Current issue
Archive
About the Journal
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Scientific Council
Ethical Standards
Terms of the journal
GDRP - information on the processing of personal data
Indexing
Licenses & Access
For Authors
For Authors
Publishing Policy
Technical instruction for the authors
Agreement CC BY-SA
Copyright statement
Review procedure
The procedure of reviewing
Ethical Code or Peer Reviewers
Reviewer's form
List of reviewers
Contact
Owners’ informed consent for a necropsy of a companion animal as a conflict-reducing mean in the veterinary practice
1
Department of Pathophysiology, Forensic Veterinary Medicine and Administration University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
2
Department Cryminology and Crimanalistics, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
3
Centre for Veterinary Sciences, Nicolaus Copernicus University
4
Department of Criminal Proceedings and executive criminal law University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
5
Institute of Political Science,
Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie
6
Department of Pathophysiology, Forensic Veterinary Medicine and Administration Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie
Submission date: 2020-02-21
Final revision date: 2020-09-23
Acceptance date: 2020-11-04
Publication date: 2021-01-18
Corresponding author
Ireneusz Sołtyszewski
Department Cryminology and Crimanalistics, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
Department Cryminology and Crimanalistics, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
JoMS 2020;45(2):121–141
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
The authors’ aim is not only to extend research, but also to assist in problem-solving actions in every-day veterinary practice.
Material and methods:
Legal and moral norms related to veterinary necrops and the consent of the owners were analyzed according to literary, teleological and comparative interpretation methods.
Results:
Professional ethical norms in connection with the civil law are ius semidispositivum (semiimperativum), the parties may regulate their rights and obligations in a manner different from the statutory provisions, if such changes are more favorable, e.g. provide higher ethical standards, strengthen ownership rights, and intensify animal protection.
Conclusions:
The case of any the diagnostic section (different from the forensic veterinary necropsies carried out at the ordinance of the court, prosecutor or the police, and administrative-sanitary necropsies), the veterinary surgeon is required to obtain the owner’s express, informed consent, preferably in written.
The authors’ aim is not only to extend research, but also to assist in problem-solving actions in every-day veterinary practice.
Material and methods:
Legal and moral norms related to veterinary necrops and the consent of the owners were analyzed according to literary, teleological and comparative interpretation methods.
Results:
Professional ethical norms in connection with the civil law are ius semidispositivum (semiimperativum), the parties may regulate their rights and obligations in a manner different from the statutory provisions, if such changes are more favorable, e.g. provide higher ethical standards, strengthen ownership rights, and intensify animal protection.
Conclusions:
The case of any the diagnostic section (different from the forensic veterinary necropsies carried out at the ordinance of the court, prosecutor or the police, and administrative-sanitary necropsies), the veterinary surgeon is required to obtain the owner’s express, informed consent, preferably in written.
REFERENCES (58)
1.
Ashall, V., Millar, K.M., Hobson-West, P. (2008). Informed consent in veterinary medicine: Ethical implications for the profession and the animal ‘patient’. Food Ethics 1 (3), pp. 247-258. ISSN 2364-6853.
2.
Babińska, I., Kusiak, D., Szarek, J., Lis, A., Gulda, D., Felsmann, M.Z., Łyko, A., Maciejewska, M., Popławski, K., Szweda, M. (2017). Veterinary expert opinions on conflicts involving dogs and cats in Poland. International Journal of Forensic Science & Pathology 5 (3), pp. 347-351. ISSN 2332-287X.
3.
Bateman, S.W. (2007). Communication in the veterinary emergency setting. Veterinary Clinics: Small Animal Practice 37, pp. 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm....
4.
Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics. University Press: Oxford. ISBN 9780199924585.
5.
Brooks-Brownlie, H.W. and Munro, R. (2016). The veterinary forensic necropsy: a review of procedures and protocols. Veterinary Pathology 53 (5), pp. 919-928. ISSN 0300-9858.
6.
British Veterinary Association (2016). Vets speaking for animal welfare: British Veterinary Association animal welfare strategy.
7.
Byrne, D.J., Napier, A., Cuschieri, A. (1988). How informed is signed consent? British Medical Journal 296, p. 839. ISSN 0959-8138.
8.
