During the four-day hearing, the Committee heard evidence in respect of three separate heads of charge brought against Mr Shah following a castration operation conducted on Shadow, a six-year old Newfoundland dog, which took place on 20 June 2014.
The three charges were as follows:
There was no complaint made as to the undertaking of the operation itself, and the Committee followed the advice from the Legal Assessor that each charge should be considered separately. When making its decision, the Committee did not take into account the fact that Shadow had died as it is impossible to say whether he would have survived had Mr Shah acted differently.
The Committee found each of the allegations against Mr Shah proved. In respect of the first charge the Committee heard from two expert witnesses, Professor Williams and Mr Plumley, who agreed that the decision to discharge Shadow at about 6pm on 20 June 2014, given his condition, was inappropriate.
The Committee considers that discharging Shadow at that time into the care of the owner given his state on discharge, was grossly negligent and a serious error of judgement. It therefore found Mr Shah to be guilty of the first charge.
The Committee then considered that, after being alerted to Shadow’s continued lack of progress by the telephone call from Gemma Ballantyne between 30 and 45 minutes after discharge, Mr Shah exacerbated the situation by the inadequacy of his response in dealing with the concerns raised which, in the Committee’s view, represented a continuation of his previous poor judgement.
The Committee considered that Mr Shah was under a duty of care to advise Gemma Ballantyne to seek urgent veterinary attention for Shadow and by his own admission he failed to do so, and he was therefore found guilty of the second charge.
During that telephone call Mr Shah also gave no further details about the out-of-hours care available to Gemma Ballantyne other than to inform her that there would be an additional cost.
He did not seek confirmation that any such information been supplied by his colleague, Emma Martin (who at the relevant time was a student nurse), however, and at no time did he see Gemma Ballantyne in possession of the discharge sheet. The Committee therefore found Mr Shah guilty of this final head of charge.
The Committee did accept that there was no element of dishonesty, nor was there an aim of financial gain in the case. The Committee also considered that Mr Shah was acting in good faith at all times. It also accepted that Mr Shah was entitled to assume that normal practice had been followed and that a previously compiled discharge sheet, containing the number of the out-of-hours provider, had been supplied to Miss Ballantyne.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Balancing all of the factors as the Committee must, it is clear that on this occasion Mr Shah’s conduct fell far short of that which is expected and it therefore finds he conducted himself disgracefully in a professional respect."
Mr Green added: "In imposing the sanction of a reprimand, the Committee urges Mr Shah in the strongest possible terms to ensure that his future conduct by way of training and support systems within his practice are such as to avoid any possibility of a future incident such as this occurring in order to ensure animal welfare and public confidence in the veterinary profession. The Committee notes that in her evidence, Emma Martin said that the working practices at the surgery have been changed and the Committee expects that all animals kept in the care of Mr Shah are fully monitored, examined and assessed in relation to their condition before being discharged."
The Legislative Reform Consultation took place between November 2020 and April 2021 and asked members of the veterinary profession and the public to give their responses to a package of proposals for future veterinary legislation designed to enhance the role of veterinary nurses, modernise RCVS registration, lead to a modern fitness to practise regime, and ensure the regulation of veterinary practices.
The proposals represent the biggest legislative reform since the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act.
In total the consultation received 1,330 responses, of which 714 (54%) were from veterinary surgeons, 335 (25%) from veterinary nurses, 93 (7%) from veterinary paraprofessionals, 73 (5%) from student veterinary nurses, 58 (4%) from members of the public, 40 (3%) from veterinary and industry organisations, including representative bodies, and the remainder from veterinary students and veterinary practice managers.
An analysis of the consultation responses covering each of the five core areas and their individual recommendations can be found in the final report, which is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/legislativereform.
After considering this report, Council voted by a majority to accept the recommendations, meaning that they are now formally adopted as RCVS policy and will form the basis for discussions on the need for new legislation with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).
