annoying owners: routine interactions with problematic clients in a general veterinary practice

Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1994

Annoying Owners: Routine Interactions with Problematic Clients in a General Veterinary Practice

C l i n t o n R. S a n d e r s

Based on a year of fieldwork in a large, mixed-practice veterinary clinic in New England, this discussion focuses on the criteria veterinarians use to evaluate and define certain clients as problematic. Doctors and clinical staff define most negatively those clients who are especially ignorant concerning basic features of being an owner, are argumentative or demanding, display concern for fees over the welfare of their animals, are apparently negligent of or abusive toward their pets, or are problematically over-involved with their animal companions. Comparisons are drawn between the typologizing activities of veterinarians and those of physicians and other service workers.

KEY WORDS: Veterinarians; service worker/client interaction.

INTRODUCTION

Service workers from waitresses to brain surgeons---typically devise typological systems into which they place clients and that they use to struc- ture service interactions. Most basically, clients are judged to be either "good" or "bad" largely based upon whether they facilitate or impede the flow of the service encounter thereby enhancing or hindering the worker 's opportunity to draw maximum financial and/or sociopsychological rewards from the exchange (Mennerick, 1974).

Direct correspondence to the author, Department of Sociology, University of Connecticut, Greater Hartford Campus, 85 Lawler Road, West Hartford, CT 06117. Portions of this paper were presented at the Qualitative Analysis Conference, Carleton University, Ottawa, May 22-25, 1992.

159

�9 1994 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

160 Sanders

Like other medical service workers, veterinarians categorize their clients in this manner. However, special features of the veterinary profession and clinical interactions with clients create distinctive problems and require unique responses on the part of the veterinarian. 1 While all medical encounters are negotiated transactions balanced between cooperation and conflict (Lazare, et al., 1987), the triangular nature of the veterinarian's clinical interactions with both a human client and an animal patient make for exchanges which are uniquely challenging to the veterinarian and especially interesting to the sociologist. In essence, the veterinarian and the client cooperate to devise strategies through which the animal is cast in the role of the "virtual patient" (Gregory and Keto, 1991).

Because the animal patient is a non-verbal and relatively powerless actor in the situation, the client and doctor exchange information and observations directed at determining the problem experienced by the animal and devising the appropriate treatment. In this exchange the client calls upon his or her everyday, intimate experience of the animal while the veterinarian primarily employs technical expertise. Ideally, the sharing of these rather differently derived types of information leads to a cooperative interaction and mutually satisfactory clinical outcome. However, conflict may result when everyday and technical evaluations and concerns do not coin- cide. The strong emotional connection the owner feels for his or her pet enhances the potential for conflict. This means that evaluating and con- trolling the client are central to what the veterinary literature commonly refers to as the "art of veterinary practice" (see Owens, 1986).

This artistic management of the client requires the veterinarian to devise evaluative typologies which help to situate both the people and animals encountered. While veterinarians' definition and control of their patients is an issue of considerable interest (see Sanders, forthcoming) and evaluations of patients and clients are related, the following discussion focuses predominantly on clinical interactions between veterinarians and owners. In particular, I examine the various characteristics veterinarians use to differentiate "good" clients (compliant, manageable, profitable, lik- able, and so forth) from those who are definitely "bad." Because negative and conflictual encounters more often highlight definitional strategies and control tactics employed by social actors than do routine and problem-free exchanges, I will focus primarily on categories of problematic clients.

In short, veterinarians define as problematic clients who are annoy- ingly ignorant, inattentive, demanding, and apparently neglectful of their pets' physical condition. Additionally, clients who are seen as emotionally over-involved with their animals, or display an overriding concern for the financial aspects of the service encounter as opposed to their animals' medical welfare are relegated to the troublesome category.

Annoying Owners: Interactions with Problematic Veterinary Clients 161

THE RESEARCH

This discussion is based on data collected during approximately 12 months of fieldwork in a major veterinary hospital in New England. Nine veterinarians and approximately two dozen veterinary technicians and administrative personnel worked in the setting.

