This guideline outlines the appropriate standard expected of a registered veterinary practitioner in the course of veterinary practice. It should be read in conjunction with other related guidelines.

---

Context to Guideline 1: The veterinary practitioner-owner-animal (VOA) relationship

The relationship between a veterinary practitioner, an owner or designated representative and their animal (the VOA relationship) is the foundation for the delivery of veterinary services.

There are several aims in recognising a VOA relationship:

1. Ensure the best interests of an animal is central in decision-making related to the provision of veterinary services, irrespective of whether the relationship between an owner and an animal is for companionship or commercial reasons.
2. Understand the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved and any limitations to the establishment and maintenance of the VOA relationship.
3. Protect the public by facilitating an appropriate standard of veterinary practice.
4. Enable a veterinary practitioner to meet relevant regulatory requirements, for example the requirement for an animal to be under the care of a veterinary practitioner prior to the supply and use of restricted medications.
5. Align veterinary practitioner conduct when making treatment decisions with community expectations.

The attributes of the VOA relationship provided below are relevant to understanding the responsibilities of the parties involved:

1. Veterinary practitioner
   a) the individual providing services to the owner in relation to the care and wellbeing of their animal.
   b) While it is noted that an owner may also view the VOA relationship in terms of a collective of individuals, such as a group of practitioners employed within a clinic setting, the Board views the responsibilities associated with a VOA relationship as vested in an individual veterinary practitioner.
2. Owner
   a) The owner is the individual who has property rights over an animal receiving veterinary services.
   b) The basis of the relationship between the owner and the animal/animals receiving veterinary services may be primarily for companionship or commercial reasons.
   c) The owner may designate an individual as their representative to make decisions regarding the scope of veterinary services provided to the animal and to undertake one or more of their responsibilities in the VOA relationship. Such a designation should be explicit and recorded in order to be enacted.
   d) In the case of a service animal (e.g. a guide dog) which has been allocated to an individual by a third party, the owner is the third party.
   e) In the case of wildlife where property rights are not applicable, the owner is deemed to be the person presenting the animal to the veterinary practitioner for the provision of veterinary services.
3. Animal
   a) the individual animal of any species receiving veterinary services at the instigation of the owner.
   b) While the animal may be one of a collective group of animals in receipt of veterinary services, the Board views the primary focus of the relationship between the veterinary practitioner and an individual animal is each individual animal’s wellbeing.

Veterinary practitioner and owner responsibilities

Both the veterinary practitioner and the owner carry responsibilities in the VOA relationship.

The main responsibilities of the veterinary practitioner in the VOA relationship are to:

1. directly observe and examine the animal and/or their production system and facilities when requested to do so by the owner or when necessary
2. keep the wellbeing of the animal as a central focus
3. establish and record the name of the owner or authorised representative i.e., the individual with decision-making authority to consent to a procedure, treatment or husbandry matter
4. take reasonable efforts to ensure the owner understands their communications
5. provide a reasonable range of options for treatment or management, a prognosis, and the possible complications, consequences and associated costs for each option
6. respect the owner’s rights, including the right to refuse service, request a referral or have established VOA relationships with several veterinary practitioners concurrently
7. maintain the VOA relationship over its duration through:
   • regular communication
   • demonstrating an intention that the relationship continues
   • directly observing the animal or production system at least once per year
   • provision of veterinary services as required or until terminated by either the owner or the veterinary practitioner.

The main responsibilities of the owner in the VOA relationship are to:

1. keep the wellbeing of their animal as the primary focus
2. make decisions and give consent for proposed procedures, treatments or husbandry matters in the best interests of their animal
3. designate an alternative decision-maker to act on their behalf including placing the wellbeing of the animal at the centre of their consideration and decisions
4. satisfy themselves that their designated representative is willing and has the capacity to:
   • represent the interests of the owner in discussion with the veterinary practitioner
   • give consent for proposed procedures, treatments or husbandry matters
   • take financial responsibility for the veterinary services provided to the owner’s animal as required, including clearly communicating any financial limits to the veterinary practitioner
5. take reasonable efforts to carry out instructions of the veterinary practitioner following the provision of veterinary services
6. maintain the VOA relationship over its duration through:
   • regular communication
   • demonstrating an intention that the relationship continues
   • accessing veterinary services as required or until terminated by either owner or veterinary practitioner
7. inform the veterinary practitioner whenever they have established a VOA relationship with another veterinary practitioner in relation to the animal receiving veterinary services.

