Gobsmacked by RCVS reply

skintandscared_2

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

There is a saying that I love:

Every time I lose a dog it takes a piece of my heart with them. Every time a dog comes into my life it gifts me with a piece of its heart. If I live long enough all of the components of my heart will be dog, and I will become as generous and loving as they are.

Anonymous.

Oh I love that!

bugslet

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

I had her for 12 weeks. She had had a horrendous life before she came to me, but I take comfort from the fact that the last few weeks of her life were spent surrounded by love and in comfort. She died in my arms. My vets bills in those 12 weeks totalled over £2000 but it was worth it for what I was able to give her in her last days.

Aw bless you, I'm sure she knew how special her new home was even in that short space of time.

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Even after two years I am still devastated by the loss of my beloved dog Jasper. But; whilst I am terribly sorry for Hachette's distress and the loss of her dog, the continuance of the campaign are not helping anyone. The RCVS seem to have satisfied themselves about the matter in full.

.

I know you were. I used to follow your blog until I change computer and lost all sorts of links. Hope you are well. Lady Miss Till sends woofs.

PS, yes I agree with all of your post Ruth.

RuthnJasper

bugslet wrote: »

Aw bless you, I'm sure she knew how special her new home was even in that short space of time.



I know you were. I used to follow your blog until I change computer and lost all sorts of links. Hope you are well. Lady Miss Till sends woofs.

PS, yes I agree with all of your post Ruth.

Of course!! :beer: Lady Miss Till - how are you both?! Hope you're well. Blog is still going - under the dubious auspices of cheeky Parson Jack Russell Terrier, Gisèle. http://jasper-thedogsblog.blogspot.com/ - Although she's been a bit naughty of late; Lady Miss T's pure eyes might be sullied by what she sees... :whistle:

Keep smiling! Rxx

dandelionclock30

To the lady who lost her dog because of the vets mistake, I know its bad but you cant let it ruin your life. Organizations do tend to stick together and cover up things and not investigate in an unbiased manner. Thats the way things often are in this country. I know its wrong but there is very little you can do.
At the end of the day you only have 1 life and dont let yourself become all bitter and twisted about it. Nothing will bring your dog back, you have done the best you could for her and thats all any owner can do. Your dog wouldnt want you to be upset and not being able to let this go. Instead treasure the happy times you had with her instead.
Why not invest your time and attention on giving another dog a loving home instead. Get a rescue or one you have always wanted and find a decent vet based n recommendations from people in your area. This will be miles more positive for you and will bring you happiness. Hopefully you will then be able to put what happened to your dog to the very back of your mind and be able to build a good future for yourself.
Horrible upsetting things do happen in life but there are things we can do to make things a bit brighter.

MothballsWallet

hachette wrote: »

Just wondered what I have said that may put me on shaky legal ground? Could you make it more clear please?

Where shall I start (even though yorkshire_terrier_owner's explained even better than I could)?

• Accusing her of negligence even with a report that points to an error in judgement - this could be seen as malicious accusations, possibly even libel
• Repeatedly writing to the RCVS - this could be seen as harassment

And that's just for starters.

You need to redirect your energies towards something else, you won't get justice this way: all the agencies that could help you will turn you down when they find out about how you've been doing things.

hachette

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

Have given this some thought overnight (partly because this thread has provided me with the material for the next class I teach on tort law) I have some more thoughts on this. I will use legal terminology here where C = claimant and D = defendant.

We are talking about negligence here. In order for negligence to be proved, the facts of the case have to pass the Caparo 3 part test. Part one of the test asks whether there was a duty of care.

At the point of agreeing to the procedure, C will have signed a disclaimer acknowledging that the procedure is not without its risks. Then at the point of discharge, C will have been given advice on post operative care.

Whilst the dog in question died very quickly, in the 2 hours between discharge and death, there would have been a decline in the overall health and behaviour of the dog. The duty of care at the time of death lies with C. If C did not telephone the vet or take the dog back to vet then part one of the Caparo 3 part test fails. Couple that with the disclaimer signed before the procedure (and it is for entirely this reason that these disclaimers exist) then negligence cannot be proved.

D will have liability insurance. Often a settlement is offered, purely to avoid claiming on liability insurance and risk increased premiums. However, the pockets of the insurance companies are deep - deeper than that of domestic pet insurers. They will not want to risk losing the case.

All this is in addition to the 2 arguments I came up with last night. There are several other defence arguments I have, but will not post them in order not to upset the OP. What I will say is that the defence in the case is not very difficult. If I can come up with a strong defence sat at my computer and giving it a little bit of thought, then imagine what a defence barrister can do.

