The Growing Divide Between Veterinary Technology & Clinical Judgment
News of a recent lawsuit involving an Oregon veterinary clinic and an AI diagnostic platform caught my attention. It highlights questions many veterinarians have been quietly asking for years. As someone who has spent decades practicing veterinary medicine, I’ve seen firsthand how new technologies can improve efficiency. But they also create new challenges. The following thoughts are my opinions on the broader issues this case raises.
An Awkward Situation
According to the lawsuit: “Although the AI software identified mast and spindle cell features linked to cancerous tumors, it ultimately categorized the growth as an inflammatory lesion rather than cancer. Relying on the software’s analysis, the clinic’s staff surgically removed the mass. However, a later tissue examination conducted by the Oregon State University Veterinary Diagnostic Lab confirmed the growth was an aggressive form of cancer. Because the initial procedure failed to extract all the malignant tissue, the dog was required to undergo a second surgery and later died from post-operative complications.”
Cases like this appear to be uncommon. In fact, I can’t recall hearing of a veterinary clinic suing a major pharmaceutical company before. Suing the software company puts the clinic in an awkward position. All conventional veterinary practices rely on large pharmaceutical companies for vaccines, medications, and lab equipment. They also depend on those same companies for the veterinary technology they use every day. Those companies also have extensive legal and financial resources.
In this case, the veterinary hospital is seeking to hold the AI software manufacturer responsible. At the same time, the clinic itself might face legal action from the pet owner. In simple terms, the argument becomes: “It wasn’t our mistake, it was the software’s.”
Who Is Ultimately Responsible?
The first point this story raises is that the veterinarian is ultimately responsible for choosing to rely on the AI software’s analysis. However, I believe the situation is more complicated than that.
As AI in veterinary medicine becomes more common, veterinary clinics are under increasing pressure. Pharmaceutical companies push them to adopt new AI diagnostic software and other veterinary technology. In my experience, pharmaceutical company representatives often promote these tools as part of the current “Standard of Care.” They emphasize improved efficiency and greater profitability. They also promise reduced legal risk if a veterinarian misinterprets microscope slides or other diagnostic findings.
According to the lawsuit: “The hospital claims it bought the system in 2024 under the impression it delivered expert-level diagnostics.” The complaint further alleges that Zoetis promoted the device as: “The world’s most capable veterinary AI analyzer,” capable of accurately detecting specific cancers while omitting known operational limitations.
The lawsuit also alleges that, after the clinic reported the misdiagnosis, Zoetis revised the original AI diagnostic report. According to the complaint, company representatives later requested a conference call. They apologized, accepted responsibility, and acknowledged that similar errors had occurred with other clients using the Imagyst platform.
This situation raises important questions. How is AI in veterinary medicine marketed? What expectations do clinics have when adopting AI-assisted diagnostics? And where does responsibility lie when technology influences medical decisions? Regardless of how advanced AI in veterinary medicine becomes, veterinarians remain responsible for exercising independent clinical judgment when diagnosing and treating their patients.
Big Pharma's Strong-Arm Tactics
This is exactly what always happens with Big Pharma. Just look at OxyContin in the 1990s. It was as bad as methamphetamine and fentanyl. Yet pharmaceutical companies assured sales reps and physicians that the product was safe. They allegedly told doctors they could face malpractice suits if they failed to prescribe the latest drugs or follow the newest recommendations. Then, when things went wrong, or when public outcry over the damage became too great to ignore, the pharmaceutical companies distanced themselves. This left physicians and sales representatives to defend themselves legally and ethically.
In my opinion, the same thing has happened throughout veterinary medicine. It’s the same with the damage chemical vaccines cause. It’s the same with the toxic monthly flea-and-tick chemicals. And now, I believe it’s happening with AI in veterinary medicine.
In this case, the clinic relied on AI diagnostic software that was marketed as delivering expert-level results. The clinic was encouraged to trust a piece of veterinary technology that ultimately failed. Now the veterinarian, not the software developer, is left to answer to the pet owner and defend the medical decisions that followed.
That’s what veterinarians call being thrown under the bus.
Clinical Judgment in the Age of AI
We are all ultimately responsible for our own actions. We have to make our own decisions. This holds true even when the “gold standard” software, the latest veterinary technology, or our professional peers encourage us to do something that doesn’t feel right.
During my veterinary career, I reached a point where I could no longer, in good conscience, inject a vaccine designed for a 200-pound dog into a 5-pound dog or an 8-pound cat because vaccines are essentially one-size-fits-all. That realization led me to leave the world of conventional pharmaceutical practice and pursue a different approach to veterinary care.
