Forensic Vet Report

hachette

meritaten wrote: »

Hachette - I have only read about half of this thread.
First - let me say I am so sorry about your Maxie - I can understand how you feel.
Second - why on earth wasn't this moved up to Pets months ago?
Third - So much has been edited or removed that it is hardly legible. I think I am getting a handle on it, but, I think you will have to give us a summary of the situation - from the beginning.
can you do that please? write what happened and a timeline of what happened next? reading all the pages things get so confusing!

Hi thank you for kind words. If you have read half of my post I assume that you know that my dog bled to death due to my vet’s negligence. This has happened on 14/12/12. It has taken me months to take this matter up with RCVS who have closed my complaint. Although part of Professional Miscounact is “inadequate and inappropriate treatment” on which basis they have originally accepted my complaint subsequently they have interpreted this as possible error of judgment (how continent) so closed my case. RCVS do not deal with negligence. What kind of role their complaints department plays I fail to see, for sure they do not act to protect public but they own. After I got my proof of my vet’s negligence on 20/11/13 this is a letter I have sent to them. Have a read before it gets removed as it did on other forum it explains a lot.



I write this letter to voice my utter dissatisfaction and I would like some explanation as to why my complaint has been closed by case examiners. I am now in possession of a forensic vet’s report that has confirmed all the fears I had as how inadequately and inappropriately my dog was treated. My little dog Maxie has bled to death 2 hours after I brought him home from a routine biopsy. Maxie was heavily bandaged therefore I had no idea that he was bleeding until it was too late. The Surgery has been carried out despite of the fact that his platelets count on pre-operative blood result was only 14. With my complaint I have provided post mortem report, clinical records and blood test results. Myself as a lay-observer I could not understand why a veterinary surgeon would proceed while Maxie’s blood had no ability to clot. What is even worse in this case that my dog’s has been sent home with an active bleeding event. This has been confirmed by the expert witness report. The report also completely discredits my vets and her colleague’s senior vet explanations yet these explanations have been accepted by the case examiners. I can only conclude that your case examiners standard of expertise must also be below the average expected from a competent vet.

My complaint was taken on the basis I quote :

“The issues of professional misconduct identified from your complaint are as follows:

Your allegation that Miss ... and Mrs ... failed to provide veterinary care that was appropriate and adequate.”


In the RCVS final reply based on the explanation given and all the records provided by me my vet’s actions were categorised not as inappropriate and inadequate but as a possible error in judgment, something of course RCVS do not deal with. How convenient is that.

Would you say that for a veterinary surgeon not being able to interpret blood test results is adequate? Vets rely on blood tests everyday in order to treat/diagnose animals correctly and such lack of basic knowledge in my opinion is seriously deficient. Would you say that proceeding with non urgent surgery while there was a risk that the animal will bleed to death was appropriate? Would you say that sending the animal home bandaged with active bleeding was appropriate? I think it is safe to say that the answer to all these questions is no. As to the latter it was most unethical and unprofessional, cruel and deceitful. If the vet cannot recognise that animal in their care is bleeding as my vet had implied was not happening then they have no place in this profession. However in this case I believe she was well aware hence a pressure bandage. That is even worse. Clearly a case of out of sight, out of mind, hope for the best. At no time while in their care was the bandage removed and wound checked prior to discharge.

The above was not just a possible error of judgment. It was a seriously inadequate and inappropriate treatment, the result of which was then hidden away with bandages.

RCVS Serious Professional Misconduct quote:

“Serious professional misconduct does not include straightforward clinical mistakes, but if a veterinary surgeon misleads a client about what happened this could amount to serious professional misconduct.”

Would you say that my vet was honest with me when discharging my dog? She has made a number of errors and then tried to cover it up without a thought of how serious the result of her actions could be. She informed me that everything went fine, the lump was just fluid with little blood and blood results were good.