Danecka, D. and Radecki, W. (2014). Legal Protection of Animals in the Czech Republic in comparison with the Polish Law. Przegląd Prawa Ochrony Środowiska 3, pp. 132-163. ISSN 2080-9506.
9.
DeGraaf, G. (2005). Veterinarian’s discourses on animals and clients. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18, pp. 557-578. ISSN 1187-7863.
10.
DeLay, J. (2016). Perianesthetic mortality in domestic animals: A retrospective study of postmortem lesions and review of autopsy procedures. Veterinary Pathology 53 (5), pp. 1078-1086. ISSN 0300-9858.
11.
Delcarmen, M.G. and Joffe, S. (2005). Informed consent for medical treatment and research: A review. Oncologist 10, pp. 636-641. ISSN 1549-490X.
12.
Downie, R.S. and Randall, F. (1997). Parenting and the best interests of minors. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22, pp. 219-231. ISSN 0360-5310.
13.
Drayton, J. (2013). Bodies-in-life/bodies-in-death: social work, coronial autopsies and the bonds of identity. British Journal of Social Work 43 (2), pp. 264-281. ISSN 1463-263X.
14.
European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals 1987. Strasbourg, ETS No.125.
16.
Felsmann, M.Z. and Gogulski, M. (2018). Post-mortem diagnosis of gunshot injuries in an osprey: A case report. Medycyna Weterynaryjna 74 (6), pp. 405-408. ISSN 0025-8628.
17.
Fettman, M.J. and Rollin, B.E. (2002). Modern elements of informed consent for general veterinary practitioners. JAVMA 221 (10), p. 1386. ISSN 0003-1488.
18.
Flemming, D. and Scott, J.F. (2004). The informed consent doctrine: What veterinarians should tell their clients. JAVMA 221 (9), p. 1436. ISSN 0003-1488.
19.
Forbes, N. (2004). An exacting science: the veterinary surgeon as expert witness. In Practice 26, pp. 503-506. ISSN 2042-7689.
20.
Fras, M. and Habdas, M. (2018). Art. 126–352. in: Kidyba, A. (ed.) Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. II. Własność i inne prawa rzeczowe. Lex Wolters-Kluwer: Warszawa.
21.
Gerdin, J.A. and McDonough, S.P. (2013). Forensic pathology of companion animal abuse and neglect. Veterinary Pathology 50, pp. 994-1006. ISSN 0300-9858.
22.
Goettel, M. (2013). Sytuacja zwierzęcia w prawie cywilnym. Lex Wolters-Kulwer: Warszawa. ISBN 9788326443756.
23.
Harris, J.M. (1998). The role of the practicing veterinarian as an expert witness. Seminars in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine 7, pp. 176-181. ISSN 1055-937X.
24.
Hernandez, E., Fawcett, A., Brouwer, E., Rau, J., Turner, P.V. (2018). Speaking up: Veterinary ethical responsibilities and animal welfare issues in everyday practice. Animals 15 (8), pp. 3-22. ISSN 2076-2615.
26.
Jones, D.G. (2000). Speaking for the dead: Cadavers in biology and medicine. Ashgate: Farnham. ISBN 9780754620730.
27.
Khiani, R., Shingler, S., Hasleton, P. (2003). Consent for autopsy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 96 (1), 53. ISSN 0959-5287.
28.
Knowles, D. (2001). Parent’s consent to the removal and retention of organs. Journal of Applied Philosophy 18, pp. 215-227. ISSN 0264-3758.
29.
Laing, I.A. (2004). Clinical aspects of neonatal death and autopsy. Seminars in Neonatology 9 (4), pp. 247-254. ISSN 1084-2756.
30.
Lane, M. and Vercler, Ch.J. (2016). Is consent to autopsy necessary? Cartesian dualism in medicine and its limitations. AMA Journal of Ethics 18 (8), pp. 771-778. ISSN 2376-6980.
31.
Lavelle-Jones, C., Byrne, D.J., Rice, P., Cuschieri, A. (1993). Factors affecting quality of informed consent. British Medical Journal 306, p. 885. ISSN 0959-8138.
32.
LeBail, L. (2003). La mort de l’animal de compagnie. Thesis, Ecole Nationale Veterinaire, Alfort.
33.