Professor Stephen May has chaired the Legislation Working Party that developed the proposal since its inception in 2017 when he was RCVS President. He said: “We are very grateful to those individuals and organisations who took the time to complete this very important consultation on recommendations for the future legislative framework for the professions. We also appreciate the candour of those who were unsure about or opposed to the recommendations.
“When the Legislation Working Party met to consider the responses and the report, it decided that, while no substantive changes needed to be made to the principle-based recommendations, the points raised both against and in favour of individual recommendations gave us important material for additional consideration, and food for thought as to how any detailed proposals would be implemented once enabling legislation is in place.
“We look forward to submitting these recommendations to Defra formally, with a view to them becoming, in time, a bill put before Parliament to replace the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. In so doing, this would establish a modern, flexible and comprehensive piece of legislation that would make sure the regulatory structure for the veterinary professions is fit for purpose for decades to come.”
As well as the main report of the Legislative Reform Consultation, RCVS Council also considered a series of interim measures that would be in line with the overall aims of future legislative changes, but which could be implemented without primary legislation.
The proposed interim measures included:
Council members voted on each of these interim measures on an individual basis – with the mini-PICs and the Charter Case Protocol being accepted by majority vote.
However, Council members voted against implementing the change to the standard of proof at this time, citing a number of concerns about the potential impact of it being implemented under the current concerns investigation and disciplinary procedures. Similar concerns had been put forward by many of those who responded to the consultation itself.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: “The approved procedural changes will, I believe, lead to a significant improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of our disciplinary processes. The Charter Case Protocol will mean that, in suitable cases where a finding of serious professional misconduct at a full disciplinary hearing would likely only lead to a reprimand or to no further action being taken, a more proportionate and less time-consuming and expensive means of resolving cases will be available. However, it will still reflect the seriousness of the matters and continue to protect the public interest, welfare and the reputation of the profession.
“Furthermore, by phasing out the Case Examiner Group stage and instead referring concerns to ‘mini’ PICs, which will decide if the threshold of serious professional misconduct has been met, it will make our concerns investigation processes clearer and more streamlined and therefore more efficient. We look forward to publishing further details on both of these changes in due course.
“Although Council members accepted that a change of the standard of proof would be an integral part of introducing a modern fitness to practise (FTP) regime as part of any future legislation, they had significant concerns about the ‘interim’ recommendation to introduce it under the current arrangements, in advance of implementing a full FTP model, and so a majority felt that they could not vote for it.”
To read the full report of the Legislative Reform Consultation, including analysis of the responses, please visit www.rcvs.org.uk/legislativereform.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has refused an application for restoration to the RCVS Register from a Kent-based former veterinary surgeon struck off in 1994 for disregarding basic hygiene at his professional premises and failing to properly maintain a Controlled Drugs Register or patient records.
In June 1994, the Committee found that Mr Warwick John Seymour-Hamilton, at that time the only veterinary surgeon practising at premises at 9 Orchard Grove, Orpington, Kent, was guilty of disgraceful professional conduct and should have his name removed from the Register. The state and condition of the premises were found to be such as to risk the health and welfare of animals taken to the premises, and bring the profession into disrepute. An application made by Mr Seymour-Hamilton for restoration made in 1995 was refused.
At a restoration hearing on 18 June 2010, Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the Committee that he sought restoration to the Register because he wished to further his research work into plants with potential medicinal properties. Restoration, he said, would improve his professional status by giving him more credibility, particularly in terms of recognition by the medical and veterinary professions.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he had no intention of returning to clinical practice immediately, and neither the Committee nor the College had heard of any adverse conduct by the applicant since his removal.
However, Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, noted that if Mr Seymour-Hamilton were to be restored, the Committee would have no power to prevent him from returning to general practice.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's response to questioning by the Committee raised a number of concerns with respect to the future welfare of animals should restoration be granted. He told the Committee that he had not undertaken any relevant Continuing Professional Development in the past 15 years, and said he lacked knowledge of current relevant legislation, for example, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and basic 'Cascade' prescribing requirements. He also said that he had not read the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct in the past 15 years and that it would not be satisfactory for him immediately to return to general practice.
