Veterinair tuchtrecht: ruimte voor verbetering: Een analytisch en vergelijkend onderzoek

Veterinarian care is only human – does our veterinary disciplinary system improve the quality of the veterinary profession in the Netherlands? Or does the system require improvement itself? A disciplinary system is necessary in a profession like the veterinary profession, where quality standards are open, an important characteristic for ‘free professionals’. Why do we refer to these professions as ‘free’? Simply because, despite existing protocols, the profession is deemed ‘free’ due to the fact that these professionals can make their own individual choices. The quality of the profession brings the necessary disciplinary assessment: assessment by colleagues who are familiar with the profession rather than only assessments by legally applied standards in the regular legal system. The Netherlands established their veterinary disciplinary system in the early 90’s of last century. In those days, complaints were rare, and if a veterinary practitioner was confronted with a complaint, the very least he or she did was to keep it silent. Disciplinary complaints were a source of shame and not to be discussed openly. Over the years, the veterinary disciplinary system has gained more attention from veterinarians and the general public alike, resulting in an increase in complaints. The vast majority of these complaints relate to the veterinary treatment of companion animals, alongside a rise in the number and impact of complaints regarding (assumed) mishaps in livestock veterinary treatment. The interesting outcome is mainly that the learning effect of the Dutch vete rinary disciplinary system is limited; the stress and embarrassment caused by complaints seem to overrule quality improvement. The suggestions for enhancing the system to make it more veterinarian-friendly, proposed by veterinarians themselves, largely align with the differences observed in the disciplinary systems for attorneys and Belgian veterinarians. If stress, annoyance at the timespan, unpredictability, and a sense of injustice overshadow the learning process, the disciplinary system fails to fulfil its purpose of quality improvement. Therefore, the discussion chapter at the end of this book contains suggestions for improving a variety of elements in veterinary disciplinary procedures in the Netherlands. Not only to make adjustments to the system to be slightly more ‘vet-friendly’, but also to prevent the veterinary disciplinary system from diverging into an outcome contradictory to its original aim of improving the quality of veterinary medicine, which could result from burnout, emotional stress, health issues, and even career changes. Among the numerous proposed changes, the most significant opportunity for improvement can be identified in: 1. more concrete quality standards and a binding code of conduct; 2. by prior evaluation of a complaint by one or more professionals before a comprehensive disciplinary assessment is undertaken; 3. accessible electronic communication with the veterinary disciplinary council; 4. a fixed time frame for assessing a veterinary disciplinary complaint and delivering the ruling ; 5. establishing a barrier to le complaints by implementing a fee. Because our animals and our vets are worth it.