Money Grabbing Vet!!!

lokiman

smartsuit wrote: »

Well it seems thaere has been a lot of activity on this thread during my absence, and especially since the RCVS declared the case closed.
I would like to just confirm a small fact though.
Although the RCVS have closed the case with no action here is a copy of the letter received from them explaining the reasons. It seems that it is clear that Daisy was mistreated but the actions of the "Vet" were not serious enough to warrant him being struck off, and as that is the only course of action they can take they had to close the case.
I would like to add that Daisy has now recovered fully and you would never believe that she ever had broken her leg. I cannot thank Summerhill Vets, Newport enough for thier professionalism and compassion. They truly are a credit to themselves and the profession.

Firstly, smartsuit, I'm glad that Daisy is doing well. I certainly know that I would be distressed if placed in your shoes. However, I have to say that the letter from the RCVS does not suggest that which you have stated, and I think it unfair of you to misrepresent it, knowingly or otherwise. It does not state, implicitly or directly that:

"It seems that it is clear that Daisy was mistreated but the actions of the "Vet" were not serious enough to warrant him being struck off, and as that is the only course of action they can take they had to close the case."

In fact, what it states that, whilst pain relief should have been a primary consideration for the vet in question, in exercising that consideration, it is ultimately up to the vet to determine whether pain relief treatment would work. The RCVS certainly does not state that there was mistreatment in this case, it states that your complaint did not progress through the preliminary complain stage because, even if taken at its worst - that is, if it accepts everything you say as true - this still would not amount to professional misconduct. It's very similar to the test for 'striking out' legal proceedings based on the fact that the allegations therein do not amount to a legitimate cause of action.

I am sorry that this incident happened, but I think it important to accurately represent the RCVS findings, and point out that no factual determination was made at all, merely a determination that, if your complaint was 100% factually accurate, it still wouldn't amount to professional misconduct for RCVS purposes.

taxiphil

It's worth noting that the RCVS is not an impartial or independent body; like the General Medical Council and the Law Society, they have a certain tendency to protect their own ranks.

A quick Google shows that RCVS stands accused of a huge number of cover-ups in recent years.

A genuinely independent tribunal, or court of law, may have reached a different conclusion.

lokiman

taxiphil wrote: »

It's worth noting that the RCVS is not an impartial or independent body; like the General Medical Council and the Law Society, they have a certain tendency to protect their own ranks.

Not sure if I agree that there is a 'tendency' among such bodies, though I'm sure that the odd cases exist in that regard. In my experience as a Barrister, the vast majority of allegations of cover ups involve laypeople who genuinely, though wrongly believe that a cover up has taken place simply because they don't have a proper understanding of the law, rules and regulations in place. Perhaps a different tribunal may have come to an alternative conclusion on smartsuit's matter, but I don't think anything legitimate is achieved by misrepresenting the findings of the actual tribunal.

smartsuit

lokiman wrote: »

Firstly, smartsuit, I'm glad that Daisy is doing well. I certainly know that I would be distressed if placed in your shoes. However, I have to say that the letter from the RCVS does not suggest that which you have stated, and I think it unfair of you to misrepresent it, knowingly or otherwise. It does not state, implicitly or directly that:

"It seems that it is clear that Daisy was mistreated but the actions of the "Vet" were not serious enough to warrant him being struck off, and as that is the only course of action they can take they had to close the case."

Please dont take quotes out of context. If you read the underlined bit it states that " The papers indicated that Daisy appeared to be Distressed and in pain therefore immediate relief of pain and suffering should have been of primary importance" it goes on to say that they accept this to be the case. And before we go down the route of someone being pedantic and saying that the letter say's "appeared" please remember that Daisy clearly had a broken leg, I dont think it is possible to have a broken leg and not be in pain, do you? Even before Xrays were taken it was clear her leg was broken due to the fact it was bening in a place where there is not a joint and she had no control over it.
The letter is there for anyone to read and should they need to clarify any point I have no problem in answering a PM or email.
I have nothing further to say on this matter and especially since this thread has taken a turn in favour of the hijacker/s.
This thread has served its purpuse and will remain on this site for a long time yet and will certainly pop up in any google searches for the vet practice in question. THe letter is uploaded onto my server and that will never be deleted.
I expect this thread will pop up in any google searches for pet insurance too!

lokiman

smartsuit wrote: »

Please dont take quotes out of context. If you read the underlined bit it states that " The papers indicated that Daisy appeared to be Distressed and in pain therefore immediate relief of pain and suffering should have been of primary importance" it goes on to say that they accept this to be the case. And before we go down the route of someone being pedantic and saying that the letter say's "appeared" please remember that Daisy clearly had a broken leg, I dont think it is possible to have a broken leg and not be in pain, do you? Even before Xrays were taken it was clear her leg was broken due to the fact it was bening in a place where there is not a joint and she had no control over it.
The letter is there for anyone to read and should they need to clarify any point I have no problem in answering a PM or email.
I have nothing further to say on this matter and especially since this thread has taken a turn in favour of the hijacker/s.
This thread has served its purpuse and will remain on this site for a long time yet and will certainly pop up in any google searches for the vet practice in question. THe letter is uploaded onto my server and that will never be deleted.
I expect this thread will pop up in any google searches for pet insurance too!