Ms Freedman said: "If the Committee were to reinstate the Applicant to the Register, it would have to be satisfied that he is competent and safe to practise immediately. The Committee has an obligation to protect the public and animal welfare and cannot simply accept his assurances that he would take steps to rectify his self-confessed shortcomings at some point in the future."
Having taken all the evidence presented into account, the Committee was not satisfied that Mr Seymour-Hamilton was fit to be restored to the Register and dismissed his application.
The Standards Framework for Veterinary Nurse Education and Training sets out the professional values, skills and behaviours required of approved educational institutions (AEIs), delivery sites and the training practices (TPs) responsible for providing the training and support for student veterinary nurses.
The College reviews the standards framework every five years to ensure that AEIs, delivery sites and TPs have the structures to best provide contemporary and innovative approaches to education for student veterinary nurses, while being accountable for the local delivery and management of accredited programmes.
The new draft framework includes updates relating to sustainability and academic integrity.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “We are looking for veterinary nurses in all walks of life – as well as student nurses and veterinary surgeons – to provide constructive and specific feedback on our proposals.
“Your insights will help us ensure that the standards continue to enable veterinary nurse educators to deliver the best training and support possible for our students, prepare them for life in clinical practice, and ensure that animal health and welfare is a foremost consideration.
“In fact, animal health and welfare and public safety is central to our standards.
Students will be in contact with patients and their owners throughout their education and it is important that they learn in a safe and effective way.”
The consultation runs until 5pm on Wednesday 3 April 2024 and all members of the veterinary team – including RVNs, student veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons – can take part in order to provide detailed feedback on each of the six core standards and each of individual requirements within these standards.
A PDF version of the new draft Standards Framework is available to download from https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations.
If you have any questions about the document or how to respond to the survey, contact the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Team on vetnursing@rcvs.org.uk
Kit, who has served on Council as an elected member since 2013, is currently the Chair of the RCVS Finances & Resources Committee and has been RCVS Treasurer for the past three years.
He is also a member of a range of committees and project groups across the RCVS including: the Audit and Risk Committee; the PIC/ DC Liaison Committee; the Certification Subcommittee; the Estate Strategy Project Board; the RCVS Knowledge Board of Trustees; and the Advanced Practitioners Panel.
Since 2003 Kit has been working as an internist (he is an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Small Animal Medicine) in private referral practice. In 2006 he became a founding partner in a multidisciplinary referral centre that he saw grow from five to 65 members of staff within five years.
His interests include workforce issues, communicating the diverse clinical and non-clinical skills of veterinary surgeons to the general public and government, and facilitating life-long learning through achievable further professional qualifications and effective CPD.
Kit said: "It was a great honour to be elected as the next Junior Vice President by my fellow council members. I feel that I can make a positive contribution to the work that the RCVS is already undertaking in ensuring the veterinary team remains healthy and respected. In particular I am keen to look at how the RCVS can help find solutions to our workforce issues - improving retention as well as encouraging and facilitating vets and nurses back into the profession."
In addition to Kit being elected as JVP, the current holder of that office, Dr Mandisa Greene, was confirmed as President for 2020-21 and current President, Dr Niall Connell, was confirmed as Senior Vice-President for this period.
Professor Susan Dawson was voted in as RCVS Treasurer, and she will be formally invested in this role at Royal College Day on Friday, 10 July.
Professor David Argyle has been elected as Chair of Advancement of the Professions Committee for a second year, Dr Susan Paterson has been elected as Chair of Education Committee for her second year, and Dr Melissa Donald has been elected Chair of Standards Committee for her second year.
Kit and Melissa's positions are subject to their successful re-election in the 2020 RCVS Council Elections
More information on the RCVS Council and its members can be found on the RCVS website: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council.
Niall, who stepped up from Vice Chair to acting interim Chair of the Fellowship Board after the resignation of the previous Chair, has been formally elected as Chair of the Board.
