Why We Need to Reframe the Veterinary Second Opinion
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
Key Facts
- Veterinarians frequently consult with colleagues, an informal second opinion process.
- Shared decision-making involving both vets and techs improves client education.
- Owner trust in their veterinarian is a major factor in accepting treatment plans.
- Second opinions can improve communication and fill information gaps for pet owners.
- Discussing difficult cases with peers helps veterinarians manage stress and ethical dilemmas.
More Than One Right Answer
We’ve all been there. That sinking feeling in the exam room or on the phone. A case that just isn’t adding up. The labs are weird, the symptoms are vague, and the treatment plan feels like a shot in the dark. Or worse, the diagnosis is clear, but the options are terrible. In those moments, what do we do? We don’t just reach for a textbook. Research shows what we all know intuitively: we call a friend [3]. We grab another doctor between appointments, pull up a specialist on speed dial, or post the case on a closed forum. We seek out a second opinion for ourselves, from our peers. It’s a quiet, built-in part of the job. A gut check. A way to make sure we aren’t missing something obvious while staring at something strange.
So why does it feel so different when the client is the one to ask? Suddenly, the air gets thick. It can feel like a vote of no confidence. A personal failure. But is it? The evidence suggests we need to completely reframe this entire interaction. The drive for a second opinion isn’t always about a lack of trust. It’s about a search for clarity in a high-stakes, emotional situation. It’s about the human need for reassurance when a family member is sick. And honestly, it often leads to a better place for everyone. The animal, the owner, and us.
The reality is, veterinary medicine isn’t a simple equation with one right answer. It’s a complex puzzle involving science, ethics, finances, and human emotion [2][9]. Two brilliant clinicians can look at the same set of facts and come up with two different, equally valid, treatment plans. One might be more aggressive. One might prioritize quality of life over length. One might be more practical for an owner who can’t medicate a cat three times a day. The research on human medicine talks about exploring values and finding creative solutions, and it’s no different for us [2]. A second opinion isn’t necessarily about finding a better veterinarian It’s about finding a better fit for that specific animal and that specific family. Sometimes, another perspective is exactly what’s needed to unlock the right path forward, a path that maybe wasn’t visible from the first angle.
The Trust Equation
Let’s talk about trust. It’s the currency of our profession. Without it, we can’t do our jobs. An owner has to trust our diagnosis, trust our recommendations, trust our hands [4]. But trust isn’t blind faith. It’s earned. And part of earning it is being transparent about the limits of what we know. The idea that one person should have all the answ
ers is a heavy burden. And an unrealistic one. Studies have shown just how much collaboration happens within clinic walls—and how valuable it is. When veterinarians and veterinary technicians engage in shared decision-making, the whole process gets better [5]. The client gets a more complete picture. The tech, who often spends more time building rapport with the owner, can provide crucial insight into what that owner is really worried about, what they can handle. That’s an internal second opinion, right there. A team approach.
Extending that collaborative circle outside the clinic walls shouldn’t be seen as a threat. It’s just a wider circle. Research confirms what we see every day: clients are more likely to agree to a plan when they feel a strong sense of partnership with the veterinarian [10]. When communication is good, when they feel heard, when they have time to process information [6][7]. Rushed appointments and confusing jargon are enemies of trust. A second opinion can sometimes be a direct result of a communication breakdown. It’s a chance for an owner to have things explained again, in a different way, by a different person, allowing the information to finally click. And often? They come back to the original plan, but with a newfound confidence and understanding. They don’t just accept the plan; they own it.
And what about our own confidence? The ethical dilemmas, the self-doubt after a bad outcome, the emotional exhaustion—these are real, daily struggles in our field [8][12]. We know from the research, and from our own lives, that talking these things through with colleagues is a lifeline [9][11]. It reduces stress. It prevents burnout. It leads to better, more sound decisions. So if we recognize the immense value of this for ourselves, we should be the first to champion it for our clients. Supporting an owner’s desire for a second opinion isn’t admitting defeat. It’s an act of professional confidence. It’s saying, “This is a tough situation, and the more smart people we have thinking about it, the better the outcome will be for your pet.”