I had originally entered the clinic as a researcher when engaged in participant observation of a series of puppy kindergarten classes held there (Sanders, 1990). My principal interest in observing clinical encounters in the hospital was to gain access to additional situations in which to watch people interacting with their companion animals. I soon found, however, that the day-to-day occupational routine of the veterinarians was as interesting as were the owner-animal exchanges to which I was privy. My fieldnotes soon reflected this dual focus as I began to observe and interact with the doctors and other hospital personnel as they socialized and worked outside of the six examination rooms within which clinical encounters nor- mally occurred.

I visited the clinic an average of three times a week, typically spending between two and five hours each visit observing, interacting, reading avail- able journals, and----eventually--assisting with the ongoing business of the clinic. In my role as participant, I commonly helped with the tasks usually assigned to veterinary technicians. I restrained animals during exams, "held veins" in animals' forelegs while blood was drawn, fetched equipment and supplies, carried and positioned anesthetized patients in surgery, comforted frightened and injured animals, assisted in limited ways during surgeries and necropsies, and accompanied veterinarians on "farm calls" as they min- istered to dairy herds.

In addition to the fieldnotes compiled during my stay in the clinic, I also conducted lengthy, semi-structured interviews with all of the veterinarians working in the setting. As is conventional, these interviews were used to refine and expand analytic "hunches" generated in the course of the fieldwork.

PROBLEMATIC VETERINARY CLIENTS

Ignorant Clients

In the view of the vets there was no necessary connection between problematic pets and characteristics of their owners. Although aggressively macho, ignorant, or fearful clients frequently tended to have aggressive or out of control dogs, this was not always the case (Antelyes, 1990). Prob-

162 Sanders

lematic clients with problematic animals were those who either did not exercise effective control over their pet during the clinical encounter or failed to warn the veterinarian that the animal might behave aggressively.

As my experience in the field proceeded, I was frequently struck by the apparent ambivalence of owners' feelings for their animals. As a general rule, clinical personnel saw owner ambivalence as indicating a client who should not be a pet owner and who might present potential problems. Here, for example, is how one vet described a particular ambivalent and fearful client.

There are some people who are just plain difficult and I don ' t even know why they go to the vet somet ime. I had one Saturday. Over the years I have got ten to know her. She is just a difficult person. She likes me more than she likes any of the o ther vets but she has a rot ten disposition, a rotten attitude. She acts like her dog is the kindest, nicest thing and then when it comes out at the end of the visit she will say, "Well, I can' t do that. He will bite me." The dog has dry eye and needs all kind o f medicat ion in it. A n d there happens to be one medication, it's a little expensive but it might actually cure it ra ther than just have to put stuff in over and over again. But I knew she wouldn' t want it because it was expensive. So I said, "Well, why don' t we try these other things first, see how you do with them and see if they work. If you are able to get the drops in we can go with the more expensive thing which may give you a cure in the long run." She said, "Well, I can ' t even do that." Well, sorry. Get a fish.

Owners such as this were viewed with some annoyance by the vets. Dealing adequately with these clients required the doctors to take considerable time educating them about the characteristics of their animals, how to deal with them appropriately, and so forth. When the clinic was not especially busy, when the owner was a regular client, or if there was an obvious problem caused by the owner's lack of knowledge----if the animal was severely overweight or very aggressive, for example--vets did take time to instruct the client or give him or her relevant literature. Some clients, however, were so hopelessly ignorant of the basic requirements of animal caretaking that they were viewed with a sort of sad bemusement. Fre- quently, these owners were the focus of joking among the staff. Here, for example, is an incident drawn from fieldnotes describing a cat owner whose intensely negative reaction upon discovering that her animal had fleas provided us all with some measure of amusement.

I go into an exam room and pet a small Himalayan kitten brought in by a nicely dressed young woman. She is very agitated because Dick has just informed her that the kit ten has fleas. I have a hard time taking this seriously and tell her how incredibly c o m m o n this problem is. She complains, "You would think that the breeder would have taken care of this. I paid $350 for her and you would think that for that amoun t it wouldn' t have fleas." I jokingly respond, "Well, probably the last 50 dollars was for the high class fleas." The woman is still very u p s e t - - " T h e y mus t be all in my house, in my new sofa! I went to my friend's house and she had cats and I sat on her sofa and fleas were crawling all over me." Later, Mar tha (a tech) and I talk about the client and I tell about my encounter . She says, "You


mean she paid $350 for that cat! She was really strange. She was shaking because the cat had fleas and then she was bouncing off the walls when it was getting an injection (she covers her face with hands to demonstrate). Then she wouldn't let us test the stool sample she brought in because of the added expense. I couldn't believe the stuff with the fleas--'Hey lady, all cats have fleas.' 'Oh no, not in my house. '" She shakes her head in amazement and we both laugh.