In his role as Chair, Niall will continue to lead the Board, which is responsible for setting the criteria for joining the Fellowship across all three of its routes to entry, as well as the process by which applications are assessed.
An election for the position of Vice Chair of the Fellowship Board will take place in the autumn.
Niall said: “I am honoured beyond words to be elected Chair of the RCVS Fellowship and I'm very grateful for the support received to achieve this.
“I know I have very big shoes to fill, thanks to the great efforts that have gone on before and I will put all my available energy into continuing to work with our Fellows and the College to progress the goals of RCVS Fellowship as a resource of independent knowledge for our professions, to upskill and always innovate, while looking to enrich public awareness and discussion.”
Nicky Paull MRCVS, who has held the position of Chair of the Credentials Panel for the Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice pathway for the past three years, was successfully re-elected.
Nicky will continue to be responsible for making assessments of applicants aiming to gain Fellowship through the Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice pathway.
She will co-ordinate and oversee a review of the applications by her fellow panel members, as well as chairing any required appropriate panel meetings.
On her appointment, Nicky said: “I look forward to the challenge of continuing to grow the diversity of the Fellowship and celebrate those who, by their contribution to the advancement of the profession by clinical or educational scholarship and leadership, have had a significant impact on clinical practice within the veterinary profession.”
Niall and Nicky will be formally instated into their roles at Fellowship Day, which is due to take place on Thursday 28 November at One Great George Street, London.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/fellowship/
There are eight veterinary surgeons standing in this year’s RCVS Council election, including three existing Council members eligible for re-election and five candidates not currently on Council. They are:
John DaviesDr Melissa DonaldDr Tom LonsdaleProfessor Stephen MayDr Kate RichardsPeter RobinsonDr Richard StephensonDr Kit Sturgess
Ballot papers and candidates’ details for both elections have been posted to all veterinary surgeons who are eligible to vote. Voters have also been emailed unique links the secure voting websites.
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 24 April 2020.
All candidates were invited to produce a video in which they answered up to two questions submitted to the RCVS by members of the electorate. The videos received so far have been published on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote20 and on the College's YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/rcvsvideos). The candidate statements and biogs, and the questions submitted by members of the profession have also been published on the vetvote20 page.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer, said: “With all that is happening currently, we are glad to say that we have been able to continue with business as usual as far as the RCVS and VN Councils elections are concerned, albeit with some minor delays on publishing the candidate videos.
Those who are eligible to vote in the RCVS Council election but have not received either an email or ballot paper should contact Luke Bishop, RCVS Media Manager, on l.bishop@rcvs.org.uk
The redesign includes an overhaul of the layout, structure and navigation of all the College’s websites: Professionals, Animal Owners, Find a Vet and RCVS Knowledge.
Some of the main changes are:
Ian Holloway, Head of Communications, said: "We’re delighted to be launching our new-look site today and hope all the improvements we’ve incorporated will make using the site a much better experience for veterinary professionals and animal owners alike.
"Working closely with our website provider, NetXtra, over the past nine months, we’ve been able to develop a new-look site with vastly improved design, structure and navigation, whilst avoiding the major expense of building a completely new website from scratch.
"We’re very grateful to them, and to all those vets, vet nurses and members of the public who have helped us with user-testing and content mapping to improve the site as much as possible for everyone who uses it."
Anyone with any comments or feedback about the new-look site is invited to send it to communications@rcvs.org.uk.
The six-floor building, which the College bought for £22.3m in 2022, was originally a warehouse.
Over the years it has been home to a range of businesses from leather manufacturers and papers makers to lithographic plate makers and shoe upping manufacturers, before becoming an office space.
The building remained tenanted until 2024, when £5.8m worth of renovation work to convert the building into a space suitable for a royal college began.
In addition to the working areas for RCVS and RCVS Knowledge staff, the building also has:
RCVS CEO, Lizzie Lockett, said: “After a few years in a rented co-working office space, we’re delighted to have moved into our new home, designed not only to meet the needs of College staff, but to support the broader ambitions of the RCVS as a whole.
