The WSAVA has launched a petition to save ketamine from being placed under international scheduling, a move which the association says would prevent those who most need the drug having access to it.

The proposal to schedule ketamine is likely to be considered at the 59th UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs (CND) taking place between now and the 22nd March 2016 in Vienna.

Apparently, the proposal stems from a widespread misconception that ketamine is only a recreational drug. WSAVA argues that it is in fact the only anaesthetic suitable for use in middle and low income countries, and it also has particular value 'in the field' for trauma, traffic and sporting injuries. It is also the common and often only product used for sterilization initiatives - instrumental in the feral dog/cat population and critical for the control of zoonotic diseases, such as rabies.

To sign the petition, visit: http://chn.ge/1RFSou6. You can also share the petition post on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WSAVA/.

French veterinary surgeons went on strike yesterday, and 10,000 marched on the streets of Paris in protest at Government plans to restrict their ability to supply certain farm animal antibiotics.

According to the National Union of Practicing Veterinarians (SNVEL), French veterinary surgeons saw the Government plans as an attack on their integrity and competence, and called for the strike, the first of its kind in history.

As a result of the strike, French Ministers have apparently pledged to retract their plans, something which was welcomed by veterinary representatives at the end of the march to the Ministry of Health (see right; click to enlarge).

At the same time, the SNVEL organised a 'Day Without Veterinarians' in all the French Departments. Given that there are only 11,000 practicing vets in France, 10,000 of whom were in Paris, that bit can't have been a particularly difficult logistical challenge.

The RCVS is now accepting disclosures from veterinary surgeons about any criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings they may have against them, as part of a voluntary period before the requirement to disclose commences in 2014.

The requirement that veterinary surgeons notify the College about criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings on registration, and on an annual basis as part of their registration renewal each March, was introduced as part of the Code of Professional Conduct in 2012 (section 5.3, see Notes to Editors). However, the College has allowed a bedding-in period for the Code before enforcing the requirement.

From 2014, new registrants will have to disclose any criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings that may affect registration (for example, those from university fitness to practise procedures).

Veterinary surgeons already on the Register (including overseas and non-practising categories, as well as UK-practising) will only be required to disclose criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings that have occurred since April 2006. Fixed-penalty motoring offences are excluded.

The veterinary profession has fallen under the Notifiable Occupations Scheme since April 2006, which means that serious convictions are already passed to the College from the police.

If a veterinary surgeon declares a criminal conviction, this will be initially considered by the Registrar, and, if necessary, referred to the Preliminary Investigation Committee. In some cases, the matter will be referred on to the Disciplinary Committee to decide if the nature of the caution or conviction affects the veterinary surgeon's fitness to practise - in which case the usual sanctions of removal or suspension from the Register could apply.

Eleanor Ferguson, Head of Professional Conduct said: "We hope, through this new requirement, to increase the public's confidence in the veterinary profession, and to safeguard animal health and welfare. The move brings the veterinary profession into line with many others - including registered veterinary nurses, who have made such a disclosure since their Register was introduced, in 2007."

The RCVS has launched a dedicated advice line to assist affected veterinary surgeons, on 07818 113 056, open Monday to Friday, 11am-4pm.

Callers will speak to one of three RCVS solicitors who can advise on the process and the possible outcomes of disclosure. Alternatively, veterinary surgeons can contact disclosure@rcvs.org.uk.

Detailed information regarding the requirement, including examples of the kinds of convictions that may be referred to the Preliminary Investigation Committee, and a disclosure form, can be found on www.rcvs.org.uk/convictions.

A survey carried out by Fish4Dogs has found that a 'staggering' 43% of dog owners do not brush their dog's teeth.

As part of the research, 800 people from across the UK were quizzed about their attitude to their pet's dental care in the lead up to the British Dental Health Foundation's 'National Smile Month' (May 20th-June 20th).

