Client confidentiality - drowning kittens

nashipear

So I have a client who told me they have a pregnant cat and that her dad is going to drown the kittens, I suggested just taking them to the rescue centre. I forgot about it until I got home and now it's playing on my mind.. Can I some how report this family without her finding out it was me?!

slimjimmc

How about you offer to take the kittens yourself, then give them to a rescue centre if you wish. Dilemma resolved!

nashipear

See she's not a regular client, I might talk to my boss and see what she thinks.. Wish I had said something there and then but I was just so stunned someone would just say it straight out

Pat Mustard

nashipear wrote: »

Can I some how report this family without her finding out it was me?!

If the only question is how not to get caught, then I don't see how this is a legal question or a question of client confidentiality.

Number one rule of not getting caught: don't post about it on the web.

Little CuChulainn

Animal cruelty is a criminal offence. You don't say what job you are in but my understanding of confidentiality burdens do not involve crimes that are going to be committed. There is also a Garda confidential line and an ISPCA cruelty report line.

gctest50

nashipear wrote: »

.... I forgot about it until I got home and now it's playing on my mind....

its ok - they don't want to survive anyway

johnnyskeleton

nashipear wrote: »

So I have a client who told me they have a pregnant cat and that her dad is going to drown the kittens, I suggested just taking them to the rescue centre. I forgot about it until I got home and now it's playing on my mind.. Can I some how report this family without her finding out it was me?!

Unofrtunately many of the animals that are brought to the shelter are put down anyway. They just dont have the space to keep them.

Little CuChulainn

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Unofrtunately many of the animals that are brought to the shelter are put down anyway. They just dont have the space to keep them.

Kittens always find a home. In any case, there's a big difference between euthanising an animal and putting it in a sack and throwing it in a river.

MarkAnthony

Sorry in advance for the rant but I don't see what this has to do with legal discussion so I kind of feel justified.

OP report the cnut to the ISPCA, I'd also have no issue giving this person a piece of my mind, client or not. If you're too much of a stingey, tight, thoughtless asshat to not get your animal neutered the least you can do is stick up a card in the local tesco.

People like this make my blood boil.

Milly33

Well really unless you are willing to do something about it then the only other answer is to stay out of it...

brian_t

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Animal cruelty is a criminal offence. You don't say what job you are in but my understanding of confidentiality burdens do not involve crimes that are going to be committed. There is also a Garda confidential line and an ISPCA cruelty report line.

Drowning new born kittens before their eyes open is a common way of getting rid of unwanted kittens in the countryside.

I'm not saying it's right but do you think that the Garda or the ISPCA are really going to start prosecuting people over the practise.

dazed+confused

Unfortunately the above post is correct and unlike dogs, cats have no protection under the law. For sample if you run over a dog in your car you have a legal obligation to make a reasonable attempt to find the owner. There is no such law to protect cats, they are not recognised anywhere under Irish law and so it's not even illegal to do this.

Discodog

dazed+confused wrote: »

Unfortunately the above post is correct and unlike dogs, cats have no protection under the law. For sample if you run over a dog in your car you have a legal obligation to make a reasonable attempt to find the owner. There is no such law to protect cats, they are not recognised anywhere under Irish law and so it's not even illegal to do this.

Really ? So the Animal Welfare Act excludes cats ? Drowning Kittens is cruelty, usually defined as causing unnecessary suffering. Even under the old Protection of Animals Act it would be illegal.

Discodog

brian_t wrote: »

Drowning new born kittens before their eyes open is a common way of getting rid of unwanted kittens in the countryside.

I'm not saying it's right but do you think that the Garda or the ISPCA are really going to start prosecuting people over the practise.

The ISPCA would provided that they had evidence. The Garda have no interest in any animal cruelty crime & usually pass the buck to the local SPCA.

Just because barbaric practices are common it doesn't make them legal.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Discodog

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They initiate them:


This first annual report highlights the prosecutions initiated by ISPCA
Inspectors that were finalised in court in 2014 and summarises those
cases finalised in court between 2010 and 2013. All the prosecutions in
this report were taken under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which was
replaced by the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, in March 2014. ISPCA
Inspectors became Authorised Officers under the AHWA in May 2014 and
since then have initiated over 40 prosecutions, three of which have already
been finalised in court with positive outcomes. These will be reported in
our next annual report for 2015. Many of our supporters have indicated
that they feel that the penalties on conviction for animal welfare offences
are not high enough. We will continue to do our job and bring offenders to
court. How the offenders are dealt with is a matter for the courts.

http://www.ispca.ie/images/pages/ISPCA_Prosecution_Report_2014.pdf

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Discodog

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So ? The ISPCA will instigate prosecutions. The idea that the ISPCA won't do anything is wrong.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Gael23

Criminal acts are a justification to break confidentiality so you can report this to the ISPCA.