The Board notes that while the responsibility to meet costs of treatments, procedures and husbandry matters lies with the owner, the owner may designate a different individual to assume this responsibility on their behalf without prejudice to their role as the decision-maker in relation to the treatment, procedures for and husbandry management of their animal.

The veterinary practitioner-owner-animal (VOA) relationship is the relationship formed between an individual veterinary practitioner, owner and animal for the delivery of services at any given time. The VOA relationship places the wellbeing of the animal at the centre of the relationship and, over its duration, fosters trust and collaboration between the parties. The VOA relationship is a direct link between the owner, animal and the veterinary practitioner delivering the veterinary services at the relevant time. It does not include the owner of a multi‐vet/corporate practice or other vets at the same or other practices.

While a single veterinary medical record may be maintained by a practice, the veterinary practitioner-owner-animal (VOA) relationship is between the veterinary practitioner, owner and animal at the time veterinary services are delivered. The Board’s view is that the responsibilities associated with a VOA relationship are held by the individual vet who provides veterinary services at a given time, not with a group of vets.

While this may be routine practice, to supply medications to an animal a veterinary practitioner should be able to demonstrate that their decision to supply was based on requisite knowledge of the animal, including factors such as the management and environment of the animal, physical and behavioural symptoms, risk factors, concurrent medications and conditions, and the ability of the owner to administer the medication etc. Ideally, this knowledge would be obtained by the veterinary practitioner first-hand, but in some circumstances it may be appropriate for them to obtain this knowledge from a colleague.

Even if a prescription was provided by the clinic who treated/saw the animal, a practitioner who has not treated/seen and has no knowledge of the animal should not supply the prescribed medication. If a veterinary practitioner and their clinic has never seen an animal, they are unlikely to satisfy the necessary level of veterinary practitioner‐owner‐animal (VOA) relationship and first-hand knowledge of the animal required to supply the medication.

To supply medications to an animal, a veterinary practitioner should be able to demonstrate that their decision to supply was based on requisite knowledge of the animal, including factors such as the management and environment of the animal, physical and behavioural symptoms, risk factors, concurrent medications and conditions, and the ability of the owner to administer the medication etc. Ideally, this knowledge would be obtained by a veterinary practitioner first-hand, but in some circumstances it may be appropriate for them to obtain this knowledge from a colleague.

This would depend on the individual circumstances, including how recently the animal was seen at the specialist/other clinic. In terms of practicalities, it may be easier for an animal owner to pick up medication from their regular clinic, rather than travelling back to a specialist.

To supply medications to an animal, a veterinary practitioner should be able to demonstrate that their decision to supply was based on requisite knowledge of the animal, including factors such as the management and environment of the animal, physical and behavioural symptoms, risk factors, concurrent medications and conditions, the ability of the owner to administer the medication etc. Ideally, this knowledge would be obtained by a veterinary practitioner first-hand but in some circumstances it may be appropriate for them to obtain this knowledge from a colleague.

In emergencies, a veterinary practitioner may not have a chance to confirm who owns the animal before providing veterinary services. The priority is treatment of the animal.

