TRENDS IN VETERINARY EXPERT OPINIONS ON ANIMALS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26873/SVR-392-2018Abstract
This paper analyses veterinary expert opinions and determines the most common reasons for appointing veterinarians as expert witness in cases related to different animal species. The paper also summarises twenty one years of services provided by the Department of Forensic Veterinary Medicine and Administration, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn in 1995 – 2015. The analysis was based on 319 expert opinions, of which 172 concerned various animal species and is presented in this work. Criminal judicial bodies were the most common ordering party, followed by civil judicial bodies, natural persons, public administration authorities and insurance companies. To determine the trends in conflicting situations in the expert opinions issued over 21 years, two periods of opinions were distinguished: the first period covering the years 1995 – 2005 (73 expert opinions) and the second one covered 2006 – 2015 (99 expert opinions). The authors demonstrated that in the second period, companion animals (mainly dogs) were far more often the subject of expert opinions than in 1995 – 2005 and the cases predominantly referred to animal cruelty issues. The second most common group were production animals (cattle, horses and pigs) followed by wild living animals. The expert opinions concerned the animals themselves but also animal products, particularly the observance of sanitary and hygiene measures at different manufacturing stages. The diversity of cases and conflicts in which a veterinarian acts as the expert witness is also increasing.
Key words: veterinary forensic medicine; expert opinions; animals; conflicts; veterinary practice
TRENDI STROKOVNIH VETERINARSKIH MNENJ O ŽIVALIH
Povzetek: Prispevek presoja veterinarska strokovna mnenja in določa najpogostejše razloge za imenovanje veterinarjev kot strokovnjakov v primerih, povezanih z različnimi živalskimi vrstami. V prispevku je povzetih 21 let službe Oddelka za forenzično veterinarsko medicino in administracijo na Univerzi Warmia in Mazury v Olsztynu, in sicer od 1995 do 2015. Analiza je temeljila na 319 strokovnih mnenjih, od katerih jih je 172 obravnavalo različne živalske vrste, ki so predstavljene v tej študiji. Najpogostejši naročnik so bili kriminalni pravosodni organi, nato pa so sledila civilna pravosodna telesa, fizične osebe, organi javne uprave in zavarovalnice. Za določitev trendov v konfliktnih situacijah v strokovnih mnenjih, izdanih v zadnjih 21 letih, je bila raziskava razdeljena na dve ločeni obdobji: prvo obdobje od leta 1995 do leta 2005 (73 strokovnih mnenj) in drugo obdobje, ki zajema čas od leta 2006 do leta 2015 (99 mnenj strokovnjakov). Avtorji so pokazali, da so v drugem obdobju ljubiteljske vrste živali (predvsem psi) veliko bolj pogosto predmet strokovnih mnenj kot v zgodnejšem obdobju (1995 – 2005), pri čemer so se mnenja v največ primerih nanašale na vprašanja krutega ravnanja z živalmi. Druga najpogostejša skupina so bile proizvodne živali (govedo, konji in prašiči), tem pa so sledile divje živali. Strokovna mnenja so se nanašala na same živali, pa tudi na živalske proizvode, zlasti na upoštevanje sanitarnih in higienskih ukrepov na različnih stopnjah proizvodnje. Raznolikost primerov in konfliktov, v katerih veterinar deluje kot izvedenec se je prav tako povečalo.
Ključne besede: veterinarska forenzična medicina; strokovna mnenja; živali; konflikti; veterinarska praksa
References
(1) Lockwood R. Animal cruelty and human violence: the veterinarian's role in making the connection: the American experience. Can Vet J 2000; 41: 876–8.
(2) Ottinger T, Gavier-Widen D, Segerstad CH, et al. Development of veterinary forensic pathology from crime scene to court. J Comp Pathol 2012; 146: 61.
(3) Szarek J, Przeździecka D. Lekarz weterynarii jako biegły sądowy. Mag Wet 2000; 9: 50–1.
(4) Lipińska J, Szarek J, Przeździecka D. Wady fizyczne koni w świetle polskich aktów prawnych z początku, przełomu i końca XX wieku. Med Wet 2004; 60: 570–2.
(5) Listos P, Gryzińska M, Kowalczyk M. Badanie pośmiertne w aspekcie weterynarii sądowej. Życie Wet 2016; 91: 106–9.
(6) Babińska I, Szarek J, Wojtacka J. Aspekty konfliktogenne w chowie i hodowli zwierząt w opiniach weterynaryjnych. Med Wet 2006; 62: 1139– 43.
