VN October 2023

Vetnuus | October 2023 30 I received my veterinary training in an environment where the veterinary profession is held in high regard and where fellow veterinarians are seen as members of a close-knit group, almost like family. I vividly remember Professor Sarel van Amstel, the thenHead of the Department of Medicine at the Veterinary Faculty, reminding us, the lecturers, how proud we should be to be members of such a prestigious profession. This is why it is difficult for me to understand that veterinarians can sometimes be so disrespectful to other colleagues. This can cause significant harm to a colleague, not just financially, but also emotionally. Criticising a colleague in front of a client or publicly also harms the image of the profession. In this article I would like to remind veterinarians that it is not just an old-fashioned value, but the Rules Relating to the Practicing of Veterinary Professions (“the Rules”) published in terms of Veterinary and Para-Veterinary Professions Act, No. 19 of 1982 (“the Veterinary Act”), and the SAVC’s Code of Conduct and Practice for Veterinarians (“the Code”) both require colleagues to act respectfully towards one another. The purpose of the Code is to provide a user-friendly document that supplements the legislation. It is a guide to professional and ethical conduct. General conduct towards colleagues Rule 4 deals with the general conduct of veterinary professionals. Subrule 4(1) requires that veterinarians must always act in a way that will preserve the prestige, honour, dignity, and interest of the profession as well as the veterinarians who practice the profession. Subrule 4(2) states that veterinarians work towards a common good cause and stipulates that they should therefore cooperate to promote this cause. Criticising a colleague publicly can harm both the profession and the individual and is in contravention of the Rules. Rule 4(3)(e) gives some guidance on what would be regarded as professional conduct. It is noteworthy that two of the eight principles addressed under this subrule relate to conduct that will discredit the profession or a colleague. These two principles are: avoiding any action that could discredit the profession; and withholding criticism that could harm a colleague’s reputation or practice. The Code interprets this to mean that a veterinary may not speak- or write to a third party about another veterinarian in a critical or unkindmanner unless it is the truth and based on all the facts of the matter. It further clarifies that these Rules are not meant to prohibit a veterinarian from testifying against a colleague in a Court of law or at an inquiry. Supersession The Code defines supersession as when a second veterinarian takes over the responsibility for the diagnosis and treatment of a patient that was previously under the control of another veterinarian without a referral from the initial veterinarian or without informing the initial veterinarian. The main purpose of supersession as dealt with in Rule 11 is to protect the interests of the patient. However, it is also ethical to inform a colleague when you are attending to a patient who is currently under that colleague’s care. The Code advises that the second veterinarian treats the case in the same way he or she would have treated a referral case. The initial veterinarian should be contacted and requested to provide the patient’s relevant Legal Mews AGUIDETOVETERINARY COLLEGIALITY INSOUTHAFRICA WHATDOTHE RULES ANDCODEOF CONDUCT SAY? Trudie Prinsloo (Legalvet Services) This article is intended to provide information and educate veterinarians on relevant aspects of the law. It is not intended as personal legal advice. SAVA is not responsible or liable for any advice or other information provided herein.