Otherwise, it is appropriate for a veterinary practitioner to ask the person presenting the animal if they are the owner or the owner’s designated representative:

• Consent: A veterinary practitioner is expected to take reasonable steps to establish that the individual presenting the animal has the authority to consent to a procedure or treatment or a course of action in relation to the animal receiving the veterinary service (G4.6). Any written consent forms should include the name and contact details of the owner or their designated representative and the owner’s signature (G4 Context). 
• Veterinary medications: Before supply, use, prescription and administration of veterinary medications, a veterinary practitioner is expected to ensure that the individual to whom the vet is supplying or prescribing medication is the owner of the animal or the owner’s designated representative (VPRBV Guideline 14.1). 
• Veterinary certificates written by a veterinary practitioner should contain the name of the owner and a unique identifier(s) for the animal such as a microchip tag and/or source number (VPRBV Guideline 19.2). If it comes to the attention of a veterinary practitioner that the owner’s name on a microchip tag is not the same as the name of the person presenting themselves as the owner, then it may not be appropriate to issue a veterinary certificate to that person.
• Veterinary medical record: A veterinary practitioner should ensure the veterinary medical record contains details that identify the owner of the animal and/or their designated representative, including name, address, contact number (VPRBV Guideline 7.4(1)). They should also include details identifying the animal including tag number and/or any microchip (VPRBV Guideline 7.4(3)).

If a veterinary practitioner has recorded the name of the owner or their designated representative in the medical record as communicated to them, a veterinary practitioner is not responsible for any misrepresentation of ownership or decision-making authority made by an individual with malicious or mischievous intent (VPRBV Guideline 1.4).

Veterinary practitioners may wish to seek advice from their indemnity insurer or a legal practitioner about ownership issues if they arise, to help them make appropriate decisions.

Veterinary practitioners can decide not to enter a veterinary practitioner-owner-animal (VOA) relationship with a person and provide veterinary services if the person presenting the animal cannot show they are the animal’s owner or if available information indicates they are not the owner.

However, in an emergency,  a veterinary practitioner must provide first aid or pain relief to an animal even if the person presenting the animal is not or may not be the owner.

Sometimes it takes time for transfer of ownership to show on microchipping registration and other identifying information for an animal, so the new “owner” may need to wait till this occurs if a vet has decided not to provide a veterinary certificate or treat an animal in the interim (and there is no urgency for veterinary services).

Yes. Veterinary practitioners cannot decline to return stray animals to a non-owner or wildlife or introduced species to the person who presented the animal. If the animal does not need to be euthanised, is not suffering from a notifiable disease and is not a biosecurity or other community threat, a veterinary practitioner should choose from the following actions after delivering veterinary services to the animal:

Stray animals
Vet clinics cannot give a stray animal back to a non-owner, but they can take action to reunite a lost cat or dog with its owner under the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (DA Act). Process for reuniting lost pets: Information for participating vets and animal shelters (Agriculture Victoria).

An exception to the reunification process is that a dog or cat should be delivered to the local council (after any necessary pain relief or first aid is provided to a sick animal) if a veterinary practitioner:

• has concerns about the health or welfare of the pet
• reasonably suspects a dog is a dangerous or menacing dog through information obtained on the microchip registry
• reasonably suspects a dog is a restricted breed dog, i.e., Japanese Tosa, fila Brasileiro, dogo Argentino, Perro de Presa Canario, American Pit Bull Terrier
• that another circumstance outlined in the rules applies.

Vet clinics which choose not to participate in the process for reuniting lost cats or dogs with their owners should deliver the animal to a council authorised officer or to a person or organisation that has a written agreement with the local council (under section 84Y of the DA Act) to support the capture, holding, rehoming or disposal of dogs and cats. Persons or organisations with “84Y agreements” include shelters, Community Foster Care Networks (CFCN) and foster carers, and some veterinary practices.

Wildlife
After receiving veterinary attention, wildlife should be given to an authorised wildlife shelter operator or wildlife carer for further care until release. Licences and authorisations are issued by the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action under the Wildlife Act 1975 and Wildlife Regulations 2013. The wildlife cannot be kept by a veterinary practitioner or given back and kept by the person who handed in the animal, unless they are authorised to keep wildlife.

Introduced species
Introduced species may be a declared pest species or otherwise pose a biosecurity/environmental or other community threat.

• Declared pest animals cannot be released. Very often, they may need to be humanely euthanised. If not, they can only be kept by a person who has a licence to keep declared pest animals. More information, see sections 75-77 of the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.

