Leave a comment

Comments 12

artekka May 3 2010, 12:29:14 UTC
I can also see that terminology weirding out clients.

You could always go with calling (female) owners "mommy" when addressing the pet, like our vet does. :P

Reply

lexixanatos487 May 4 2010, 01:32:33 UTC
Yeah, especially since most of our clients are still trying to grasp "animals deserve food, water, shelter, and basic veterinary care." You ask a good ol' boy if he's his dog's "daddy" and he's prolly never going to take you seriously again :P

Reply


kadaria May 3 2010, 17:31:03 UTC
We refer to owners as clients or owners and pets as patients. I don't think we do this to be more PC as we can get away with not having deep and meaningful client relationships in emergency ( ... )

Reply

lexixanatos487 May 4 2010, 01:48:41 UTC
Technically we don't have to develop meaningful client relationships either; we're a low-cost spay/neuter clinic and encourage clients to develop such a relationship with a full-service veterinarian.

What's the name of the article? I'd really like to read it once VSPN is back up.

Is McNuggs your piggie? LOL if I remember anything from psychology, it's that it's impossible to guage even human happiness in an objective manner, so... The way I figure it, if an animal's physical and social (if applicable for the species) needs are met, most likely it's going to be happy.

Reply

kadaria May 4 2010, 07:07:32 UTC
I think it was also a part of VIN's Board of the Day so if a vet allows you to hop on you can go back a few or search for it there. I can try and copy pasta it tomorrow if I can find it.
Nuggs is a kitty.

Reply

lexixanatos487 May 4 2010, 01:51:13 UTC
PS: What was the research study? At the WCV we did surveys for diseases and tried experimental treatments/procedures, and it piqued my interest in research.

Reply


stauros May 4 2010, 00:42:06 UTC
As I understand it, the switch from "owner" to "guardian" in the wording of laws gives the state (or agencies deputised by the state) additional authority to intervene (read: interfere) in matters of people and pets.

Reply

lexixanatos487 May 4 2010, 01:41:15 UTC
See Kadaria's response about changing the wording in the laws. And at least here in VA, the government could do a lot more "interfering" in matters of people and pets, imho. It's SO frustrating when you've got an obvious case of abuse/neglect (just an example: we have a schizophrenic client who doesn't take his meds and can't even care for himself properly, and he's so paranoid that by the time he forces himself to bring his animals in they're on death's door, and he ALWAYS declines euthanasia) and the ACOs are like "our hands are tied; all we can do is give this cat back and pray the owner doesn't do it again." *headdesk*

Reply


Leave a comment

Up