The survey also found that:

• 30% of owners had spent more on their pet's teeth than their own.
• 86% of owners felt that dental care should be part of standard pet insurance.

Graham Smith, Chief Executive of Fish4Dogs said: "This research is definitely an interesting read about people's attitudes and behaviours towards dental care for their dogs. National Smile Month campaigns for healthy and happy teeth and there is no reason this shouldn't apply to our pets too. At Fish4Dogs we have never doubted how important dogs are to their owners, but it is clear that with wider awareness we could encourage teeth brushing to become more regular and an introduction of dry food into dogs' diets and all see improved results."

The Hertfordshire-based referral centre Davies Veterinary Specialists, has announced it is to support Mission Rabies, a charity which aims to reduce the number of children in India that die as a result of contracting rabies from dogs.

According to the charity, it is estimated that at least one child dies from rabies every hour in India, normally contracted from dog bites. Mission Rabies aims to establish the country's first National Rabies Network to supply cheap, effective vaccines nationwide and monitor disease prevalence. The campaign will also include surgical training programmes in rabies danger zones, to train local vets in the best field techniques for dog population and vaccination control. The charity says it intends to vaccinate two million dogs in the key hotspot areas of India over the next three years.

Davies Veterinary Specialists is donating 50,000 rabies vaccines, to be used during the first month of the campaign, which launches this September.

VetSurgeon.org member Ian Battersby, one of Davies Veterinary Specialists' Internal Medicine team, is one of the organisers of the project, which is also supported by Dogs Trust, the World Small Animal Veterinary Association, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association and the Worldwide Veterinary Service. Ian will be travelling to India in September whilst other staff from DVS are planning various fund raising events, including marathons, evening talks to dog owners, a fund raising choir concert and an online auction to members of the veterinary profession. The auction will go live in June and lots will include in-house training seminars from members of the DVS clinical staff and gifts donated by local organisations. 

DVS Managing director Clive Elwood said: "This is a very important project delivering veterinary care and expertise that will have a real impact on human lives. We are delighted to be able to help such a worthwhile cause."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that Somerset-based veterinary surgeon Dr Marcus Hutber be removed from the Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct following multiple complaints made against him.

During the 11-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard eight, separate and unrelated complaints against Dr Marcus Hutber, made whilst he was the owner of the veterinary company Epivet Ltd, with practices in Williton and Wiveliscombe, in 2009. The complaints involved a series of allegations including lack of adequate professional care, failure to have regard to animal welfare, failure to make or maintain adequate clinical records (and to provide them on request), and failure to treat clients with courtesy and respect.

In the first case, Dr Hutber was found to have performed surgery on a dog inadequately; failed to provide adequate post-operative pain relief; failed to obtain informed consent for the surgery from the dog's owner; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records of the dog's treatment. In a second case of inadequate professional care, Dr Hutber failed to ensure a cat's condition was monitored adequately; failed to ensure that the cat received appropriate fluid therapy; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records.

Dr Hutber was found to have brought the profession into disrepute by speaking rudely to one of his clients. On a separate occasion, a different client was found to have been treated without due courtesy or respect when Dr Hutber told her to come to the practice at once to get tablets and give them to her dog, otherwise the dog would die (of a disease he had diagnosed without carrying out the necessary investigations) - an instruction he then later repeated despite being told the dog was now being treated at a different practice.

One other complaint, where charges were proved, involved Dr Hutber's refusal to provide an animal's clinical records to a former client.

The Disciplinary Committee found Dr Hutber's conduct in respect of the charges proved in relation to each complaint, standing alone and taken collectively, amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In reaching its findings, the Committee considered the oral evidence and written statements of 20 witnesses (including Dr Hutber), two expert witness reports, a large quantity of documentary evidence, Dr Hutber's extensive rebuttal material and Counsels' submissions. Generally, the Committee preferred the evidence of the College's witnesses to that of Dr Hutber. Despite the Committee accepting he was of previous good character, it found him to be unhelpful and uncooperative, frequently lapsing into periods of silence that could last minutes, and staring fixedly (and, in the Committee's view, intimidatingly) at witnesses and College Counsel. There were also inconsistencies between his written rebuttal to the College, his witness statement and his oral evidence, about which the Committee found him evasive and illogical.