Pursuing this further will ONLY cause YOU heartache and pain - and quite possible financial loss. And you may well find vets in the area refuse to treat your animals - they do talk to each other. Furthermore, in law dogs are viewed as property, and in the unlikely event you were successful, any compensation would be small.

Thank you very much for all your info. You, without a doubt have lots of legal experience. I honestly very much appreciate it also was quite surprised how easily you found my other posts that were harmless if I may add.
I did read Part 3 or Tort Law chapter 11 (The Tort of Negligence) sometime ago and I feel that it does support what had happened to me and I can proof it. I think the problem is that nobody had read the full (12 pages) of the forensic vet report that is because I only posted very little of it. So no surprise that you have no other option but to say what you do.

hachette

MothballsWallet wrote: »

Where shall I start (even though yorkshire_terrier_owner's explained even better than I could)?

• Accusing her of negligence even with a report that points to an error in judgement - this could be seen as malicious accusations, possibly even libel
• Repeatedly writing to the RCVS - this could be seen as harassment

And that's just for starters.

You need to redirect your energies towards something else, you won't get justice this way: all the agencies that could help you will turn you down when they find out about how you've been doing things.

Report sais:Quote
5.17 I am satisfied that 4 criteria for demonstrtion of negligence viz;

A. Presence of a dute of care
B. Breach of that duty
C. Other considarations
D. Occurrence of a foreseeable loss

Have been demonstrwated in this case against Ms... and Mrs ....

5.18 Report ends.

hachette

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Even after two years I am still devastated by the loss of my beloved dog Jasper. But; whilst I am terribly sorry for Hachette's distress and the loss of her dog, the continuance of the campaign and complaints are not helping anyone. The RCVS seem to have satisfied themselves about the matter in full.

And what about the vet? Vets, after all, are in the field to help animals (whether pets or otherwise) recover from illness and stay well. I suspect it is distressing to the vets when they lose a patient. I know that if I was a vet, and I had been unable to save an animal for whatever reason, I would be very sorry - but to then have repeated complaints and appeals about me, as well as unpleasant comments about me personally being thrown around the internet, I would be devastated. This sort of thing can destroy people's lives.

That is a very sweet comment. However my dog was not ill beyoned any help. He was a happy little dog and I took him to the vet as he had a small lump on his side. He went for a biopsy. Returned in critiacal condition because what vet did to him without me knowing it and died 2 hours later.

Yes we all make mistakes. If I killed a person on the road through my mistake would that be enough to avoid any punishment. The fact that it was a mistake? No. I would be charged with dangerous driving etc and given punishment by court. So why is it Ok for vets to make mistakes and get away with it and not other people?

yorkshire_terrier_owner

But the forensic vet is not a legal expert. A defence will include their own expert who will no doubt say the opposite of your forensic vet. Let's not forget that you will have likely paid this forensic vet for his services which will make his opinion in biased. It is up to the court to decide whether negligence has occurred or not. I am not sure which book it is you have read, but tort law is a complex path to navigate without legal expertise. And remember that the statutes are not the end of the story, the judge will look to past precedent when ruling.

Yes your posts in other forums were harmless, but my point is they WILL be used against you. I know how they will be used against you but I am not prepared to say.

Courts also use the "standard of the reasonable man" concept when defending a case (which I am sure you will know about if you have read up on tort law). The defence will argue that your actions between discharge of the animal and death were not those 'of the reasonable man' as you did not contact the vet.

There are a number of other defence arguments here which I am not prepared to post as I feel it will only serve to upset you OP, but a defence in court will have no such compunction. I can see how this will end if you continue to pursue it and it won't be pretty.

Please, please, I have more legal expertise than simply reading a chapter of a book, and I am telling you that you are fighting a losing battle. Nevertheless, I have a colleague who is a barrister specialising in tort law. I will run the facts of this past them, but I fear they will say the same thing.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

hachette wrote: »

That is a very sweet comment. However my dog was not ill beyoned any help. He was a happy little dog and I took him to the vet as he had a small lump on his side. He went for a biopsy. Returned in critiacal condition because what vet did to him without me knowing it and died 2 hours later.

Yes we all make mistakes. If I killed a person on the road through my mistake would that be enough to avoid any punishment. The fact that it was a mistake? No. I would be charged with dangerous driving etc and given punishment by court. So why is it Ok for vets to make mistakes and get away with it and not other people?

Nobody is saying it is OK for vets to be negligent, but everybody makes mistakes. There is a distinct difference between the 2.