Discodog

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I presume that the SPCA's used to bring a case to the Garda. I think that the AW Act allows the Minister to appoint "Authorised Officers". But I don't know if they can prosecute or if they forward the matter to the Gardai.

hullaballoo

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0015/print.html#sec37

http://www.ispca.ie/images/pages/ISPCA_Prosecution_Report_2014.pdf

ISPCA inspectors are authorised officers under the AHWA 2013. I am not reading the whole Act for the purposes of this thread but I take that - together with the opening paragraphs of the ISPCA report, above - to mean that they can prosecute. It seems that they had similar authority under the predecessor Act, the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

hullaballoo

Gael23 wrote: »

Criminal acts are a justification to break confidentiality so you can report this to the ISPCA.

Moderator: This is not true.

Some actual legal discussion rather than bland, untrue assertions as to the state of the law would be welcome in this thread.

Discodog

hullaballoo wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0015/print.html#sec37

http://www.ispca.ie/images/pages/ISPCA_Prosecution_Report_2014.pdf

ISPCA inspectors are authorised officers under the AHWA 2013. I am not reading the whole Act for the purposes of this thread but I take that - together with the opening paragraphs of the ISPCA report, above - to mean that they can prosecute. It seems that they had similar authority under the predecessor Act, the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

I think that you are right & it stems from the RSPCA who have similar powers.
The AW Act has very far reaching powers & interpretations.

gctest50

Gael23 wrote: »

Criminal acts are a justification to break confidentiality so you can report this to the ISPCA.

the divil is in the detail there though

Section 8(a) "in the opinion of the Garda Siochana not below the rank of chief superintendent or an officer of the Permenant Defence Forces who holds an army rank not below colonel and is designated by the Minister for Defence under this paragraph, required for the purpose of safeguarding the security of the State"
Section 8(b) "required for the purpose of preventing, detecting or investigating offences, apprehending or prosecuting offenders or assessing or collecting any tax, duty or other moneys owed or payable to the State, a local authority or a health board, in any case in which the application of those restrictions would be likely to prejudice any of the matters aforesaid"



Section 8(c) "required in the interests of protecting the international relations of the State"
Section 8(d) "The disclosure is required urgently to prevent injury or other damage to the health of a person or serious loss of or damage to property"

Section 8(e) "required by or under any enactment or by a rule of law or order of a court"

Section 8(f) "required for the purposes of obtaining legal advice or for the purposes of, or in the course of, legal proceedings in which the person making the disclosure is a party or a witness"
Section 8(h) "made at the request or with the consent of the data subject or to a person acting on his behalf"

Little CuChulainn

brian_t wrote: »

Drowning new born kittens before their eyes open is a common way of getting rid of unwanted kittens in the countryside.

I'm not saying it's right but do you think that the Garda or the ISPCA are really going to start prosecuting people over the practise.

It's the job of the ISPCA and they've recently been given a lot of power to enforce the law.

dazed+confused wrote: »

Unfortunately the above post is correct and unlike dogs, cats have no protection under the law. For sample if you run over a dog in your car you have a legal obligation to make a reasonable attempt to find the owner. There is no such law to protect cats, they are not recognised anywhere under Irish law and so it's not even illegal to do this.

This is pure tripe.

Ave Sodalis

hullaballoo wrote:

Some actual legal discussion rather than bland, untrue assertions as to the state of the law would be welcome in this thread.

Just out of curiosity, what is the legal standing in this case?

Xaracatz

nashipear wrote: »

So I have a client who told me they have a pregnant cat and that her dad is going to drown the kittens, I suggested just taking them to the rescue centre. I forgot about it until I got home and now it's playing on my mind.. Can I some how report this family without her finding out it was me?!

Morally, please make contact with this client again and offer suggestions such as having the kittens taken away after birth. http://www.catsaid.ie/.