The Committee considered Dr Hutber had shown no insight into the allegations, or appreciated the significance or impact of his conduct upon his clients and their animals. He had shown no remorse or regret for his actions, and had continued to assert that he had done nothing wrong.

Further, he had caused actual injury to an animal by subjecting it to unnecessary revision surgery; displayed an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the concept of informed consent; demonstrated a lamentable lack of concern for animal welfare; brought the profession into disrepute with his treatment of his clients; and, exhibited conduct that fell far short of that to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.

Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has found that there were fundamental failings in the Respondent's clinical competence, and that there were serious defects in his interpersonal skills in relation to clients. He has throughout displayed a tendency to blame others for things which have gone wrong. [The Committee] is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of the Respondent having the ability or inclination to remedy his failings [and] remains unconvinced that there is a real possibility of a change in his attitude.

"The Committee is fully conscious that the purpose of sanction is not to punish, but to protect animals and the wider public interest and to uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession. Having regard to the serious aggravating factors [in this case], the Committee considers that the Respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, is so serious that removal of his professional status is the only appropriate sanction."

Accordingly, the Committee directed the Registrar to remove Dr Hutber's name from the Register.

The full details of the Committee's findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct a veterinary surgeon who failed to make sufficient enquiries about the location or condition of a cat; unreasonably refused to provide it with first aid and pain relief; and failed to provide it with adequate 24-hour emergency care.

Following a three-day hearing, the Committee found Marcus Kutschera, of South London Emergency Veterinary Centre, Streatham, guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to events on 16 May 2011. Mr Kutschera was Clinical Director of the practice, which provided out-of-hours emergency services to several London veterinary practices. At about 1.45am, the practice received two telephone calls from a representative of a registered charity about a cat, which the caller considered should be seen by a veterinary surgeon as soon as possible. The charity was itself a client of one of the practices whose out-of-hours emergency services were provided by the South London Emergency Veterinary Centre. The cat was later euthanased by the RSPCA.

After listening to a recording of a telephone call between a representative of the charity and Mr Kutschera, during which Mr Kutschera failed to ask about either the condition or location of the cat, the Committee was in no doubt that the caller believed Mr Kutschera would not see the cat unless he was able to pay when it was presented. The Committee said that, once the telephone call had been received, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon was the welfare of the animal, and Mr Kutschera had no good reason not to see the cat or to follow the procedures set out in the Guide to Professional Conduct 2010. If he had made proper inquiries, he would have been able to make a provisional diagnosis that the cat was likely to be euthanased. Mr Kutschera was guilty of unreasonably refusing to provide first aid and/or pain relief to the animal, and of failing to provide adequate 24-hour emergency care.

The Committee concluded that Mr Kutschera's conduct fell far short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon. Although he did recommend that the cat should be taken to the RSPCA, his primary concern was the ability of the client to make a payment on presentation of the cat, and not the animal's welfare. He had a responsibility for ensuring that proper emergency cover was provided.

In mitigation, the Committee noted that the event was a single, short telephone call between Mr Kutschera and the client in the early hours of the morning, and there was no evidence to suggest similar behaviour on his part on other occasions. Mr Kutschera accepted that he made no inquiries into the cat's condition or location, and the Committee accepted that he had shown some insight into what went badly wrong. He said that he had subsequently changed his practice when speaking to clients on the telephone. The Committee also took account of the impact on Mr Kutschera of the case hanging over him since the complaint was made in August 2011 and, as the cost of the Disciplinary Committee inquiry was not covered by his professional indemnity insurance, he had taken on a substantial financial commitment to pay for legal representation.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. Whilst there are undoubted financial issues that can arise in the operation of an out-of-hours service, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon is for the welfare of the animal."