Listos, P., Gryzińska, M., Kowalczyk, M. (2015). Analysis of cases of forensic veterinary opinions produced in a research and teaching unit. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 36, pp. 84-89. ISSN 1752-928X.
34.
Magalhaes-Sant’Ana, M. (2014). Ethics teaching in European veterinary schools: A qualitative case study. Veterinary Record 175, pp. 592-597. ISSN 2042-7670.
35.
Martin, E.A. (2006). Managing client communication for effective practice: What skills should veterinary graduates have acquired for success? Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 33 (1), p. 45.ISSN 0748-321X.
36.
McDermott, M.B. (2003). Obtaining consent for autopsy. British Medical Journal 327 (7418), pp. 804-806. ISSN 0959-8138.
37.
McDonough, S.P. and McEven, B.J. (2016). Veterinary forensic pathology: The search for true. Veterinary Pathology 53 (5), pp. 875-877. ISSN 0300-9858.
38.
McHaffie, H.E., Fowlie, P.W., Hume, R., Laing, I.A., Lloyd, D.J., Lyon, A.J. (2001). Consent to autopsy for neonates. Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal & Neonatal 85 (1), pp. 4-7. ISSN 0003-9888.
39.
Morgan, C.A. and McDonald, M. (2007). Ethical dilemmas in veterinary medicine. Veterinary Clinics: Small Animal Practice 37, pp. 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm....
40.
Muellerova, H. and Stejskal, V. (2013). Ochrana zvirat v pravu. Academia: Praha. ISBN 9788020023179.
41.
Nijhawan, L.P., Janodia, M.D., Muddukrishna, B.S., Bhat, K.M., Bairy, K.L., Udupa, N., Musmade, P.B. (2013). Informed consent: Issues and challenges. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research 4 (3), pp. 134-140. ISSN 0976-2094.
42.
Ottinger, T., Rasmusson, B., Segerstad, C.H., Merck, M., Goot, F.V., Olsén, L., Gavier-Widén, D. (2014). Forensic veterinary pathology, today’s situation and perspectives. Veterinary Record 175 (18), p. 459. ISSN 0042-4900.
43.
Palmer, C., Corr, S., Sandoe, P. (2012). Inconvenient desires: Should we routinely neuter companion animals? Anthrozoos 25, pp. 153-172. ISSN 0892-7936.
44.
Passantino, A., Quartarone, V., Russo, M. (2011). Informed consent in veterinary medicine: Legal and medical perspectives in Italy. Open Journal of Animal Sciences 1, pp. 128-134. ISSN 2161-7597.
45.
Rollin, B.E. (2002). The use and abuse of Aesculapian authority in veterinary medicine. JAVMA 20 (8), p. 1144. ISSN 0003-1488.
47.
Royal College of Pathologists (2000). Guidelines for the retention of tissues and organs at post mortem examination.
49.
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (2014). Code of professional conduct for veterinary surgeons.
51.
Rudnicki, S. and Trzaskowski, R. (2014). Art. 45. in: Gudowski, J. (ed.) Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz. Księga pierwsza. Cz. ogólna. Lexis Nexis: Warszawa.
52.
Singer, P. (1995). Rethinking life and death: The collapse of our traditional ethics. University Press: Oxford. ISBN 0192861840.
53.
Stanley, B.M., Walters. D.J., Maddern, G.J. (1998). Informed consent: How much information is enough? ANZ Journal of Surgery 68, pp. 788-791. ISSN 1445-1433.
54.
Szarek, J. (2005). Lekarz weterynarii jako biegły. University Press: Olsztyn. ISBN 8372994137.
55.
Tannenbaum, J. (1993). Veterinary medical ethics: a focus of conflicting interests. Journal of Social Issues 49 (1), pp. 143-156. ISSN 0022-4537.
56.
Williams, A.T., Morris. D., Patel, N.K. (2002). Pathologists’ views on consent for autopsy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 95, pp. 547-548. ISSN 0959-5287.
57.
Zimmermann, R. (1990). Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Juta & Co.: Cape Town-Wetton-Johannesburg. ISBN 9780198764267.
58.
Zink, S. and Wertlieb, S. (2006). A study of the presumptive approach to consent for organ donation: a new solution to an old problem. Critical Care Nurse 26 (2), pp. 129-136. ISSN 0279-5442.
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.