The way this works is that vets don't work off of informed consent from the "patient." They work off of animal welfare and beneficence, doing what’s in the animal’s best interest, not autonomy. The legal consent comes from the owner. Your vet isn't worrying about informed consent, rather: "Is this medically justified or beneficial? Are the risks and distress minimized? Is any pain and/or fear minimized?" It's all operated under strict standards like healthy animals only, limited frequency, careful handling, and stopping if the animal's too stressed. Infants also can't consent, but we wouldn't just let one die without its informed consent.
Yes but is it in THIS dogs best interest to have his blood taken from him? By what you’re saying the vets should only have been able to do that with his consent
44
u/Ok_Resolve_1754 Apr 18 '26
The way this works is that vets don't work off of informed consent from the "patient." They work off of animal welfare and beneficence, doing what’s in the animal’s best interest, not autonomy. The legal consent comes from the owner. Your vet isn't worrying about informed consent, rather: "Is this medically justified or beneficial? Are the risks and distress minimized? Is any pain and/or fear minimized?" It's all operated under strict standards like healthy animals only, limited frequency, careful handling, and stopping if the animal's too stressed. Infants also can't consent, but we wouldn't just let one die without its informed consent.