The Committee recommended that Mr Kutschera undertake, within 12 months, continuing professional development training, with a particular emphasis on animal welfare, ethics and client care, in the context of providing out-of-hours services. It imposed on Mr Kutschera the sanction of a severe reprimand and a warning as to his future conduct.

Loseley, the ice-cream maker, has announced that it has developed a new way of making flavoured ice-cream by adapting the diet fed to its cows.

The first variety to be made using the new technique is 'Eton Mess', for which the company's herd is being fed a diet of strawberries and meringues.

Loseley says its cattle - which are housed at the Beechdean Dairies farm in Buckinghamshire - have already been feeding on the ingredients found in the much loved pudding for over a year, to ensure their milk supply is infused with the strawberry and meringue flavours. Apparently, huge amounts of strawberries are having to be air-freighted into the UK in order to ensure an uninterrupted supply through the seasons.

Andrew Howard Managing Director of Beechdean Dairies said: "We have been perfecting the quantities in the cattle feed for over 18 months to perfect the Eton Mess flavour. The cows need to be fed just the right quantities of meringues, strawberries, fat and hay to make the perfect Eton Mess ice cream. We believe ice cream should be great quality, tasty and interesting. Our products will always deliver against these criteria."

Vince Bamford, Fast Moving Consumer Goods Editor at The Grocer, the UK's leading grocery trade magazine said: "Loseley's flavour development process is cutting edge - I have tasted the product and it is delicious. It is an exciting innovation for the ice cream category."

The inaugural Vet Charity Challenge, which took place on 15^th September at the Royal Agricultural College in Cirencester, has raised at least £20,000 for charity.

Twenty-six teams of four people took part, spending seven hours walking, running, cycling, kayaking, orienteering, along with a few mental physical challenges along the way.

The Challenge started in the morning with a sprint to collect puzzles for teams to solve. This determined time slots when teams could attempt six mental and physical puzzles during the morning session. The teams then headed off on a walk or run around the surrounding countryside. The aim was to visit as many points on the map as possible. Each team could choose its own route. After lunch, the teams headed off again for the cycling stages, visiting places on the map in order to gain more points. Then finally it was onto the water for the kayaking stage.

The winning team was the Complete Animal from Hyde Park Veterinary Centre in London. Team captain Leah Morley said: "The event was great fun, really well organised, and all the teams seemed to have got right behind it. You really had to work as a team, playing to different peoples strengths both physically and mentally. Everyone had a fair chance of winning. We would really like to thank others in the practice and our clients who were massively generous in their support and sponsorship. Their response was quite inspirational and certainly had an impact in driving us to perform well. I think every practice should take part and we look forward to returning next year to defend our title."

All the teams enjoyed the day and met the challenges head on and were enthusiastic for the Vet Charity Challenge to continue next year. Head Nurse Angella McNellan from Glenbrae Veterinary Clinic in Bearsden, Glasgow said: "The Vet Charity Challenge has been brilliant fun, beautiful scenery, great challenges. It has really helped get fitter through training as a team after work during the summer. We cannot wait to do it all again next year."

Roger Dixon MRCVS from Ashbrook Equine Hospital in Cheshire said: "The Challenge has been great fun, we really enjoyed the teambuilding element. Also it was worth the pain to beat the farm team!"

Nicolette Hayward from team The Far Canals said: "The Vet Charity Challenge has been superb, enormous fun. We did absolutely no training and came in fourth, so we are very happy with that result."

Jason Rogers from BCF team Witness the Fitness said: "We really enjoyed the day, found it exhausting though, the kayaking was the toughest part, and we had quite a run back in the morning to get back in time."