Inat tent ive and D e m a n d i n g Cl i en t s

I g n o r a n t c l i en t s w e r e p o t e n t i a l l y t i m e c o n s u m i n g . S i m i l a r cos t s w e r e

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c l i en t s w h o w e r e i n a t t e n t i v e d u r i n g t h e c l in ica l e n c o u n t e r

o r so t a l k a t i v e t h a t t h e y h a d to b e i n t e r r u p t e d in o r d e r f o r t h e v e t to ge t

i n f o r m a t i o n o r g ive i n s t ruc t i ons . F o l l o w i n g an e n c o u n t e r w i th a s u c h an

i n a t t e n t i v e c l ien t , o n e d o c t o r r e m a r k e d w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e s h o w o f p i q u e :

Ones like that really annoy me. Here's someone who comes in here and is paying for my time. He comes in and I can't get a word in edgewise because he is going on and on telling me what is wrong. If I do get a chance to talk he just . . . [he stares absently at the ceiling]. I know that they are totally wrong and they don't agree with my diagnosis, but there is nothing you can do.

W h i l e i n a t t e n t i v e a n d i g n o r a n t c l i en t s cos t m o r e t i m e a n d e f f o r t t h a n

t h e y w e r e w o r t h , t h e v e t s saw o w n e r s w h o w e r e ove r t l y b e l l i g e r e n t a n d d e -

m a n d i n g as b e i n g e v e n m o r e p r o b l e m a t i c . T h e i r b e h a v i o r in t h e c l in ica l

e n c o u n t e r was r e g a r d e d as a d i r ec t a s sau l t o n t h e d o c t o r ' s e x p e r t i s e - - t h e y

i m p e d e d t h e v e t ' s abi l i ty to c o n t r o l t h e s i t ua t i on . B e l l i g e r e n t c l i en t s c o m -

p l a i n e d , d i s p u t e d d i a g n o s e s , d e m a n d e d spec ia l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , a n d g e n e r -

a l ly d id n o t b e h a v e in t h e c o m p l i a n t a n d a p p r e c i a t i v e m a n n e r d e e m e d

a p p r o p r i a t e by t h e d o c t o r s . W h e n a s k e d a b o u t a g g r e s s i v e a n d d e m a n d i n g

c l ien ts , o n e v e t e r i n a r i a n r e l a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g inc iden t .

There was one weekend in the Fall when it was really busy on call. My first call was five in the morning. It was this very old, diabetic dog with seizures who couldn't breath. He really needed to be put to sleep and the people weren't ready. The husband was very nasty. First of all they wouldn't leave when I got the dog stabilized. I couldn't get rid of them and I had all these other animals in the hospital. In order to keep the dog from seizuring, I basically had to keep him anesthetized. They wanted someone to stay 24 hours and they wanted a second opinion. I said, "Fine if you want to take the dog somewhere else, please take him somewhere else. Take him to the emergency clinic where someone can be with him 24 hours." They made me so miserable the entire day. They just took everything I had to give, were mad at me because their dog was dying . . . If they weren't happy with me they can go see someone else. I don't have a problem with that. But it was constant. They were either here for hours or they were on the phone all the time. And they would just show up whenever they wanted. This happened for a whole day and finally at 10 o'clock at night we put the dog to sleep.

I n c o n t r a s t to t h e b e l l i g e r e n t , d e m a n d i n g , i n a t t e n t i v e , o r a n n o y i n g l y i g n o r a n t c l ien t , a " g o o d " c l i en t was f r i end ly , wi l l ing to c e d e i n t e r a c t i o n a l

c o n t r o l to t h e ve t , r e s p o n s i v e to i n s t ruc t i ons , a n d su f f i c i en t ly k n o w l e d g e a b l e

164 Sanders

to provide intel l igible and re levant in fo rmat ion a bou t the pa t ien t ' s condi- t ion. H e r e is how one vet descr ibed the ideal client.