Whilst I appreciate that you are very much emotionally involved in this matter - as any reasonable person would be in your circumstances - the quote that you have cherry-picked, without reference to the earlier part that discusses it being a matter of discretion for the vet to determine whether pain relief measures would be appropriate or useful, does not make your position correct. Indeed, you still fail to acknowledge that the finding was a simple finding that - even if what you said was 100% accuracte (and no finding on that was actually made) - no professional misconduct would be deemed to have occurred. It is completely misleading to imply that there was a finding of misconduct (there was not), but that it was not misconduct sufficient to warrant any action being taken. By all means criticize on these boards, but don't misrepresent matters to make a point, which is what you have done. It's also interesting that I appear to have been lumped in with people that have hijacked this thread. I have been critical of your misrepresentation, but not unsympathetic. A couple of trolls do appear to have infected the thread, though I am not one of them.

superscaper

lokiman wrote: »

It is completely misleading to imply that there was a finding of misconduct (there was not), but that it was not misconduct sufficient to warrant any action being taken. By all means criticize on these boards, but don't misrepresent matters to make a point,

I think there is no implication here only inferrence on the part of the reader. I did not think that smartsuit implied there was actual misconduct and although smartsuit may have their own interpretation I disagree that it is a misrepresentation when smartsuit has posted the letter in its entirety for everyone to see and read whichever way they want.

You may disagree with the meaning smartsuit gets from the letter and what they feel is of importance to highlight but again they've posted the entire letter so anything else smartsuit says is their opinion which is just as valid as anyone else's but certainly not misrepresentation. I would agree if they'd posted just specific sentences/paragraphs but giving the raw data is quite different. Whether they choose to cherry pick from the letter or not isn't misleading when it was smartsuit who provided the letter in the first place. Of course it may just be that I tend to give people benefit of the doubt.

I can (as everyone else can) see that there was no professional misconduct found but it is still a long way from condoning everything the vet did. I'm not saying I agree with smartsuit or not but I certainly don't think they're misrepresenting anything, I think they've been more than forthcoming in posting the letter in the first place when they could have quite easily posted only snippets of it. Maybe as a barrister you have a different definition of misrepresentation than me. I didn't actually read smartsuit's comment about hijackers as being directed at you but more generalised comment on the direction of the thread and I have to agree with that. But I don't think smartsuit meant you as you are making reasoned mature argument on topic.

shaymenRup

Just reading "Crowded Marriage" by Catherine Alliot.

In it the character is pursuaded by her son and friend to take an injured rabbit they had caught to the local vets.

The vet examines the "rabbit" and is viciously bitten on the finger and nose and the "rabbit" which turns out to be a wild hare then destroys his treatment room.

If only eh!!

(however she got charged as well)

smartsuit

OMG lokiman!
I can believe how personal you have taken this! I mentioned that te thread had been hijacked but did you see my finger coming out of the screen and pointing at you? No!
Dont tell me I have cherrypicked a quote with no reference to the rest when that is exactly what you did! You "Cherrypicked" a quote that suited your argument and completely ignored something that didn't. I suppose that what you get taught in Barrister school?
Let me recap this and I will leave it there

Daisy broke her leg FACT
I took Daisy to the Emergency Vet.......FACT
Daisy was in pain............FACT
I had money to pay for pain relief..........FACT
Vet did not even offer this....FACT

dangeroussports

There are other facts too smartsuit.

But more importantly what have your learned from this and what can you NOW do to prevent this from reoccuring?

As for the vet, well he his quick decision has lead him to controversy about his practice. Other users, and any one googling will now know of his location and this controversy. Severly harming his reputation and possible financial costs.

That is a result of him not treating Daisy.

Moving on, you need to find a way of preventing or MINIMISING pain/harm/discomort to your pet in the future.

Other pet owners should read this thread and learn from it too.

As for pet insurance, granted some people cant get it due to various reasons but GENERALLY, is it worth getting? I dont know.

lokiman

smartsuit wrote: »

OMG lokiman!
I
Let me recap this and I will leave it there

Daisy broke her leg FACT
I took Daisy to the Emergency Vet.......FACT
Daisy was in pain............FACT
I had money to pay for pain relief..........FACT
Vet did not even offer this....FACT

Vet denied what you allege - FACT
RCVS made a preliminary finding that, even if what you said was 100% accuracte, no professional misconduct had taken place for its purposes - FACT.

Really, I'm not having a go, believe me. I adore my dogs and would be distraught if one of them was in pain or distress. That said, I do think it right to try and be fair and, whilst you may have published the entire letter, I do believe that you've cherry-picked a couple of quotes from it to suggest a finding of misconduct that just isn't there. Ultimately, whatever the truth of the matter (and I accept that what you say may be 100% accuracte), no factual finding of misconduct was made, so it's unfair to suggest, as you do, that "It seems that it is clear that Daisy was mistreated but the actions of the "Vet" were not serious enough to warrant him being struck off". No, they made no factual finding on the accuracy of your complaint, no finding of any misconduct, serious or otherwise, so don't imply that they did.