Forensic Vet Report

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

I will now enumerate the latest missive from the Axette.

OP had taken out a loan to seek legal redress.

Valli

hachette wrote: »

Re: Vets negligence.
Please find enclosed a copy letter that I have been recently forced to write to RCVS together with a forensic vet report. I would be grateful if you could read that letter and the forensic vet report before you carry on reading this letter.

I would like to use my case as an example of how difficult or even impossible due to current law and regulations it is for us animal companion’s owners to deal with vets that have caused harm, injury or even death through bad and inadequate treatment.

On (date) my dog Maxie haemorraged and died following surgery that I have subsequently discovered should not have been carried out. Blood tests taken prior to the surgery indicated that the dog's blood would not clot.

I have complained to the RCVS that the vet in question was, indeed, negligent in performing the operation despite indications that there would be complications.

The RCVS have found in the vet's favour. I am therefore concerned that, rather than being a regulatory body the RCVS have acted inappropriately in not finding my vet to have been negligent.

The RCVS pride themselves on the fact that only 1 or 2 cases per month go to DC action that is because the threshold of Professional Misconduct has been made so high that hardly anybody who has made a complaint can reach it.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006, while it is very welcome still does not help us to deal with vet’s negligence. What I would like to see is the vet being suspended and made to undertake compulsory further training before they are allowed back into the profession. This cannot, at present, be ordered by court.

In 2003 campaigners against negligent vets handed a 5,878 name petition to Buckingham Palace calling on the Queen to intervene. There are several other still ongoing petitions. It is clear from my case that over 10 years on nothing at all has changed to protect our animals from negligent vets. They are continue to practise (with RCVS blessing) to cause more misery and grief.

I note that the EFRA committee made an inquiry into the need to replace the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 in 2003 and list of recommendations were presented to the Government in 2008. Subsequently DEFRA decided to walk away from work on a White Paper due to insufficient funds and lack of human resources so we are still suffering the consequences of this archaic system.

The sad part is that DEFRA is aware that thousands of people are very dissatisfied and harm is being done to our animals by the very people who we trust give them proper care and treatment and these people are still allowed to practice as the RCVS does not act for the public but wholly for the professionals they represent.

This profession seem to be the most protected in UK and we pet owners, all 26 million of us, are “left out in the cold”. The veterinary profession is losing peoples trust. Is that DEFRA’s way of caring for the welfare of animals, by turning a blind eye?

With approx 20,000 veterinary surgeons currently practising in UK and almost 6,000 of unhappy owners who have signed the petition in 2003 there should be without a doubt huge concern for our companion animal’s welfare.

I look forward to receiving your comments on this matter.

As an example of what I might write in your shoes; I have taken your letter and tweaked it. I do not claim that any of the statistics, therefore, are accurate as I have taken them from what you posted.

LilElvis

I am really sorry Hachette, but I totally agree with Chickabiddybex - it is totally unreadable, and I have tried 3 times. After wading through the poor language, grammar and overrall construction I am still no nearer to deciphering what point you are making, what answer you expect. It is almost incomprehensible.

Please try again, as I am sure that it is very important to you.

hachette

Valli wrote: »

As an example of what I might write in your shoes; I have taken your letter and tweaked it. I do not claim that any of the statistics, therefore, are accurate as I have taken them from what you posted.

That is not how it all happened and that is not how RCVS repiled. Please you do not know the whole case that has taken me almost a year to put into prospective so I cannot not blame you for the corrections you are trying to make to my letter, but trust me in heart there are none to make. It is what it is.Facts.

Valli

hachette wrote: »

That is not how it all happened and that is not how RCVS repiled. Please you do not know the whole case that has taken me almost a year to put into prospective so I cannot not blame you for the corrections you are trying to make to my letter, but trust me in heart there are none to make. It is what it is.Facts.

I'm not the only person who has pointed out that your letter is unreadable. Even this 5 line reply is full off errors! The word prospective, for instance, means 'expected'!

But you send it, they'll file it along with all the other letters they get which show the writer to be, at best, delusional. You make no point in your letter that is clear. There are spelling errors. It is impossible, on reading your rambling block of text, to ascertain what you're trying to get them to do.


Normal people are perfectly capable of writing concise, cohesive letters. The fact that yours is the polar opposite speaks volumes.

hachette

Valli wrote: »

What is the point/aim of the letter?

if you are going to take your vet to court for negligence why are you wrting to DEFRA?

Muddying the waters again Hachette.

Decide on a plan of action and follow it.

Re the letter - I wouldn't write or send that.
I''m a normal person, by the way. But I would use paragraphs and check my spelling. I would also indicate to DEFRA what I wanted them to do. Not just ramble on.

My letter had paragraphs ect I have copied it from my rough copy. I think I have made it clear that the goverement should act on the recommendations that were presented in 2008. 1966 is long gone we live now in 2014 it is time to make changes to the law that will properly care for the animal companions and their owners. Spelling has no impact on this matter.

LilElvis

hachette wrote: »

That is not how it all happened and that is not how RCVS repiled. Please you do not know the whole case that has taken me almost a year to put into prospective so I cannot not blame you for the corrections you are trying to make to my letter, but trust me in heart there are none to make. It is what it is.Facts.

But Valli's actually makes some sense, whilst yours doesn't!

And it is perspective, not 'prospective'.

It really does need further work, but Valli's draft is a vast improvement.

If I received your letter as it stands I would simply file it in the bin, I certainly wouldn't waste my time reading it countless times trying to work out what you wanted. If that is what you want to happen then just mail it as it is, but if it means as much as I think it does then sit down and try again.

We are not putting you down, just trying to help you to put your point in a more cogent way.

Valli

Valli wrote: »

As an example of what I might write

hachette wrote: »

That is not how it all happened and that is not how RCVS repiled. Please you do not know the whole case that has taken me almost a year to put into prospective so I cannot not blame you for the corrections you are trying to make to my letter, but trust me in heart there are none to make. It is what it is.Facts.

I didn't say it was what happened, I gave that AS AN EXAMPLE. To HELP YOU.

So that, if you do send a letter yours is as well-written as possible, and states your preferred outcome. Because then you might achieve something. As it stands at present I am convinced your insurers aren't going to pay out for your legal fight; I think they will recommend you take the £2K.

So you are going to have to fight. Unless you improve your communication skills you are going to be dismissed as delusional, or raving, and you will be ignored.

hachette

Valli wrote: »

I'm not the only person who has pointed out that your letter is unreadable. Even this 5 line reply is full off errors! The word prospective, for instance, means 'expected'!

But you send it, they'll file it along with all the other letters they get which show the writer to be, at best, delusional. You make no point in your letter that is clear. There are spelling errors. It is impossible, on reading your rambling block of text, to ascertain what you're trying to get them to do.


Normal people are perfectly capable of writing concise, cohesive letters. The fact that yours is the polar opposite speaks volumes.

My husband who went to Oxford had read my letter. He knows the case so it made sense to him. maybe my grammar as he also said was not up to scratch but I am sure DEFRA will get what I was trying to say. Can you point me to any of my spelling mistakes?

RosiPossum

I guess you have put it into paragraphs in the real one, but if you post it here you do need to put paragraphs in too.
I've tried to read it and can't.