It’s often stated as an obvious premise that participants of a mediation must be able to trust the mediator. But for what reasons is such an expectation necessary? A recent article in Counterpunch by Alfred De Zayas, “A Common-Sense Approach to Mediation for Peace,” provides the following insights:

Mediators must be perceived as impartial and objective. If parties believe a mediator has preferences and prejudices, the sessions will not succeed. In international affairs, for example, the Palestinians have never accepted the United States as a middle-man because they’re convinced the U.S. is “on Israel’s side.”

To be trusted, mediators can’t have a real, or believed, stake in the outcome of a session. Another example from international affairs is the Ukraine-Russia conflict, where one could surmisae a mediator from the U.S., U.K., or Germany is unlikely to be accepted. The factor of trust helps explain why mediators from Norway have been successful in ending civil wars in Maili and Guatemala. Norway has a commitment to unbiased peace building without self-interest.

Trust also comes from demonstrated skills of listening, understanding, and commitment to helping parties develop outcomes that are favorable for all involved. In doing so, the mediator cannot argue with the beliefs of the parties, but accept their ideologies as important to each.

Finally, in order to earn trust, mediators must have a good amount of stamina, patience, and perseverance in truly believing an acceptable outcome can be reached.

I continue to receive questions about disputes involving animal companions—both from separating couples with animal companions and from others with complaints about the veterinary services they received. I’ve written previously about couples using mediation to reach agreements over custody of pets, so the following will focus on disputes with veterinarians.

 A colleague referred me to the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS) in the U.K., which is funded by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and provides free sessions for people with animals and veterinary practices. Those with a complaint can request mediation assistance online. Then a VCMS Resolution Manager contacts each party by phone or email, secures agreement to mediate, gathers information, and continues to work with both independently to explore options for settlement, which might include meeting face-to-face.

 VCMS reports handling some 4,000 cases annually with an 85% settlement rate for disputes over fees and an approximate 70% settlement rate for disputes over services.

 As would be expected, not all clients were satisfied with the service and voiced their dissatisfaction online. Owners can be very involved and emotional when it comes to disputes tied to their animal companions. Evidence shows compared to dental and medical practices, veterinarians are more likely to be victims of cyberbullying. Veterinarians themselves, for a variety of reasons, have suicide rates twice that of other medical professions and four times that of the general population.

 Disputes with veterinarians regarding animals can be emotional and stressful for all involved. Mediation is the ideal way to address such disputes. Unfortunately, no equivalent to the VCMS exists in the United States. Instead, parties are urged to seek the guidance of local community mediation services.