The same principle applies to AI in veterinary medicine. When an AI diagnostic tool identifies cancer-related cells but ultimately reports that a mass is not cancer, that requires careful thought. It requires professional judgment. Maybe that judgment comes from experience. Maybe it comes from understanding the limitations of AI diagnostic software. Either way, technology should support, not replace, the veterinarian’s expertise.
If the AI system, a veterinary pathologist in the laboratory, or your own eyes looking through the microscope identify cancer cells, you must take the mass seriously and evaluate it accordingly. A diagnostic tool can provide information, but it cannot replace the responsibility of the veterinarian making the final medical decision. Even if another veterinarian gives you different advice, the ultimate responsibility still belongs to the veterinarian who chooses how to diagnose and treat that patient.
Why Veterinary Mentorship Still Matters
All veterinarians and medical doctors have seen this before. Most of us have made similar mistakes when seeking advice on how to proceed with a difficult case. Younger veterinarians, recent graduates, and even highly experienced veterinarians often seek guidance from a senior veterinarian or mentor. This usually happens when there is conflicting information, uncertainty, or when a case lacks a clear answer.
This is especially important as AI in veterinary medicine and other forms of veterinary technology become more common. While AI diagnostic software can provide valuable information, it cannot replace the experience, intuition, and clinical judgment that comes from years of practice.
The senior veterinary mentor at a clinic is often the veterinarian who owns the practice. Many times, this individual has been a veterinarian longer than the younger veterinarian has even been alive. For that reason, they are often the busiest doctor in the practice. They’re the most experienced, and the pet owners who rely on them trust and respect them the most.
Unfortunately, we often do not provide them with all the pertinent information when asking for advice. We may be trying not to take up too much of their time. Or we don’t want to distract them from an already overwhelming schedule. But by leaving out important details, we limit their ability to fully evaluate the situation. That limits their ability to help guide us toward the right decision.
Experience matters. Mentorship matters. And even with the assistance of advanced veterinary diagnostics and emerging technologies, the veterinarian is ultimately responsible. They’re the one accountable for the decisions they make for each patient.
How AI Is Changing Veterinary Education
Another point this story raises is the changing role of AI in veterinary medicine and how new veterinarians are being trained to use emerging veterinary technology. In recent years, veterinary school education has increasingly introduced new veterinarians to AI software tools and digital diagnostic platforms. Industry partnerships and pharmaceutical company funding often promote these tools.
The concern is that future veterinarians may be taught to rely heavily on these tools too soon. They may not yet have the clinical experience and independent judgment needed to evaluate their limitations. Yes, I believe veterinary school has increasingly become influenced by pharmaceutical industry interests. New veterinarians are encouraged to embrace and promote products that generate significant profit for large companies. Often, they don’t fully recognize the influence those systems have on their decision-making.
A related philosophical point is that we are all influenced by societal forces to adopt new technologies. This happens in nearly every area of our lives, whether we fully trust them, agree with them, or even like them. Veterinary medicine is no different.
Many newer veterinarians entering the profession may feel they have little choice but to adopt these technologies because they are told that practices without the latest AI diagnostic tools and veterinary technology are falling behind or providing substandard care. Concerns about professional liability may even pressure some. Others may fear that colleagues will view them as practicing outside the accepted standard of care.
At the same time, many of the experienced veterinarians who built their careers on hands-on knowledge, observation, and mentorship are beginning to retire. As these “old-school” mentors age out of the profession, we risk losing something incredibly valuable: decades of practical experience and the ability to learn from veterinarians who developed their expertise through thousands of real-world cases.
Technology can provide information. But experience, mentorship, and clinical judgment remain essential parts of practicing good veterinary medicine.
Thrown Under the Bus: When Technology Fails
Big Pharma pushes and pressures veterinarians to recommend and use their products with pet owners, many of whom already have concerns about pharmaceutical companies and the growing influence of corporate medicine. But when something goes wrong, those same companies move into damage-control mode, and the veterinarian is often the one left to answer the difficult questions.
This is exactly why people like myself remain skeptical of relying too heavily on AI in veterinary medicine. We don’t want a machine making the final decision about our patients. We want an experienced, old-school veterinarian with decades of hands-on knowledge, clinical judgment, and the ability to consider the whole picture—not just a single data point generated by AI diagnostic software.
Technology can be a tool, but it should never replace the wisdom that comes from years of caring for animals and treating real-world cases. Whether you are looking for a holistic veterinarian, a different approach to pet health, or a veterinary second opinion, reach out to a veterinarian who understands these concerns.