They may be euthanised, but that's much kinder than drowning them.

I don't know how reporting them will help - but if you could just speak to them and offer practical advice, that might prevent the kittens being drowned.

Discodog

Xaracatz wrote: »

Morally, please make contact with this client again and offer suggestions such as having the kittens taken away after birth. http://www.catsaid.ie/.

They may be euthanised, but that's much kinder than drowning them.

I don't know how reporting them will help - but if you could just speak to them and offer practical advice, that might prevent the kittens being drowned.

Exactly. Rather than focussing on reporting him simply phone the guy & say that you have heard that he might know of some kittens being available. Tell him that you have homes for them, pick them up & take them to a rescue.

blatantrereg

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Unofrtunately many of the animals that are brought to the shelter are put down anyway. They just dont have the space to keep them.

If you're talking about the DSPCA shelter then the answer is yes and no. They don't put down animals directly because of lack of space. However lack of space is a factor that contributes to the spread of disease that can occur and require animals to be put down.

The practical result is the same, but you it's not true that kittens will definitely not be euthanized because they are likely to be adopted. Their likelihood of being adopted only effects their chances inasmuch as it reduces their time in the shelter.

Discodog

blatantrereg wrote: »

If you're talking about the DSPCA shelter then the answer is yes and no. They don't put down animals directly because of lack of space. However lack of space is a factor that contributes to the spread of disease that can occur and require animals to be put down.

The practical result is the same, but you it's not true that kittens will definitely not be euthanized because they are likely to be adopted. Their likelihood of being adopted only effects their chances inasmuch as it reduces their time in the shelter.

Kittens are often easy to rehome. There are a number of local cat rescues & even the local vet can help.

thegreatgonzo

nashipear wrote: »

So I have a client who told me they have a pregnant cat and that her dad is going to drown the kittens, I suggested just taking them to the rescue centre. I forgot about it until I got home and now it's playing on my mind.. Can I some how report this family without her finding out it was me?!

OP when you say client are you working in a veterinary practice? You could email info@vci for ethical advice.
I don't see how you can report something that hasn't happened yet and even if it had happened there would be no evidence only that a cat had recently had kittens but they are now no where to be found. Also it would probably be easy for them to work out that it was you if they hadn't told many people about it.
If you are working in a veterinary clinic you really should try to persuade them again to surrender the kittens after they have been weaned and to get the cat spayed.

taytobreath

Please please ring your local s.p.c.a. office, they will visit the home and advise the owner on what's the best course of action regarding animal welfare, they will not give out names on who reported this, they get anonymous calls like this every hour of every day.

hullaballoo

sup_dude wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what is the legal standing in this case?

As usual, the answer is "it depends..."

We do not know what business the OP is in so cannot make any bare statements about the application of "client confidentiality." I'm going to presume that because the OP refers to "client confidentiality" that the OP is not engaged in one of the traditional white-collar professions, to which a form of privilege can attach. I would expect that someone in one of those professions would refer to privilege and not confidentiality.

Where that privilege is applicable, the circumstances in which the privilege can be waived by the professional receiving the information are limited. For example, where the client reveals the commission of a sexual offence against a minor, the privilege can and must be waived, since there is a reporting obligation on a professional who receives such information. However, in some other cases, privilege protects the client and only the client can choose to waive that privilege. Some examples of where this professional privilege applies include lawyer/client, doctor/patient, priest/confessor (confined to the confessional) and to a limited extent, councillor/patient (in the psychiatric field). It is an area of the law where nothing is for certain because the court can decide that the privilege can be lifted in any case.

In most other professions, "client confidentiality" has almost no meaning other than there's a non-binding expectation that information given by the client won't be passed on. It may be arguable from the client's point of view that where there is an expectation of confidentiality, they are protected by law against having any information divulged about them to another party. However, if it relates to a criminal offence, however minor, and professional privilege in the strict legal sense does not apply, then it might be that the information can be passed to the appropriate authorities without sanction.

But, you see, it's all ifs, buts and maybes and that is the long and the short of why legal advice is not allowed to be given on this forum or website.

234

hullaballoo wrote: »

priest/confessor (confined to the confessional)

Actually, there is authority to the effect that in that instance, the privilege is that of the priest and he can choose to waive it.

hullaballoo

234 wrote: »

Actually, there is authority to the effect that in that instance, the privilege is that of the priest and he can choose to waive it.