“Our new strategic plan has collaboration at its heart – the idea of being stronger through working together – and our new building will help us to achieve that.
“Whether attending events, exploring RCVS Knowledge’s archives, using the members' area and meeting rooms, or benefitting from the outputs that the new space enables, the building has been developed with members and associates as a central focus.”
RCVS President, Linda Belton, added: "It’s great to see what’s been achieved through this project and my thanks go to the team who have managed the refurbishment and move.
“The new premises are equipped to ensure that the voice of the veterinary professions remains integral in assuring animal health, welfare, and public health in the UK, allowing for those all-important stakeholder conversations essential to setting, upholding and advancing veterinary standards.
“We look forward to welcoming members, associates, students and stakeholders alike in the coming months and years.”
The RCVS has been out promoting the profession, the Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) and its new 'Find a Vet' search tool to animal owners at BBC Countryfile at Blenheim Palace last week.
The RCVS stand was designed to look like a veterinary practice, complete with waiting room, consulting room, prep room, operating theatre and RCVS Accredited Practice logos.
The team from the College handed out around 1,500 ‘Find a Vet’ canvas bags containing 'Find a Vet' and Practice Standards Scheme leaflets and merchandise, and persuaded over 200 people to take part in special ‘Find a Vet’ and PSS-themed games and competitions.
These included having to find a veterinary surgeon or nurse around the showground (volunteers from RCVS Council and VN Council, including RCVS President Chris Tufnell and VN Council Chair Liz Cox, along with David Catlow, Neil Smith, his dog, Fire, Lucy Bellwood and Amber Richards).
The College reports that there was also a continual stream of children eager to pretend to be veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for the day and have a go at the on-stand ‘animal examination’ and ‘animal surgery’ activities. All this gave rise to plenty of photo opportunities, which parents and competition entrants were encouraged to share on social media, to help spread the word about the College’s activities.
Ian Holloway, RCVS Head of Communications said: "This was the first time the RCVS had been to such a large-scale and high-profile public event, and it provided a superb opportunity to explain to animal owners who we are and how we can help them.
"We had a great deal of interest in our new Find a Vet service, and people also seemed reassured that there was a scheme in place to accredit veterinary practices around the country. Having attended both the London Pet Show and BBC Countryfile Live this year, we now plan to increase the number of animal owner events we attend next year, to further raise public awareness of the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme and our Find a Vet service."
For more pictures of the event, see: https://flic.kr/s/aHskEQkDPc
The plenary speaker was Professor Rory O’Connor, Chair of Health Psychology at the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Health & Wellbeing whose talk: "When it is darkest: understanding suicide risk" opened the day with an outline of his 25 years of work looking into suicide prevention.
Rory discussed his recent investigation into the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on people’s mental health and wellbeing, and how to reduce the risk of suicidal ideation turning into suicidal action.
He said: “In the last 10 to 15 years there has been an increased focus in particular on psychological and psycho-social interventions for helping people who are suicidal.
"Although suicide is complex, interventions, even brief interventions, can be effective.”
Rory was followed by presentations from a number of teams, including those who'd been awarded the MMI’s Sarah Brown Mental Health Research Grant in 2019 and 2020:
The full report of the day’s talks can be found here https://www.vetmindmatters.org/resources/report-mind-matters-initiative-research-symposium-2021
In total Mr Hendrie Smith had faced eight charges against him, all of which related to him undertaking the euthanasia of a German Shepherd named Bouncer during a home visit in January 2017.
