Forensic Vet Report

RosiPossum

hachette wrote: »

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?

One that comes to mind was bios (which is a computer thing) rather than bias (one sided).

hachette

Valli wrote: »

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.

Dismissed by whom? My letter to DEFRA has nothing to do with my compensation for Maxie's death I have used his death as an example how difficult it is to deal with vets negligence. My communications skills are not that bad. However nobody seems to understand me so maybe you are right.

Valli

hachette wrote: »

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?

DEFRA won't 'get' what you're trying to say; they will not put the effort in. They aren't emotionally involved.
The onus is on you to put it into clear, intelligible, English.

I assume you mean Oxford University? Well lots - and lots - of people who have been to University still punctuate inappropriately, use incorrectly-spelled words and can't write a clear, literate letter. Unfortunately.

You have chosen to share the letter on this thread. One assumes it was so that you could check if it made sense?

I'll have a look for spelling errors then.

RosiPossum

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. Since the death of my dog over 1 year ago that was caused by my ex-vet I have found that pet owners face 2 big obstacles when trying to get justice for their harmed animal companion. Number 1 is RCVS and number 2 is the animal’s status in law as a property. We live under the illusion that if wrongdoing had happened to our animal companion we are protected by the RCVS complaints department and the vet in question if proven of wrong doing will receive some sort of punishment. The fact is that when you find yourself in the situation when you need to make a complaint this illusion is quickly shattered. If you have read the forensic vet report and my letter to RCVS you will see how and why I feel about the standard of the RCVS case examiners investigation. The RCVS were in the possession of the same documents as my forensic vet. My complaint was accepted on the basis of an issue of professional misconduct by failing to provide veterinary care that was appropriate and adequate. To me the fact that the vet could not interpret simple blood test result was clearly an inadequate standard of care and the fact that the surgery proceeded and my dog (with active bleeding) was given back to my care was inappropriate to say the least. However these words can be easily translated into negligence or error of judgement as they were in my case (possible error of judgment) and if that is what RCVS decides had occurred they have no powers to punish the vet under Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. In their acceptance of my vet’s explanation the RCVS have showed total bios towards the vet. One of the examples of this is: My vet stated and RCVS supported that statement that she had used other indicators to satisfy herself that it was reasonable to proceed with the surgery, namely that there was no evidence of clotting issues and that the blood in the syringe used to take a sample had clotted fine. This is what the forensic vet had to say about that statement. Quote: “To observe and note blood in a syringe would seem an unusual practice. Needles and syringes are usually disposed of immediately after blood has been taken and placed into sharps bin and clinical waste bin. There is no need to look at the syringe to obtain clinical information and this statement is unexpected.” There is no doubt that RCVS tried to pull the wool over my eyes by making me believe that this was normal practice to make a clinical judgment, by doing so they have not only left a negligent vet in the profession but gave the vet go ahead to make her unusual and unacceptable clinical judgments in the future. That is very worrying. So I have stumbled on my first obstacle the RCVS who care only for their own. My case was promptly closed.
Fortunately as the RCVS informed me I have one more option, taking the vet to court. Let’s see how that will work out for an average pet owner. In law my dog is a property (a “thing”) so what I am likely to be awarded by court is the price of my dog. What if my dog was just a mongrel with no economic value? Even if dog was pure breed what solicitor is going to undertake a case if their costs would be far more than what their client is likely to recover and what pet owner would risk such case unless they were very rich or their dog was the famous dancing Pudsy? So there it is a pet owner’s obstacle number 2. All doors closed. The negligent vet is left in practice without any punishment, pet owner is left grieving, devastated and angry at the inability to do anything about his pet companion’s wrongful death. This is a country of animal lovers and yet that is what we have to deal with when wrongdoing happens.
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. Even in my case would I want to see my ex-vet to be heavily fined or sent to prison? No I would not. Although, I do believe that by sending my dog back home with active bleeding that Act has been breached. What I and most of the pet owners 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 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 and us owners from negligent vets. They are left in the profession (with RCVS blessing) to cause more misery and grief. There are clearly thousands of people unhappy about the current law and regulations so why is the government insisting on being committed to retaining the principle of self-regulation for the veterinary profession while it is no longer acceptable for the animal companion’s owners?
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 we live in. 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 their own. 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 your comments on this matter.

That's the spelling. The grammar and readability are things I'm not going into.

Valli

hachette wrote: »

Dismissed by whom? My letter to DEFRA has nothing to do with my compensation for Maxie's death I have used his death as an example how difficult it is to deal with vets negligence. My communications skills are not that bad. However nobody seems to understand me so maybe you are right.

My belief is, as it stands, DEFRA will ignore this letter (if that is to whom it is being sent) and dismiss you (i.e. ignore your letter) because of the way it has been written.

Rosi has now dealt with the spelling.

hachette

RosiPossum wrote: »

Hachette, could you edit that into paragraphs please? I can't read a block of text like that.

The reason people think you're out for compensation is because you find it an insult to be offered 10% of the random amount you chose to ask for for suffering. If it was not about financial payout at all, you would accept this.
They seem fair to offer the costs you incurred because of Maxie's death, but not the surgery. He shouldn't have been discharged and died, so they are the costs you incurred after. Although one could argue that you'd face these costs even if he died of old age.

Getting money back for the surgery that killed Maxie was most important to me I would rather they refused for the forenic vet or the solicitor or both. I am not paying my ex-vet for killing my dog.

wealdroam

hachette wrote: »

Can you point me to any of my spelling mistakes?

Not necessarily spelling mistakes, but:

"the EFRA committee made" - did you mean DEFRA?
If not, you need to explain EFRA.

"only 1 or 2 cases per month go to DC action" - might be wise to spell out DC in full, whatever it is.

keyser666

Valli wrote: »

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.

Hears and sees what she does and not actually what is there

LilElvis

hachette wrote: »

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?

Exactly!

Your husband and, to a degree, the posters on here know your case. DEFRA don't. They will not be able to 'fill in the gaps' and therefore be able to comprehend what you are trying to say.

Why not ask your husband to help you to rewrite it?

hachette

Valli wrote: »

My belief is, as it stands, DEFRA will ignore this letter (if that is to whom it is being sent) and dismiss you (i.e. ignore your letter) because of the way it has been written.

Rosi has now dealt with the spelling.

Thank you for the spelling check. It was not as bad as I was made to believe. I have written to the Prime Minister before on the subject the letter was passed on to DEFRA who have replied. They have pointed me to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and said this includes the vets conduct. The thing is they have an obligation to respond to even "simple folks" who are the part of this country if they have an issue. They may not address my issue but it will not be dismissed, spelling mistakes, bad grammar does not matter they will reply.