No 'Hippocratic oath' for Veterinarians

Lack of space precludes us from publishing the entire “General Principles”, but we quote two of them:
4.1.4 He (a person who practices a veterinary profession) will not permit himself to be exploited in a manner which may be detrimental to an animal. And then the gem:
A person who practises a veterinary
profession shall refrain from expressing
any criticism in public through which the
reputation, status or practice of a
colleague in the profession is or could
be undermined or injured or through
which a reflection is or could be the
case on the probity, skill, methods or
conduct of such colleague.
(Dare we wonder whether this is why the
SAVC has been so reluctant to remove
Immelman from the register of veterinary
surgeons?) Dr. Ardington assured us, however, that the veterinary code was in the process of being updated. Eight years later, being forever trusting of the goodness of humankind, The Snout
‘phoned the SAVC to enquire whether the code had been updated. The response? “Dr. Ardington is working on it.” Write (POLITELY please) to The President, S.A. Veterinary Council, P.O. Box 83, Arcadia 0007, Pretoria, or fax 012 324 2392 asking that, for the sake of the credibility of the veterinary
profession, the Veterinary Code of Practice be amended to include the equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath, and that the SAVC takes steps to remove Dr. André Immelman from the register of veterinary surgeons.

In June, 1996, when lodging complaints with
the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC) regarding the Roodeplaat veterinarians who conducted cruel warfare experiments on animals, we wrote to the SAVC as follows: “It is our information that veterinary surgeons are not required to take any oath along the lines of the Hippocratic Oath which is subscribed to by medical doctors. If this is indeed the case, then
we urgently request that a similar oath be
brought into force by your Council.”
In his belated response Dr. P.C.
Ardington, then president of the SAVC,
admitted that this was the case, but that
“the Council was concerned that the
veterinary profession had a sound moral
foundation and adhered to the rules
governing professional behaviour under the
Act.” He was kind enough to enclose a copy of the relevant sections of their rules governing professional behaviour. Sounds good? On reading though the rules another picture emerged. It appeared that these principles sought to protect the veterinarians rather than the animals. When pointing this out to Ardington, his response was “..The Council is confident that it interprets its rules on ethical behaviour in the interests of animals.” Which appears to be an
anomaly when one considers their reluctance to censure Prof. André Immelman who was not only in charge of cruel warfare experiments on animals, but was singled out for special censure by the subsequent Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Ardington went on to make this immortal
statement: “Regarding a veterinary oath similar to the Hippocratic Oath, we note your
suggestion. We have no evidence that there is a higher incidence of unethical behaviour amongst veterinarians compared to medical practitioners due to lack of such an oath.”

 

Contact Details • Home Previous Article • Next Article