There are specific circumstances in which an animal can be euthanised without its owner’s consent.

A veterinary practitioner may euthanise an animal that is abandoned, distressed or disabled if the veterinary practitioner reasonably believes that the animal's condition is such that it would continue to suffer if it remained alive (Section 24D, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986).

A veterinary practitioner should try to obtain an animal owner’s consent before euthanising an animal whose condition cannot be relieved satisfactorily by veterinary care (VPRBV Guideline 18.2). However, the veterinary practitioner may proceed to euthanise the animal if the animal’s owner cannot be identified or located (for example if a stray or abandoned animal has been presented to the vet) or if the owner does not respond to communications seeking their consent to euthanise the animal. If an animal’s owner can be contacted but refuses to give their consent to their animal being euthanised, a veterinary practitioner may euthanise an animal without the owner’s consent if they reasonably believe that the animal's condition is such that it would continue to suffer if it remained alive.

At times, a veterinary practitioner may need to reconcile the owner’s preference as to whether to accept end of life veterinary services with a potential impact on the public wellbeing and safety. Such factors may include:

1. whether the animal is suffering from a notifiable disease and the possible exposure of other animals to such a disease
2. whether the animal is a declared pest species or poses a biosecurity or other community threat
3. rules for management of the animal under a racing or other code
4. requirements or processes which may need to be fulfilled after the animal’s death, such as necropsy or responding to insurance claims.

A veterinary practitioner should assess animals physically presented to them and take action to ensure that no unreasonable pain or suffering is caused, or is likely to be caused, to the animal. Euthanasia may be appropriate if the veterinary practitioner reasonably believes that the animal's condition is such that it would continue to suffer if it remained alive (section 24D, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (POCTA) Act).

Except for the actions above, a veterinary practitioner can decline to provide veterinary services to an owner on a one-off or permanent basis. If they decide not to provide veterinary treatment to an animal, they should refer the owner to another veterinary practitioner where appropriate, and provide any veterinary records or a summary of treatment to the other practitioner on request. They should also record their actions in the veterinary medical record.

If a veterinary practitioner has an ethical objection to providing a veterinary service, they can decline to provide that service. If a veterinary practitioner has an ethical objection to euthanising an animal, they should provide appropriate first aid and pain relief (if required) and refer the animal’s owner to another veterinary practitioner. Examples of other procedures to which a veterinary practitioner may have an ethical objection include cosmetic surgery such as implanting testicular implants or providing veterinary services to facilitate the cloning of an animal (see Genetically modified and cloned animals, National Health and Medical Research Council).

It would not be appropriate for a veterinary practitioner to provide treatment in the following circumstances:

• if the treatment/services being asked for are outside the veterinary practitioner’s self-assessed technical competency and they cannot deliver the service under the supervision/instruction of an experienced veterinary practitioner, in which case referral to another practitioner may be appropriate (VPRBV Guideline 9).
• if the animal presented to the veterinary practitioner is a species the veterinary practitioner does not normally treat and they cannot deliver the service under the supervision/instruction of an experienced veterinary practitioner, in which case referral to another practitioner may be appropriate (VPRBV Guideline 3.4)
• if the animal owner has asked the veterinary practitioner to provide surgical or medical intervention in relation to an animal’s inheritable condition or disease UNLESS the failure to treat the condition or disease would cause unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress to the animal and/or would place another animal at risk of harm or injury (VPRBV Guideline 2.4). Intervention relating to the breeding of animals with heritable defects that cause disease may be prohibited, e.g. Code of practice for the breeding of animals with heritable defects that cause disease (Agriculture Victoria).
• if the law prohibits a veterinary procedure or only allows it for therapeutic purposes. Under the POCTA Act, the following procedures are prohibited, unless they are being undertaken by a veterinary practitioner for the purpose of having a therapeutic effect: cropping a dog’s ears, docking a dog or horse’s tail, grinding, clipping or trimming the teeth of a sheep using an electrical or motorised device, removing a cat’s claws, removing a reptile’s venom sacs. Debarking a dog may only be undertaken by a veterinary practitioner in accordance with the Code of practice for debarking of dogs. In addition, the procedure of thermocautery or firing of a horse is prohibited with no exceptions.
• if the veterinary practitioner has financial, professional or private interests or relationships with third parties that may affect, or have the appearance of affecting, the decisions they make about the care and/or treatment of an animal. Conflicts of interest are relevant to the provision of veterinary services associated with certification, accreditation and the provision of an expert opinion.