The perfect client is the person who really cares about the animal, cares about the welfare and well-being of the animal as much as they care about their own need for that animal to be part of their life. They listen to me and are willing to spend some money so that I can practice my profession correctly. It's a client who can let the animal go; who is willing to let it go if its is necessary and if there is nothing we can do.

Neglectful Clients

Unl ike the ideally compl ian t and realistic client, some owners were

viewed negat ively by the staff because their pets ' physical cond i t ion indi- ca ted that they were neglectful of or indif ferent to their an imals ' well-being, F o r the most part , the ve te r inar ians ma in t a ined that this type of cl ient was rare since the very fact that a person b rough t their an imal for ve ter inary services demons t r a t ed that he or she feels at least a min imal conce rn for

the c rea tu re ' s health. Negl igent owners were viewed with cons iderable distaste. Love for

an imals is the ma jo r factor which draws ve te r inar ians and ve te r inary tech- n ic ians to the i r occupat ions and failure to adequate ly care for one ' s pets typically was seen as indicat ing e i ther ignorance or moral deficiency. H e r e is a w o m a n vet ' s descr ip t ion of a bad cl ient whose negl igence i s com-

p o u n d e d by his manipula t iveness .

I had (a bad client) today. It's this old dog and she has been incontinent for a year and they keep her outside. So they brought her in and said, "I think she has maggots on her. I don't know, we clean her up and stuff but I think she had maggots on her." I take her in back and her whole underside is eaten up, she has holes all over her, maggots are crawling in and out. It's not something that happened yesterday. Then I look on the history and it says, "will get maggots, have to watch." So the guy clearly hasn't been taking care of her. I call him up---I'm already kind of mad because I know he is not taking care of her. She's fifteen and he's hoping she'll die tomorrow but he doesn't want to put her to sleep. So I say, "She's infested with maggots and if we are going to pull her through this she is going to need constant care." And he said, "Oh No! If it is going to mean really big surgery put her down, put her down." And I hear his wife start crying in the background saying, "Oh what's wrong, did we do something wrong." And he says, like, "No, just shut up." So I am like doubly mad at this guy because he is just using me to put this dog to sleep . . . So he's a bad client. He's neglectful and he's manipulative.

Since vets typically saw the cl ient 's neglect of her or his pet as due to ignorance or i na t t en t ion ra ther than purposive cruelty, when e n c o u n t e r - ing rou t ine and mino r problems, they usually gave owners the benef i t of the d o u b t and tr ied to educa te them abou t t r e a t m e n t and prophylact ic

measures .


You see a few cases of apparent neglect. The classic case is the dog that is just left out tethered on a run and you see where the collar has just grown into the skin on the neck. Sometime before they notice it the skin will actually grow around over the collar so the collar will be buried under the skin. ["What would you do in a situation like that?"] You point out to the client that it is just a case of out and out neglect and you impress upon the client that unless he is prepared to take b e t t e r care of the an imal they really should cons ider get t ing rid of the animal---finding another home for it or putting it to sleep.

I n c o n t r a s t to t h i s e d u c a t i v e a p p r o a c h , e x t r e m e l y n e g a t i v e r e s p o n s e s

w e r e r e s e r v e d f o r o w n e r s w h o s e n e g l e c t w a s s e e n as p u r p o s i v e a n d w h i c h

s e r i o u s l y t h r e a t e n e d t h e l i fe o f t h e i r a n i m a l s . S u c h a r e s p o n s e is d e s c r i b e d

in m y n o t e s .