To add to the level of exhaustion competitors were flung around the dance floor for a Ceilidh following a barbeque in the evening. The band consisted of organisers from the event including caller Brian Wright from Vets Now and competitors Nicolette Haywood and Jim Hughes.

For more information, see more photos and to register interest for the challenge in 2013 visit www.vetcharitychallenge.co.uk. Also follow Vet Charity Challenge and on Twitter @vetchallenge.

Ceva Animal Health UK, makers of Feliway for cats and Adaptil for dogs, has launched an online petition calling for the Government to force all fireworks manufacturers to carry information about pet and wildlife safety both online and on packaging and is calling for the veterinary industry to back the campaign.

Ceva says the campaign is designed to highlight the stress that Bonfire Night can cause to pets: according to the company's research more than 80 per cent of owners say their pet is afraid of the noises associated with firework season.

The petition states: Over 80 per cent of pet owners have a pet that is afraid of fireworks. Fireworks manufacturers need to accept their responsibilities and publicise pet safety information on packaging and on their websites. Adaptil call (sic) on the Government to make this a mandatory requirement.

However, that rather beggars the question: "What pet safety information?" After all, there isn't that much pet and wildlife information you can fit on packet of bangers (especially after you've added the elf 'n safety information for half-wits, like: "This product may go bang"). So perhaps the amount of pet and wildlife safety information that could be included on a firework would be limited to something like: 'Remember to check there aren't any pets about before using this firework'. But that's something most concerned pet owners do anyway, and adding the instruction to the side of a firework surely isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Nevertheless, Sarah Endersby at Ceva Animal Health UK, said: "This will be the second year running we have called upon the fireworks industry to recognise its responsibilities when it comes to protecting pets and wildlife during what is the most stressful season for them. For example, many dogs find fireworks distressing and may go on to develop noise phobia.

"Many owners will seek advice from pet specialists such as vets, vet nurses, pharmacists and pet shop staff. However, by producing warnings on the packaging, fireworks manufacturers can also help advise and guide pet owners to minimise the stress caused to pets."

Ceva has also produced a range of materials for fireworks to help educate owners on firework fear and how to calm and soothe their pets. There's a marketing pack which can be placed in veterinary practices which includes leaflets, a leaflet dispenser, stickers, bunting and notice-board materials.

To request a pack, please email retailuk@ceva.com or call Ceva on 01494 781 510

You'd better hope though that Ceva isn't too successful with its campaign to highlight the stress caused to pets by fireworks. If people really do become more careful about how they use fireworks, nobody will need to buy Adaptil or Feliway!

Virbac Animal Health has launched a twitter-based early warning system to alert vets and dog owners of cases of canine parvovirus (CPV) in their area. It is to go live on 1 November 2012.

@parvoalert is a twitter feed that updates followers on the geographic location of cases of the disease using the first half of the relevant postcode. The company is asking vets and owners learning of a case to tweet the first half of the postcode where it occurs to @parvoalert. Virbac will then retweet it to everyone else following @parvoalert. The company is also advising vets and owners to check the feed regularly for news of cases. The service is free.

Virbac says that when it hears of a case, it will also provide practices in 'at-risk' areas with a 'Parvo-alert' Pack, containing a range of tools and support materials to help them alert dog owners. These include waiting room posters, leaflets, stickers and template text for newsletters.

The Veterinary Director of Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Shaun Opperman, said: "As recent viewers of ITV1's 'Paul O Grady: For the Love of Dogs' may have seen, parvovirus causes dreadful suffering to dogs. Unfortunately many people still aren't vaccinating their dogs, so we see cases on a regular basis and it's vital that owners vaccinate their dogs, are aware of the disease and remain vigilant for the early signs."

Simon Boulton MRCVS, Product Manager at Virbac, said: "One of the problems in tackling canine parvovirus is that little information is shared on the frequency and location of cases so, in some ways, it's a hidden problem. While it's not as common as some other infectious diseases, when outbreaks occur, as they did earlier this year in South Wales and Oxford, the disease proves fatal in around half of diagnosed dogs."  