You are correct. Having looked into it further, it Cook v. Carroll et seq. state that a parishioner cannot waive privilege without the consent of the priest.

Isn't that at odds then with LPP?

234

hullaballoo wrote: »

You are correct. Having looked into it further, it Cook v. Carroll et seq. state that a parishioner cannot waive privilege without the consent of the priest.

Isn't that at odds then with LPP?

Yes. It's been some time since I looked at it in any detail, but the whole area of sacredotal privilege is devoid of any real consistency. Gavan-Duffy's J judgment was quite dodgy from the start, and he is notorious in 'Catholic' issues. The modern tendency seems to be to anaolgise it to a counselor/patient relationship which would lead one to assume that the privilege is that of the patient.

ER v JR saw the High Court follow the English case of Pais v Pais which recognised a privilege for marriage counselling where it had not previously existed in Ireland. It rather confusingly purported to be applying Cook v Carroll at the same time.

Johnston v Church of Scientology refused to extent Cook v Carroll and said that it was sui generis. This may have been the best approach since Cook v Carroll created a new privilege that did not previously exist but was created out of the constitutional provision recognising the special position of the Church, which has since been removed.

There doesn't seem to have been any appetite or opportunity to expand Cook v Carroll recently.

dazed+confused

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

This is pure tripe.

Lobby group, Feral Cats Ireland, has been campaigning for changes in legislation, including staging protests outside Leinster House and gathering petitions of over 11,000 signatures in their bid to encourage the Department of Agriculture to include cats in the Animal Health and Welfare Bill for the first time in Irish history.



The campaigners are asking that feral cats are no longer classified as ‘pests’ and that they should not be dealt with by Pest Control companies, but that they are afforded the same legal protection as ‘domestic’ cats and that a comprehensive neutering programme be put in place.

The_Minister

Im not sure it's at all clear that this is a criminal act at all - it's incredibly common in country areas, and I know people who've done it.

I find it deeply distasteful, but I'm not sure it's illegal.

Little CuChulainn

The_Minister wrote: »

Im not sure it's at all clear that this is a criminal act at all - it's incredibly common in country areas, and I know people who've done it.

I find it deeply distasteful, but I'm not sure it's illegal.

illegal dumping is more common. It's still an offence.

Discodog

The_Minister wrote: »

Im not sure it's at all clear that this is a criminal act at all - it's incredibly common in country areas, and I know people who've done it.

I find it deeply distasteful, but I'm not sure it's illegal.

Oh it definitely is. I would have no problem getting a vet to testify that drowning subjects an animal to unnecessary suffering. I know people who keep their dog chained up all day & that is illegal too.

brian_t

Discodog wrote: »

Oh it definitely is. I would have no problem getting a vet to testify that drowning subjects an animal to unnecessary suffering.

The Vet will testify that taking new born kittens before their eyes have opened and immediately drowning them subjects the animal to unnecessary suffering.

The obvious follow up question is :-

Does taking the kittens from the warmth of their mother, driving them to a vet and have the vet stick a needle in them cause them a lot less suffering.

I'm not answering the question but I'm sure a lawyer in Court would argue the point.

Discodog

brian_t wrote: »

The Vet will testify that taking new born kittens before their eyes have opened and immediately drowning them subjects the animal to unnecessary suffering.

The obvious follow up question is :-

Does taking the kittens from the warmth of their mother, driving them to a vet and have the vet stick a needle in them cause them a lot less suffering.

I'm not answering the question but I'm sure a lawyer in Court would argue the point.

A lawyer can argue it but he isn't an expert. In my experience Judges listen to evidence not supposition. I have never come across a case where the defence puts up a Vet who counters the opinion of a prosecution witness.

Euthanasia should only be carried out by Veterinary surgeons or others licensed to do so. And your argument is academic because the Vet would pass the kittens to a rescue for rehoming. Also if the kittens are still suckling there is the cruelty to the mother that has to be taken into account.

The Inspector would say that it was cruelty, the Vet would agree & in my experience so would the Judge.

brian_t

Discodog wrote: »

in my experience so would the Judge.

So there has been a prosecution of someone for drowning new born kittens.

brian_t

Discodog wrote: »

Also if the kittens are still suckling there is the cruelty to the mother that has to be taken into account.