I go back into the pharmacy and exchange a few pleasantries with Debra. She catches me up. "You should have been here on Saturday. We did a C section on a golden. She was in terrible shape. The owners just weren't paying attention. ["What was wrong with her?"] It's hard to say. She wasn't up on her shots and it may have been a viral infection. When I opened her up her abdomen was full of fluid and her intestines were inflamed. She had diarrhea and was vomiting for two weeks! She had 11 pups in her. She had delivered 6 at home and was straining for hours. She was very weak when they finally brought her in. We did the C section and saved two of the pups; one was born dead. She hung on for a day but was just too weak." Martha chimes in. "She didn't smell too good. She was full of black water. Linda and I worked on the two puppies but we just couldn't get them to breath on their own. We worked on them for over an hour, but the time comes when you just have to make the decision. She was such a sweet dog too. We all felt really bad, We couldn't believe that the owners would just let her go like that."

I n m o s t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , v e t e r i n a r i a n s i n s t r u c t e d o r r e p r i m a n d e d t h e

n e g l i g e n t o w n e r . S e v e r e a n d o n g o i n g i n c i d e n t s o f a b u s e , h o w e v e r , s o m e -

t i m e s p r o v o k e d c l in ic s t a f f t o t a k e t h e r e l a t i v e l y e x t r e m e s t e p o f r e p o r t i n g

t h e o f f e n d i n g o w n e r to l oca l a n i m a l c o n t r o l o f f i c i a l s o r t h e H u m a n e Soc i -

e ty . M o s t o f t h e d o c t o r s q u e s t i o n e d v i e w e d t h i s m o v e w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e

a m b i v a l e n c e s i n c e it o s t e n s i b l y v i o l a t e d t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f t h e d o c t o r -

c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p .

In rare instances of repeated abuse, where we have tried repeatedly to impress on the owner that he is neglecting his animal and it hasn't sunk in and he's continuing to do so we have contacted the ASPCA or the Humane Society. It is sort of a ticklish area because it is a violation of the client's trust and your relationship. But sometimes the abuse is so flagrant that you can't let it go on. There is kind of a divided loyalty. You have a threesome there. You have yourself and your patient and then you've got your client. You have to balance the needs of both [the client and the patient]. One of the challenges of the job is trying to draw that balance,

O v e r - I n v o l v e d C l i e n t s

O n t h e o t h e r e n d o f t h e c o n t i n u u m f r o m t h e p r o b l e m a t i c a l l y n e g l e c t -

fu l o w n e r w a s t h e c l i e n t w h o w a s so i n t e n s e l y d e v o t e d to a p e t t h a t h e o r

s h e , as o n e v e t p u t it, " c a l l s u s u p e v e r y t i m e ( t h e a n i m a l ) s n e e z e s . " V e t -

166 Sanders

erinarians and staff commonly referred to this type of client as an "animal-nut. ''2 At worst, over-involved clients were deemed t roublesome because of the extra t ime and unnecessary attention that frequently had to be devoted to them. This client commonly provided the veterinarian with excessive and overly detailed information about his or her pet ' s condition and behavior, thus making it difficult for the doctor to determine what was actually going on with the animal. Early in my stay in the field, I asked a vet whether he thought that a talkative and hyper-informative dog owner we had just seen was, in his view, a "good" client. He replied:

Sometimes it's not good when clients give you a lot of information. Sometimes they'll just give you so much you can't separate the wheat from the chaff. The people we have the most problem with are those that complain all the time. It's usually not because we did anything wrong but because they are so busy telling us what they think the problem is that they just don't listen.

Over-involved clients who were excessively demanding, talkative, hos- tile, or who became overly emotional during a clinical encounter presented problems for the doctors as they tried to most effectively manage their limited time and energy. Not all "animal-nuts" were defined as problems, however. Frequently, the vets recognized that people who are strongly at- tached to their animals were the prime consumers of their services. One doctor succinctly summarized the clinic's clientele as follows.

There are three kinds of clients. Some you never see until their animal is almost dead. We hate them. Then there are the people who are pretty conscientious about things. Then there are the people that drive you crazy calling up all the time and coming in with little things. They're a pain, but it's like [the founding veterinarian] says----they put two of his kids through college.

In addition to providing income for the clinic, clients who were intensely devoted animal lovers often were seen as likeable eccentrics. De- spite their peculiarities, they clearly loved their animals; were solicitous of thei r well-being ( somet imes to a fault); and general ly considered and t reated them as unique individuals with personal tastes, feelings, and emo- tions (Sanders, 1993).

