Statistics from Altmetric.com
I WAS pleased to read the letter from Peter Scott (VR, May 2, 2015, vol 176, p 469) because it raises some important points in the debate on compulsory microchipping as we work towards an understanding of how this is going to work in practice. So far the RCVS has said that it does not anticipate the issue of who implanted the chip becoming an issue of professional conduct.
The problem we practitioners have revolves around the central question ‘Who is responsible for an unidentifiable dog when nobody except the practitioner has got involved?’ We need to prepare for the reality – much of which we are already living, with ethical and …
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.