Veterinary practitioners can decide to terminate a veterinary practitioner-owner-animal (VOA) relationship and stop providing veterinary services.

Consider before acting
Because a decision to terminate a VOA relationship may affect the wellbeing of an animal, it may help to wait before making the decision and carefully consider the circumstances and possible alternatives to termination.

Factors for a veterinary practitioner to consider include:

• Do you want to terminate the VOA relationship simply because the animal owner has questioned the treatment of their animal or made a complaint to you?
• Was the behaviour one-off or is it regular?
• Who was the behaviour directed at? Were there any unrelated factors that might have influenced the way the behaviour was received by the person to whom behaviour was directed?
• Have you explained to the owner the effect of their behaviour on you or clinic staff? Have you asked them to stop the behaviour? Have you told them you are thinking of terminating the relationship with them if the behaviour does not stop?
• Were team members very afraid or assaulted during the event? A practice should activate its security protocols when events of this type occur, and the event should be reported to the police.

While the Board has no expectations, the following alternatives to termination of the VOA relationship may be appropriate to consider, depending on the context:

• Could you provide training and support in managing and redirecting difficult behaviour to the team members who experienced the behaviour? More information:
• Managing complex complainant behaviour, Victorian Ombudsman
• Thrive (if you or your employer has access to this Australian Veterinary Association initiative it includes a resource on managing conflict)
• Could another team member sign the animal’s owner into the clinic or treat the animal?
• Could the animal be treated outside the clinic or by itself in the clinic without the owner being present?
• Would you treat the animal if there was an agreement for the owner’s designated representative to bring the animal to consultations instead of the owner?
• If the animal owner cannot pay their bill immediately, would you agree to payment through a payment plan if the animal’s owner provided a trusted guarantor?

Written notice required
If after considering all factors and alternatives to termination, a veterinary practitioner decides they still want to terminate the VOA relationship, they should inform the owner in writing that the relationship is terminated. The veterinary practitioner should keep a written record that they will no longer be providing veterinary services to the owner (Guideline 1.5). The veterinary practice should check it has removed the animal’s owner from reminders and marketing lists: it would be confusing for a person to receive vaccination reminders and other communications after receiving a termination notice.

A veterinary practitioner does not have to provide provide a reason for terminating a VOA relationship in a written termination notice. If a reason is provided, it is advisable to consider the effect of any statement on the animal’s owner. The Board does not provide example termination notices. Veterinary practitioners may wish to consult their indemnity insurer, legal practitioner or the Australian Veterinary Association about the content of a letter terminating a VOA relationship.

This material is current only at the time of publication and may be changed from time to time. The Board reviews and updates the Guidelines on a continuous basis to reflect changes in the science and knowledge base underpinning contemporary veterinary practice. The Board will take reasonable steps to inform the veterinary profession when such updates are released but it remains the responsibility of the individual veterinary practitioner to ensure that their knowledge and application of these Guidelines to their own practice is current.

While the Board has made every effort to ensure that the material in these Guidelines is correct in law, it shall not be liable to any veterinary practitioner or any other person or entity in relation to any claim, action or proceeding whatsoever (whether in contract, negligence or other tort or in proceedings seeking any other form of legal or equitable remedy or relief) for any inadequacy, error or mistake, or for any deficiency in the whole or any part of this document (including any updates incorporated in the document from time to time). A veterinary practitioner or any other person or entity acting upon the contents of this document acknowledges and accepts that this is the basis upon which the Board has produced these Guidelines and made them available to such person or entity.