(7) Forbes N. An exacting science: the veterinary surgeon as expert witness. In Pract 2004; 26: 503–6.
(8) Góra-Błaszczykowska A. Opinia biegłego w postępowaniu cywilnym. Eduk Prawnicza, 2005; 67: 3–8.
(9) Ottinger T, Rasmusson B, Segerstad CHA, et al. Forensic veterinary pathology, today’s situation and perspectives. Vet Rec 2014; 175: 459.
(10) Regulation of the Minister of Justice dated 24 January 2005 on court experts. Dz U 2005; (15): item 133. (Dziennik Ustaw)
(11) Szarek J. Lekarz weterynarii jako biegły. Wydanie V poprawione i uzupełnione. Olsztyn, Poland : Wydawnictwo UWM, 2005: 12–21, 66–70.
(12) Listos P, Gryzinska M, Kowalczyk M. Analysis of cases of forensic veterinary opinions produced in a research and teaching unit. J Forensic Leg Med 2015; 36: 84–9.
(13) Turek J. Biegły sądowy i jego czynności. MoP 2007; 24: 1359–64.
(14) Dzierżanowska J, Studzińska J. Kryteria oceny dowodu z opinii biegłego w orzecznictwie sądów powszechnych i Sądu Najwyższego. Rocz Nauk Praw 2015; 25: 21–47.
(15) Harris JM. The role of the practicing veterinarian as an expert witness. Semin Avian Exot Pet Med 1998; 7: 176–81.
(16) McEven BJ. Trends in domestic animal medico-legal pathology cases submitted to a veterinary diagnostic laboratory 1998–2010. J Forensic Sci 2012; 57: 1231–3.
(17) Newbery S, Munro R. Forensic veterinary medicine: 1. Investigation involving live animals. In Pract 2011; 33: 220–7.
(18) McGavin MD, Zachary JF. Pathologic basis of veterinary disease. 5th ed. St. Louis : Mosby Elsevier, 2007.
(19) Babińska I, Szarek J, Naumowicz K, et al. Wady fizyczne i prawne zwierząt w świetle aktów normatywnych. Med Wet 2018; 74: 276–9.
(20) Maciejewska M, Lis A, Åyko A, Kusiak D. Analiza opinii i ekspertyz z zakresu medycyny weterynaryjnej. In: XLIV MiÄ™dzynarodowe Seminarium Kół Naukowych KNMAiU KRESKA. Olsztynie, 2015: 2134–9.
(21) Act dated 21 August 1997 on animal protection. Dz U 1997; (111): item 724.
(22) Quinn PJ. Veterinary microbiology and microbial disease. Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
(23) Felsmann MZ, Szarek J, Felsmann M, et al. Factors affecting temporary cavity generation during gunshot wound formation in animals: new aspects in the light of flow mechanic: a review. Vet Med Czech 2012; 57: 569–74.
(24) Czworonożni przyjaciele naszych domostw. Warszawa : Taylor Nelson Sofres Ośrodek Badania Opinii Publicznej, 1999.
(25) Gerdin JA, McDonough SP. Forensic pathology of companion animal abuse and neglect. Vet Pathol 2013; 50: 994–1006.
(26) Benetato MA, Reisman R, McCobb E. The veterinarian’s role in animal cruelty cases. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011; 238: 31–4.
(27) Jurkowska O. Działania mające na celu zmniejszenie populacji bezdomnych psów. Warszawa : Krajowa Szkoła Administracji Publicznej, 2011: 5–7.
(28) Act dated 21 May 1999 on weapons and ammunition. Dz U 1999; (53): item 549.
(29) Sansom J, Labruyere J. Penetrating ocular gunshot injury in a Labrador Retriever. Vet Ophthalmol 2012; 15: 115–22.
(30) Listos P, Komsta R, ÅopuszyÅ„ski W, et al. Radiological and forensic veterinary analysis of gunshot cases in eastern Poland. Med Wet 2016; 72: 453–7.
(31) Pavletic MM, Trout NJ. Bullet, bite, and burn wounds in dogs and cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2006; 36: 873–93.
(32) Brodbelt D. Feline anesthetic deaths in veterinary practice. Top Companion Anim Med 2010; 25: 189–94. 33. Mellanby R, Herrtage M. Survey of mistakes made by recent veterinary graduates. Vet Rec 2004; 155: 761–5.
(33) Mellanby R, Herrtage M. Survey of mistakes made by recent veterinary graduates. Vet
Rec 2004; 155: 761–5.