Once @parvoalert is established, Virbac says it aims to build it into a comprehensive web-based CPV resource, featuring background on the prevention and treatment of the disease; comment from veterinary experts and downloadable practice support materials.

Simon continued: "It's heart-breaking for owners to lose their pets in this way and to see them suffer from a disease that could easily have been prevented. We hope @parvoalert will help to raise awareness of the fact that CPV continues to represent a significant threat to unvaccinated dogs. It will benefit all practices in areas affected as they will receive a Parvo-alert Pack, which they can use to encourage their clients to get their dogs vaccinated and look out for signs of the disease."

The BVA, the Mayhew Animal Hospital, Dogs Today magazine and the Kennel Club are amongst various organisations that have criticised Morrisons for its Christmas advert - which can be seen here - in which a child is seen passing a slice of Christmas pudding to the family dog.

BVA President Peter Jones said: "It is vital that advertisers use animals responsibly and we are disappointed to see the Morrisons Christmas desserts TV commercial depicting a small boy feeding Christmas pudding to his dog. Christmas pudding, Christmas cake and mince pies - because they contain raisins or sultanas - are potentially harmful to pets and in some cases can lead to kidney failure.

"While we accept that many pet owners understand what is and what is not appropriate to feed their pets, children watch adverts and can be easily influenced by what they see. Veterinary organisations and animal welfare charities work really hard to promote messages about responsible pet ownership and TV adverts such as this one, with huge audiences, can undermine this work."

But hang on a second. Watching the advert, the child isn't actually feeding the dog anything. Rather, the dog is passed a bit of pudding which it then goes and places in a flowerpot, causing the plant to wilt. The dog isn't being fed the stuff, it's being asked to get rid of it.

Surely what this advert is really saying is: nobody likes Christmas pudding, least of all children and dogs.

Mind you, it does look like all this fuss is proving a very effective public awareness campaign about the danger of feeding a dog raisins or sultanas.

Six mixed-practice veterinary surgeons with over 200 combined years of experience have published a book of veterinary tips which they have collected from practising vets all over the UK in order to raise funds for VBF - the charity that supports veterinary professionals.

Alan Jeans, one of the authors, said: "The tips are ideas and techniques that we all use every day in practice but are the kind of thing that you only learn on the job. A range of vets from recent graduates through to veterinary teaching staff have checked the tips for suitability and, although many of the tips are aimed at new or recent graduates, vets of all ages and levels of experience will find plenty of very useful advice.

"The collection started as a 10-tip presentation on an annual CPD sailing trip in Turkey (pictured right) and grew from there. Throughout our careers we have all been impressed by the way that VBF has stepped in to help some of our colleagues in the profession through personal difficulties so we are delighted that we have found a way to fundraise for them."

Nick Short, VBF Director, said: "We are so grateful to all the authors listed in the book for their efforts on VBF's behalf. The tips can either be purchased as a complete collection in paperback by sending a suggested donation of £10 to VBF, 7 Mansfield Street, London W1G 9NQ or you can subscribe to receive regular e-tips on the Vetlife website at www.vetlife.org.uk.

We will also be taking pre-orders at BCVA Congress where VBF is going to be on the BCVA stand this year together with some of the veterinary surgeons who collected the tips.

Bradley Viner reviewed the book. He said: "I defy anyone, however long qualified, to honestly say that they did not learn something worthwhile from this little treasure of a book. And the cartoons are a great giggle as well!"

The book also received good reviews from two BVA Past Presidents. Peter Jinman said: "This little gem of a book is a distillate of the 'art' of veterinary medicine written by those who daily use the science for the benefit of animals under their care." Carl Padgett said: "A great little book. Easy to read and full of those tips that rarely make the covers of academic texts. Tricks old and new that help get the job done written by those that are doing the job."