Dr. Meyers is correct in stating there are not explicit standards of adequate veterinary care provided by the USDA Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations1 (AWR) or state veterinary medical laws. Most states consider adequate standards of care to be what an average practitioner would do under similar circumstances, and the AWR definition of an attending veterinarian states, “a person who has graduated from a veterinary school…; has received training and/or experience in the care and management of the species being attended.” Even though these statements are not specific, veterinarians are held to what are generally considered adequate standards of care; therefore, Dr. Meyers is incorrect in stating “he could not be held to a standard of adequate veterinary care.” Standards of care are dictated by the experts in the field of veterinary medicine, up-to-date treatment protocols presented at continuing educations meetings, the standards taught at veterinary schools, and material found in current veterinary references.

The treatment provided by Dr. Meyers appears to adhere to the basic level of care for wound management. Additionally, he left explicit instructions that if the pig did not improve or became worse that he should be contacted. In our opinion, the school should appeal the citation as written and concurrently re-evaluate its practices. We do not feel Dr. Meyers was negligent in not revisiting the animal as he left explicit instructions that he should be contacted if problems occurred. He followed AWR, where Section 2.33 (b)(3) states, “a mechanism of direct and frequent communication is required so that timely and accurate information on problems of animal health, behavior, and well-being is conveyed to the attending veterinarian.”1; unfortunately, the vivarium staff did not. If a citation was going to be given, it should have been issued for poor communication between the school and the veterinarian and not veterinary negligence as it was Dr. Meyer’s professional opinion that the pig did not need antibiotics at the time. The Veterinary Medical Officer’s citation of veterinary negligence is based purely on opinion, unless he/she has specific knowledge or expertise as to why antibiotics should have been used or discussed.

The school needs to re-evaluate a number of its practices/policies as well as its program of veterinary care. First, communication with the attending veterinarian needs to be improved. The school may want to require that before an animal is euthanized while under the care of the attending veterinarian the veterinarian must first be contacted, with the exception that in an emergency when the attending cannot be reached the animal may be euthanized. Second, the school should re-evaluate caretaker and PI training, since until the veterinarian determines a wound is infected it should not be assumed it is. The veterinarian should have been called to determine if the wound was infected and if so to have a discussion with the PI as to what options were available. Thirdly, the school’s policy on euthanasia should be revisited to set up guidelines for situations such as this.