Cost -Focused Cl ients

Each year Amer icans spend over $5 billion for veterinary services (American Veter inary Medical Association, 1988:11). Engaged in a fee-for- service occupational activity, veterinarians must ongoingly be concerned with monetary issues. In the large clinic in which I worked, the doctors were separated f rom the "dirty work" of collecting fees and dunning de- l inquent clients since this activity was handled by the business manager and his administrative staff. When doctors did exercise some measure of control


over fees, adjustments were made to "cool out" belligerent clients or to reward those who were regulars, well-liked, and seen as short on funds.

One important criterion used by the veterinarians to judge whether a client was good or bad centered on how concerned he or she was with economic factors. Clients who were more worried about the cost of the service than they were about the welfare of the animal tended to be negatively evaluated, while those for whom money was a secondary issue were more positively defined as appropriately conscientious owners. One vet focused on clients' economic concerns when asked about the characteristics of "bad" clients during an interview.

Bad clients are people that get mad at you because their dog is sick or they get angry at you because they have to treat them or they have to pay. It's not " I 'm unemployed. I really wish I could pay. Look, can I pay later?" It's just, "I don ' t have any money." The dog is sick and you say, "Well, he needs antibiotics." " H O W M U C H IS IT G O I N G T O COST?" It 's just their att i tude and how they talk to you. Hey, do you want to t reat your dog or not? Some people are just very suspicious that we are trying to make a buck off them.

CONCLUSION

The interaction of social performers with very different perspectives and goals presents a situation of considerable sociological interest. Encoun- ters between service workers and those with/for/upon whom they work present a particularly engaging form of collective action. One area of service delivery that has received considerable attention involves the situated exchange between physicians and patients (e.g., Reeder, 1972; Schwartz and Kahne, 1983; Stoekle, 1987). In these interactions the doctor is (ideally) in control, knowledgeable, of higher status, acting within her or his work setting, and focused on occupational interests. The patient, on the other hand, is typically concerned with his or her well-being, of lower relative status, and subservient to the doctor's instructions (see Danziger, 1981). Trouble- some patients, then, are those who are not compliant, challenge the doctor's expertise, and/or evidence various forms of moral inferiority (Lorber, 1981).

As the primary consumer of the veterinarian's services, veterinary clients are evaluated on similar grounds. In their dealings with the doctors and clinic staff, troublesome clients are belligerent, demanding, and argumentative. The negatively defined client is also inattentive to instructions, overly talkative, "pathologically" devoted to his or her pet, gives indication that he or she neglects the animal's welfare, or is more concerned with the price of service than the health of the patient.

168 Sanders

In short, problematic clients are more trouble than they are worth. They impede the routine work flow of the clinic, require extensive educa- tion and stroking, affront the veterinarian's moral sensibilities, and affect the profitability of the enterprise. While some of these problematic characteristics are judged by the vets to be the result of client inexperience or marginally acceptable personal quirks that simply must be taken in stride as an integral feature of veterinary practice, others are seen as indicative of more serious failings. In particular, clients who apparently are uncon- cerned with their pet's physical and/or psychological health and those who do not overtly acknowledge the veterinarians' expertise and control are judged most negatively.

The discussion above has focused on a facet of the day-to-day occupational problems encountered by veterinary practitioners as they deal with animal patients and human clients. As seen, the relatively commonsensical categories into which clients are relegated form the core of the collection of stories which constitute the ongoing lore of the local occupational culture. The collective lore of medical settings in particular is composed of stories which incorporate fairly clear ethical principles as well as identifying social types and specifying certain techniques which have been found to be more-or-less effective in handling both unique and commonplace problems. The local stories aid regular participants in grounding and justifying the difficult decisions one is forced to make in all medical settings and are presented to newcomers as they are introduced to the practical procedures they can employ and the ethical problems they can expect to encounter (see Herzog, et al., 1989).

Like essentially all jobs, veterinary work is predominantly a series of routine events. While all the veterinarians with whom I worked saw their occupational routine as rewarding in its predictability, it was the unique happenings---the unusual cases, the "interesting" surgical procedures---that added spice to the daily round of routine events. Unique cases were valued because they provided veterinarians with new or enhanced experience (cf., Dingwall and Murray, 1983; Becker et al., 1961:329-330), allowed them to make use of and hone their technical skills, and offered opportunities to successfully solve diagnostic problems.