This is a cause for yet another question. Has Animal Welfare Act 2006 “1 (b) he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so “ been breached by my vet and 2(c)” he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all circumstances to prevent that happening” been breached by the senior vet?

Can I ask how many animals a vet needs to cause the death of by inappropriate and inadequate treatment before it can be classified as a professional misconduct? 1, 3 ,10,100, is there a limit?

Well in my view 1 is enough because that 1 was my little dog and his death was something that should have never have happened and by writing this I am hoping to save 2, 3.... 10?

My little dog trusted me and I trusted the vet. Never in the million years would I have ever thought that the vet can have such low knowledge in such simple matters and be left still practising, without even a recommendation of further training.

While I appreciate that the vet who carried out the surgery was practising for just over two years I would like to stress that 3 veterinary nurses including the senior nurse and 2 vets including the senior veterinary surgeon were involved in the care of my dog.

It would appear that when it comes to dealing with complaints RCVS is “barking up the wrong tree”
I would like to refer to disciplinary action taken against a vet and senior nurse (B.... and R....) simply for showing compassion. The vet has failed to put a cat to sleep as instructed by the client when the senior nurse offered to care for the cat. Both have been suspended for few months for trying to save this cat’s life, for showing compassion that one would expect from the vet and veterinary nurse. I think just a warning would be more appropriate in this case. My dog on the other hand received treatment well below expected standard, the blunder made by the vet was then withheld from me and camouflaged by bandage and then he was discharged home in a critical condition. A critical condition that has been caused by the vet. Well this vet had done no wrong in RCVS eyes and is back in the profession. If you consider actions of the punished vet/nurse and the unpunished, which vet would you prefer to take care of your animal companion?

It makes me sad that my case has now become financial issue but sadly getting money back for my dog's awful treatment plus other financial loss I have suffered due to his death is the only way I can get their addmition to the wrongdoing that had occured.
What RCVS is doing as self regulated profession is allowing bad vets to hide behind “RCVS skirts” while we animal companion’s owners, all 26 million of us have no protection whatsoever against negligent vets in this archaic system that need to be challenged.

The bottom line is that on Friday 14th of December 12 I have brought little, happy and active dog to the vet what I was given back that evening was dying dog who had no chance of surviving if given back to my care. Shouldn’t the course of these events be the other way around?

Hope to be hearing your comments.

hachette

And now Maxie's case to me became this. If he had to die like this at least maybe I can use his case to make some changes in this so unfair system.


The Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP
DEFRA
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR

24/1/14

Dear Mr Owen,
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 the 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 bias 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 and incompetent 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 Disciplinary Committee 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 DEFRA 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. Has the petition of 2003 been forgotten and swept under the carpet?


I look forward to your comments on this matter.

hachette

And yes I had a go at the Prime Minister.

The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA


02/03/13


Dear Mr Cameron,

Re: Companion animal’s status in Law and Vet’s Negligence.

I am forced to write this letter as a consequence of a huge veterinary negligence that resulted in my animal companion Maxie’s death. I am left devastated and distraught and will never forget how and why my dog has died. Through this dreadful experience I have learned that my dog’s law status in our society is that of a chattel. The law that originated back in medieval times is still with us in the 21st century and we have to abide by it. Animals are sentient beings that feel and give love, feel pain and stress just as humans and yet when it comes to law they are no more that an ornament or a vase that I own.
Human medicine and veterinary medicine are both medical professions dealing with beings. If a doctor is negligent we can sue him for this. However if it is a vet there is nothing we can do. RCVS does not deal with negligence unless it is on top of seriousness and can be classified as professional misconduct. I read RCVS guide on negligence and professional misconduct and I quote:

“In order to establish negligence, it is necessary to prove on the balance of probabilities that a duty of care existed, that it was breached and that the damage suffered was direct result of the defendant’s act or omission. Damage can be economic loss, physical injury or both”.

