Prioritising the best interests of the animal and re-framing veterinary negligence

Veterinary negligence within the United Kingdom is under-litigated and under-theorised. Further, the owner-property dyadic means those who have suffered emotional harm cannot claim whilst veterinarians lack external guidance on evolving expectations. To address this tension, this thesis aims to provide guidance to veterinarians on their legal obligations stemming from the triangular relationship between veterinarian, owner, and animal, and to advance the position of the animal within this relationship by advocating a best interests approach. At the damage stage, a sentient constitutive property model, in which the reciprocal relationship between owner and animal is central, will be advocated. The veterinarian’s duty will similarly shift from one which protects the claimant’s financial interest, to one protecting the integrity of the reciprocal relationship. Where the animal’s best interests are at risk, veterinarians may be protected from liability where they have acted to protect this interest. Looking to breach, the importance of expert testimony necessitates profession-wide support of these ideas. To achieve this, new professional guidance developed by a representative council who embrace the aims of this thesis is advocated. Grounding these ideas is the position that courts should be alive to doctrinal aspects of vulnerability and reason decisions based on compassion and fairness

Reconciling autonomy and beneficence in treatment decision-making for animal patients

This article explores how the concept of consent to medical treatment applies in the veterinary context, and aims to evaluate normative justifications for owner consent to treatment of animal patients. We trace the evolution of the test for valid consent in human health decision-making, against a backdrop of increased recognition of the importance of patient rights and a gradual judicial espousal of a doctrine of informed consent grounded in a particular understanding of autonomy. We argue that, notwithstanding the adoption of a similar discourse of informed consent in professional veterinary codes, notions of autonomy and informed consent are not easily transferrable to the veterinary medicine context, given inter alia the tripartite relationship between veterinary professional, owner and animal patient. We suggest that a more appropriate, albeit inexact, analogy may be drawn with paediatric practice which is premised on a similarly tripartite relationship and where decisions must be reached in the best interests of the child. However, acknowledging the legal status of animals as property and how consent to veterinary treatment is predicated on the animal owner’s willingness and ability to pay, we propose that the appropriate response is for veterinary professionals generally to accept the client’s choice, provided this is informed. Yet such client autonomy must be limited where animal welfare concerns exist, so that beneficence continues to play an important role in the veterinary context. We suggest that this ‘middle road’ should be reflected in professional veterinary guidance