It’s Not a Verdict, It’s a Conversation
So, what does this actually change on a Tuesday afternoon when a client nervously asks for their records to be sent to another clinic? It changes our reaction. Instead of defensiveness, we can choose collaboration. Instead of seeing it as a judgment on our skills, we can see it as part of a thorough process. We can make it easy. We can even suggest it ourselves in complex cases. The goal here isn’t to be right. The goal is to get it right for the animal. That’s it.
This shift in thinking moves the second opinion from a verdict into a conversation. It normalizes it. It’s just another tool in the diagnostic and therapeutic toolkit, like an ultrasound or a specialist consult. In epidemiology, they use expert judgment from multiple sources to make better decisions on a massive scale, like disease surveillance [1]. We’re just applying the same logic to a single patient. More data points, more perspectives, lead to a more robust conclusion.
The end game is better medicine and stronger relationships. A client who feels empowered and respected, even if they explore another option, is a client who is more likely to stick with you for the long haul. They’ll trust you more, not less, because you put their pet’s welfare above your own ego. And for us, as a profession, it helps lighten the impossible load of needing to know everything all the time. It builds a community of practice, not a collection of isolated competitors. It acknowledges a simple truth: good medicine is a team sport. Always has been. So, are we secure enough to truly embrace that?
References
[1] Gustafson, L. L., Gustafson, D. H., Antognoli, M. C., & Remmenga, M. D. (2013). Integrating expert judgment in veterinary epidemiology: example guidance for disease freedom surveillance. Preventive veterinary medicine, 109(1-2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.11.019
[2] Weinstein M. S. (2015). A Second Opinion: A Case Narrative on Clinical Ethics Mediation. The Journal of clinical ethics, 26(4), 331–332. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26752388/
[3] Vandeweerd, J. M., Vandeweerd, S., Gustin, C., Keesemaecker, G., Cambier, C., Clegg, P., Saegerman, C., Reda, A., Perrenoud, P., & Gustin, P. (2012). Understanding veterinary practitioners’ decision-making process: implications for veterinary medical education. Journal of veterinary medical education, 39(2), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0911.098R1
[4] Gruen, M. E., Jiamachello, K. N., Thomson, A., & Lascelles, B. D. (2014). Clinical trials involving cats: what factors affect owner participation?. Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 16(9), 727–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X14539499
[5] Janke, N., Shaw, J. R., & Coe, J. B. (2022). Veterinary technicians contribute to shared decision-making during companion animal veterinary appointments. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 260(15), 1993–2000. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.22.08.0380
[6] Shaw, J. R., Barley, G. E., Broadfoot, K., Hill, A. E., & Roter, D. L. (2016). Outcomes assessment of on-site communication skills education in a companion animal practice. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 249(4), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.249.4.419
[7] Svensson, C., Forsberg, L., Emanuelson, U., Reyher, K. K., Bard, A. M., Betnér, S., von Brömssen, C., & Wickström, H. (2020). Dairy veterinarians’ skills in motivational interviewing are linked to client verbal behavior. Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience, 14(10), 2167–2177. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173112000107X
[8] Hobson-West, P., & Millar, K. (2021). Telling their own stories: Encouraging veterinary students to ethically reflect. The Veterinary record, 188(10), e17. https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.17
[9] Richards, L., Coghlan, S., & Delany, C. (2020). “I Had No Idea That Other People in the World Thought Differently to Me”: Ethical Challenges in Small Animal Veterinary Practice and Implications for Ethics Support and Education. Journal of veterinary medical education, 47(6), 728–736. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.2019-0013
[10] Merle, R., & Küper, A. (2021). Desire for information and alternative therapies of pet owners is associated with empathy and partnership-building of veterinarians. The Journal of small animal practice, 62(9), 775–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13337
[11] Reinhard, A. R., Hains, K. D., Hains, B. J., & Strand, E. B. (2021). Are They Ready? Trials, Tribulations, and Professional Skills Vital for New Veterinary Graduate Success. Frontiers in veterinary science, 8, 785844. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.785844
[12] Gibson, J., Brennan, M. L., Oxtoby, C., Mossop, L., & White, K. (2023). Ethical challenges experienced by veterinary practitioners in relation to adverse events: Insights from a qualitative study. The Veterinary record, 193(12), e3601. https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.3601
MORE VETS