RCVS describes the death of my dog, just as economic loss? My animal companion who was hardly ever separated from me for the past 8 years suppose to be just an economic loss to me? He has died as my vet has chosen to ignore his blood result with critically low platelet count (putting it down to machine error) and carried on with surgery that made him bleed to death just 2 hours after I brought him home. This was not an economic loss to me. This was one of the most devastating experiences of my life. Although I have made a complaint to RCVS I am not at all confident that they will take any disciplinary action against my vet.

There is approx 700-800 complaints against vets per year but only approx 12 cases per year go in front of the Disciplinary Committee. What happens to the others? Mostly no action whatsoever is taken. All these distraught animal guardians cannot punish the wrongdoer for their actions and negligent vets go back into practice at the rate of a few hundred per year. Some money driven veterinary surgeons have not got any incentive to make sure they properly treat our animals as they have nothing to lose. The solicitors do not take veterinary negligence cases due to our companion animal’s status in law as property they cannot recover any money for the owners emotional distress or their animals sentimental value, just the price of your dog (economic value) which makes it not worth pursuing as their legal costs would be higher. So where do we go to punish negligent vets? It seems there is nowhere to go because of this unfair law that really has no place in modern society.

European Union law recognised animals in 1997 as sentient beings- able to feel pain and suffering. This recognition was strengthened in the Lisbon Treaty of 2009.
Some countries like Germany in 2002 and Switzerland in 1992 guaranteed rights to animals in amendment to their constitution to recognize animals also as beings not things. So why can’t we have the same changes to the law in UK?

There are about 26 million pet owners and we spend almost 15 billion per year to care for our companions, hugely contributing to the British economy.

Surely our pets and we their guardians deserve to be more protected by the legal system.

I look forward to hearing your views on the above issue.

Kind Regards

Shoshannah

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee does not consist of a bunch of veterinary surgeons. It is a mixture of veterinary surgeons and 'lay persons' from other walks of life. Indeed, the Chairman and one of the Vice-Chairmen are not vets.

I just wanted to mention this as I had not seen it mentioned before throughout this thread.

Current members of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee can be found here:
http://www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/committees/disciplinary-committee/

honeybean

Why is this on marriage family and relationships????????

chris_n_tj

honeybean wrote: »

Why is this on marriage family and relationships????????

Its on the Pets and pet care board x

moggymutt

I had the offer of a payout to cover vets costs when a vet gave a cat of ours a second jab of something she had already reacted badly to. the cumulative effect was appalling. The offer only covered vets bills, no account of me having to nurse her for 4 months, at times around the clock.
I refused the offer because it came with a confidentiality clause. I told the vet concerned that I'd rather be able to spread the word than accept the offer. It actually cost her a merger with another vets because I told the other vets, and pointed out that I was spreading the word. That was the best form of justice.

SeaLion_2

Hachette, I'm so sorry this happened to your little dog.
I applaud you taking a stand. I hope you get some satisfaction at some point.

hachette

moggymutt wrote: »

I had the offer of a payout to cover vets costs when a vet gave a cat of ours a second jab of something she had already reacted badly to. the cumulative effect was appalling. The offer only covered vets bills, no account of me having to nurse her for 4 months, at times around the clock.
I refused the offer because it came with a confidentiality clause. I told the vet concerned that I'd rather be able to spread the word than accept the offer. It actually cost her a merger with another vets because I told the other vets, and pointed out that I was spreading the word. That was the best form of justice.

Well done for not accepting their offer. This is my point too, out of court acceptance always comes with confidentiality that is why I had no intention of accepting their offer. If it does come to court at least its made public and you are free to say what you want. No money ever will bring my dog back or make me feel any better
about how and why he died but being able to spread the word and possibly make some changes for sure does.

hachette

This is a link to a petition against negligent vets. It was not started by me but it represents what I have gone through due to vets' negligence and what I strongly believe. Please sign it if you feel that change in our system is needed.


https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/uk-prime-minister-stop-veterinary-negligence-and-malpractice