The charges alleged that when John Hendrie Smith undertook the euthanasia of Bouncer he had:
1. failed to ensure he was sufficiently prepared for the euthanasia in that he failed to attend the visit with a muzzle and failed to attend with any sedative and the means of administering sedative;
2. failed to delay the euthanasia until he was in possession of the above items;
3. undertook the euthanasia by means of an injection without first sedating Bouncer;
4. failed to provide Bouncer’s owner with an adequate explanation of the procedure. Including:
a. failing to explain that the procedure involved an attempt at injection directly into the heart;
b. failing to explain that an injection into the heart without sedation is (except in extreme circumstances) not an accepted means of euthanasia;
c. wrongly stated that Bouncer would not feel the injection;
d. failed to provide an explanation of the risks;
e. failed to explain the risks and signs of narcotic excitement;
f. failed to explain the risks of injection into the heart without sedation;
5. failed to obtain Bouncer’s owner’s informed consent for the procedure;
6. failed to make any clinical records in respect of the procedure;
7. provided inadequate veterinary care to Bouncer and caused him unnecessary suffering; and
8. failed to communicate with Bouncer’s owner.
Having considered evidence about the case from Bouncer’s owner, his owner’s former partner, two expert witnesses and Mr Hendrie Smith, the Committee found all of the charges against Mr Hendrie Smith proven, with the exception of charge 4(e) on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence against him on this particular charge.
In considering whether the charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee heard further evidence from the College’s two expert witnesses, and submissions from both the College and Mr Hendrie Smith. Having considered the evidence and submissions, the Committee concluded that in relation to each of the charges found proven, Mr Hendrie Smith’s conduct had fallen far below that which was to be expected from a veterinary surgeon and was therefore serious professional misconduct.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate following its earlier findings against Mr Hendrie Smith. The Committee took into account a number of mitigating and aggravating factors. In mitigation the Committee considered that this was a single, isolated incident and that Mr Hendrie Smith had been a practising veterinary surgeon for 65 years and had an otherwise unblemished career with no adverse professional findings against him. It also took into account testimonials from professional colleagues, clients and his local community.
However, the Committee also considered the aggravating factors which included actual injury and unnecessary suffering to an animal, a blatant disregard of the systems that regulate the veterinary profession including the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance relating to euthanasia, informed consent, preventing unnecessary suffering and working within one’s area of competence.
In explaining its decision to direct his removal from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, the Committee noted Mr Hendrie Smith’s lack of insight into his behaviour, which included denying that he was at fault, challenging several of the Committee’s findings and disputing that an intracardiac injection into the heart of a dog without administering sedation or anaesthesia was wholly unacceptable, despite expert opinion to the contrary.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent, in his oral evidence, admitted that he was not really a small animal vet, and had not been dealing regularly with small animals for a significant period of time. His specialisation in recent years was with large farm animals. The Committee considered that the respondent had, and still has, no concept of the difficulties now recognised as inherent in the procedure he performed, or the risks of pain and suffering it posed to the animal."
She added: "The Committee has found that the respondent’s conduct in attempting an intracardiac injection without prior sedation or anaesthesia caused appalling pain and suffering to Bouncer, as evidenced by his screaming, and was wholly unnecessary. The respondent accepted that he had a sedative in his car, but chose not to postpone attempted euthanasia so that he could sedate his patient first.
"The respondent explained in his oral evidence that he had, in the past, euthanased over 200 dogs by intracardiac injection without sedation or anaesthesia. The Committee concludes that this was the respondent’s customary method of euthanasia, and he did not understand why it was wholly unacceptable for a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon to carry out euthanasia in this way. Given his lack of insight, the Committee considers that there is a risk that, if the respondent were to be asked to euthanase a dog in the future, he would be likely to use his customary method, and thereby cause injury and suffering to another animal."
In determining the sanction the Committee decided that, because there had been a serious departure from the professional standards set out in the Code, serious harm was caused and there was a serious risk of harm to animals in the future, that removing Mr Hendrie Smith from the Register was the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest.
Mr Hendrie Smith has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Jones.
The first and second charges were that, in March 2018, Dr Jones made signed entries in the passports and made corresponding entries in clinical records of four horses indicating that he had administered an influenza vaccination booster to each horse on 15 March 2018 and in relation to another horse a tetanus booster, when in fact he had administered the vaccination boosters on 21 March 2018, and that his conduct was misleading, dishonest and undermined the integrity of a vaccination process designed to promote animal welfare.
