Wanted to get this out of the old thyroid thread, just curious what you ment by the comment "but they will not hesitate to use their medical facilities and veterinary license to take business from the boarding kennel owners, even if it is against the vet code of ethics"

I ran a boarding kennel for a few years. I was shocked that there was as little business as there was, since this used to be a very lucrative business. So, I started to investigate, and what I found was that (1) a lot of the business was being siphoned off by unlicensed boarding facilities who usually hang out and troll for clientell at dog parks, etc. These boarding facilities are usually just private homes with some plastic or wire shipping crates in the garage. (2) Pet-sitters, licensed or not, bonded / insured or not. They also troll dog parks, put ads in the local Penny-Saver or sometimes they work for veterinarians, etc. and siphon business off that way. (3) Veterinarians! Everyone knows of vets who board pets, and most of us never thought about it. But when I looked into the AVMA "Code of Ethics", I found that boarding is actually considered a different kind of business, much like training, and that the COE (at least at the time) specifically forbade or discouraged the use of a veterinary medical license to conduct side businesses, especially if they were contiguous (next door) to the veterinary practice. The general thought behind this seems to be that veterinarians are held in a special place of trust by the general public, and are prominent in the community, which would give them a bit of an unfair trade advantage with boarding kennels, etc. But.. This did not seem to stop anyone from doing it. In fact, I've heard that some veterinarians made so much money from boarding that they neglected their veterinary practice. In general, these sorts of Codes of Ethics are becoming a thing of the past, and as a result we are seeing more conflicts of interest and unseemly competition in many venues of society now.

I might mention also that I called the Veterinary Medical Association (actually it was the California office) and argued this a bit, that they should not even have a Code of Ethics (suggesting that there even was such a thing as ethical standards) if there were no intent to enforce it. I got a rather smart remark that some kennels stepped upon the rights of those in the veterinary profession by giving shots and medicines. I wasn't sure by this remark if he was referring to the giving of limited medical remedies to one's own dogs, or a clients' dogs, for fee. It is legal, by the way, to give humane medical care to one's own dogs, or to assist a friend, but not for fee. Only a licensed veterinarian can legally charge a fee for these services, or administer controlled substances. The overwhelming impression I got is that there is absolutely no enforcement of any COE, nor any intent to do so. It's all fair trade to them. It's just not much fun for the kennel operator who can't make a living anymore. I offered very affordable services to the public, but as a result of this and other hassles that didn't seem worth the bother anymore, I basically got out of it. I give referrals to another very nice lady with a boarding kennel which she has invested approx one million dollars. And she is barely scraping by.

I'll add one thing more, that I see no reason why a veterinarian may not keep client's dogs if they definitely ask and prefer the veterinarian to look after their dog. Especially so if the dog is ill or has a medical condition which the average boarding kennel would not be able to attend to. I am not against veterinarians, at all, and I know a lot of them are having a hard time making ends meet, also. While we are on the topic, most police departments do not want their officers dabbling in business, either. Police departments often get calls asking for information to buy a police trained dog, or some of the officers will solicit these sorts of inquiries by showing up at a burglary scene in a wealthy neighborhood with a trained K9 (privately owned, I hope). I only give this as an example of how a conflict of interest and ethical indiscretion can come about through a special station in the public trust. It was always considered an ethical departure for clergymen, police, doctors, and so on to exploit their position or their professional licensing to gain a business advantage over the general public, not to mention that they do not have to pay for the "brick and mortar" and licensing that everyone else does. They use their jobs as an open door to the public, for solicitation of private business.. BAD!!!

Let me clarify one point. I said that the COE frowned upon unrelated "contiguous" (next door) businesses owned by the veterinarian. That is not quite right. The COE said that a veterinarian could own any other sort of business, as long as it was separate and not combined. If it was at a different address and under a different name, it was OK. What was frowned upon was mingling two unrelated businesses. Boarding of healthy dogs, cats, pets is NOT related to or a part of veterinary medical practice.