But the rewards of veterinary practice go beyond the ability to use technical abilities, solve diagnostic problems, learn new techniques, and encounter unusual medical situations. Clinical practice is, as we have seen, an intensely social activity made even more powerful by the emotional connection that commonly exists between owner and animal. To be a veterinarian means not only to bear the brunt of annoyance, ignorance, belligerent demands, and whining about the cost of services. Veterinary practice also means that one is often the recipient of fervent appreciation


offered by clients who recognize that their animals have been cared for with compassion and skill.

ENDNOTES

1. As of the end of the 1980s approximately 38 percent (34.7 million) of American households included an average of 1.5 dogs, 31 percent (27.7 million) included an average of 2 cats, and 6 percent (5.2 million) included an average of 2.5 birds. Seventy-eight percent of dog owners, 60 percent of eat owners, and 8 percent of bird owners used the services of a veterinarian during 1987 (American Veterinary Medical Association, 1988).

2. Harris (1983) refers to clients who display "overdependence on a companion animal" as "unconventional owners" and estimates that they make up between 35 and 40 percent of veterinary clientele.

REFERENCES

American Veterinary Medical Association (1988), The Veterinary Services Market for Companion Animals, prepared by Charles, Charles Research Group, Overland Park, Kansas.

Antelyes, Jacob (1990), "Client Relations when the Animal Dominates," Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 196(4):578-580.

Becker, Howard, Blanche Geer, Everett Hughes, and Anselm Strauss (1961), Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Conrad, Peter and Rochelle Kern (eds.) (1981), The Sociology of Health and Illness: Critical Perspectives, New York: St. Martin's.

Danziger, Sandra Klein (1981), "The Uses of Expertise in Doctor-Patient Encounters During Pregnancy," pp. 359-376 in Peter Conrad and Rochelle Kern (eds.), The Sociology of Health and Illness: Critical Perspectives.

Gregory, Stanford and Stephen Keto (1991), "Creation of the 'Virtual Patient' in Medical Interaction: A Comparison of Doctor/Patient and Veterinarian/Client Relationships," Paper presented at the meetings of the American Sociological Association, Cincinnati.

Herzog, Harold, Tamara Vore, and John New, Jr. (1989), "Conversations with Veterinary Students," Anthrozoos 2(3):181-188.

Lazare, Aaron, S. Eisenthal, A. Frank, and J. Stoeckle (1987), "Studies in a Negotiated Approach to Patienthood," pp. 413-432 in John Stoeckle (ed.), Encounters Between Patients" and Doctors.

Lorber, Judith (1981), "Good Patients and Problem Patients: Conformity and Deviance in a General Hospital," pp. 395-404 in Peter Conrad and Rochelle Kern (eds.), The Sociology of Health and Illness: Critical Perspectives.

Mennerick, Lewis (1974), "Client Typologies: A Method for Coping with Conflict in the Service Worker-Client Relationship," Sociology of Work and Occupations 1:396-418.

Owens, Jerry (1986), "The Art of Practice," Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the American Animal Hospital Association, New Orleans, pp. 585-593.

Reeder, Leo (1972), "The Patient-Client as a Consumer: Some Observations on the Changing Professional-Client Relationship," Journal of Health and Social Behavior 13:406-411.

Sanders, Clinton, (1990), "Excusing Tactics: Social Responses to the Public Misbehavior of Companion Animals," Anthrozoos 4(2):82-90.

Sanders, Clinton (1993), "Understanding Dogs: Caretakers' Attributions of Mindedness in Canine-Human Relationships," Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 22(2):205-226.

170 Sanders

Sanders, Clinton (forthcoming), "Biting the Hand that Heals You: Encounters with Problematic Patients in a General Veterinary practice," Society and Animals.

Schwartz, Charlotte Green and Merton Kahne (1983), "Medical Help as a Negotiated Achievement," Psychiatry 36:333-350.

Stoeckle, John D. (ed.) (1987), Encounters Between Patients and Doctors, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

annoying owners: routine interactions with problematic clients in a general veterinary practice

Documents