Will Dairy farmers be next to find themselves prosecuted.

Discodog

brian_t wrote: »

So there has been a prosecution of someone for drowning new born kittens.

Not here yet but yes in the UK which is where I attended Court. The situation here is changing. The ISPCA & local SPCA's are feeling empowered by the new legislation. In reality a prosecution is very unlikely because a person won't drown kittens in public. If an incident became known there may well be a prosecution.

As it appears that a lot of people don't think it's cruel a successful prosecution would serve as a publicised deterrent. Ireland is still in the dark ages & many cruel practices are accepted as normal but that is changing.

Removing calves is unquestionably cruel. I suspect that an exception has been made in the legislation in the same way that dogs aren't dogs if they are greyhounds & hares are protected unless it's from coursing.

ganmo

Under what regulations(please be specific) is it illeagal to have a dog on a chain?

Discodog wrote: »

Removing calves is unquestionably cruel. I suspect that an exception has been made in the legislation in the same way that dogs aren't dogs if they are greyhounds & hares are protected unless it's from coursing.

From an animal welfare point of view it is better to have to calf taken away ASAP than after a day. I think calling it unquestionably cruel is way off the mark

Discodog

ganmo wrote: »

Under what regulations(please be specific) is it illeagal to have a dog on a chain?
From an animal welfare point of view it is better to have to calf taken away ASAP than after a day. I think calling it unquestionably cruel is way off the mark

The Animal Welfare Act specifically:

11.—(1) A person who has a protected animal in his or her possession
or under his or her control shall, having regard to the animal’s
nature, type, species, breed, development, adaptation,
domestication, physiological and behavioural needs and environment,
and in accordance with established experience and scientific
knowledge, take all necessary steps to ensure that—
(a) the animal is kept and treated in a manner that—
(i) safeguards the health and welfare of the animal, and
(ii) does not threaten the health or welfare of the animal
or another animal,
and
(b) all buildings, gates, fences, hedges, boundary walls and
other structures used to contain the animal are constructed
and maintained in a manner so that they do not
cause injury or unnecessary suffering to the animal.


This is very far reaching & subject to interpretation. If a dog is chained up all day it is not being kept in manner that safeguards it's health & welfare. An Inspector backed up by a Vet could decide that the dog has insufficient exercise, or that there is a danger of entanglement, or that it has insufficient shelter etc.

The new Act doesn't list specifics because there would be too many. So it leaves it up to the Authorised Officers to decide whether the animal's health or welfare is being put at risk. For example in the UK their welfare law has been used to prosecute owners who overfeed their pets.

I suspect that few animal owners are aware of these changes.

A calf should remain with it's mother until it is naturally ready to leave.

ganmo

Discodog wrote: »

The Animal Welfare Act specifically:

11.—(1) A person who has a protected animal in his or her possession
or under his or her control shall, having regard to the animal’s
nature, type, species, breed, development, adaptation,
domestication, physiological and behavioural needs and environment,
and in accordance with established experience and scientific
knowledge, take all necessary steps to ensure that—
(a) the animal is kept and treated in a manner that—
(i) safeguards the health and welfare of the animal, and
(ii) does not threaten the health or welfare of the animal
or another animal,
and
(b) all buildings, gates, fences, hedges, boundary walls and
other structures used to contain the animal are constructed
and maintained in a manner so that they do not
cause injury or unnecessary suffering to the animal.


This is very far reaching & subject to interpretation. If a dog is chained up all day it is not being kept in manner that safeguards it's health & welfare. An Inspector backed up by a Vet could decide that the dog has insufficient exercise, or that there is a danger of entanglement, or that it has insufficient shelter etc.

The new Act doesn't list specifics because there would be too many. So it leaves it up to the Authorised Officers to decide whether the animal's health or welfare is being put at risk. For example in the UK their welfare law has been used to prosecute owners who overfeed their pets.

I suspect that few animal owners are aware of these changes.

A calf should remain with it's mother until it is naturally ready to leave.

ahh so no reference to being tied/chained so once the animal is looked after its ok.

Discodog

ganmo wrote: »

ahh so no reference to being tied/chained so once the animal is looked after its ok.

You really don't understand the needs of animals. Looked after & chained can never go together.

MarkAnthony

I know we're an agricultural country and all that but the crap that passes for looking after an animal in this country never ceases to shock me.