The third charge was that, on or around 21 March 2018, Dr Jones failed to make any entries in the clinical records for a horse in relation to an examination on 21 March 2018.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Jones admitted the facts in the first and second charges, and accepted that his actions were misleading, dishonest and that they undermined the integrity of a vaccination process. However, he disputed certain aspects of the written statements of the College’s witnesses. In particular he wanted his conduct to be taken in the context of the pressures that he was working under on that day, primarily that he was in a stressed state having had to euthanase a valuable stallion at the conclusion of his previous client appointment.
Dr Jones did not admit the third charge, explaining that he did not remember examining the horse on 21 March 2018 as alleged.
Based on Dr Jones' own admissions, the Committee found the first and second charges proven.
Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard evidence from the horse’s owner who said they were present during the examination taking place and the Committee was satisfied that the respondent did examine the horse on 21 March 2018 and that he had a duty to make a brief clinical note on the examination. As Dr Jones admitted that he made no such note, the Committee found the charge to have been proven to the requisite standard.
Having found the charges proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Jones’ proven conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee, having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, found that Dr Jones’ conduct as found proved in relation to both charges one and two, did constitute serious professional misconduct.
However, with regards to charge three, the Committee accepted that the respondent simply forgot that he had examined the horse and, therefore, the Committee was not satisfied that the failure to compile a record entry covering the horse’s examination constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Jones in relation to the facts found proven in charges one and two. In doing so it took into account the 78 written testimonials and 4 character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Jones.
Ian Green, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee’s decision on sanction has been based on an acceptance that the respondent’s conduct on this occasion was out-of-character, as the evidence of his character witnesses and the contents of the letters submitted in his support by his clients and other veterinary colleagues assert. The Committee also accepts that the respondent self-reported himself to his employer and to the College and has made a full and frank admission of his wrongdoing.
"Consideration was given to whether the sanction of a reprimand and/or warning as to future conduct would adequately reflect the gravity of the misconduct, however, after careful reflection it was concluded that such a sanction could not be justified. The reason is that acts of falsification involve acts of dishonesty by a professional person acting in a professional capacity, and the gravity of the matter arises not simply from the dishonesty but also from the possible consequences of the false certification. It should be clearly understood by members of the veterinary profession that, in appropriate false certification cases, the sanction of removal from the Register is one which may well be imposed."
The Committee therefore decided that suspending Dr Jones from the Register for two months would be the most appropriate sanction.
Voting in this year's RCVS and VN Councils elections has now opened, with veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses able to cast their votes online, by post or by text message.
All candidate details and ballot papers have been posted earlier this week so should be landing on doormats imminently.
As in previous years, there is an opportunity for voters to quiz the candidates on VetSurgeon.org and VetNurse.co.uk. Questions submitted before 24th March will be entered into a draw to win one of three 6-bottle mixed cases of wine. Thereafter, there will be an open forum on both sites.
As in previous years, the College will make an optional 20p charitable donation to the Veterinary Benevolent Fund on behalf of each person who votes.
Lydia Brown, President of the VBF, said: "The Veterinary Benevolent Fund is very grateful for funds raised through the elections. We appreciate that life in practice can be stressful, and offer support in a variety of ways to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses."
RCVS Council comprises 40 members: four are appointed by the Privy Council, 12 by the veterinary schools and 24 by direct election.
Each member is appointed for a four-year term of office. Every year, six members of Council retire at the Annual General Meeting, though may seek re-election.
In 2011, ten candidates are standing for the six seats available, including six incumbent Council members. The candidates are:
RCVS VN Council comprises 17 members: eight elected veterinary nurses, six veterinary surgeon members (including three from RCVS Council), one Lantra representative and two lay members.
Two seats are usually available each year, with each member serving a four-year term.
This year an extra seat for a one-year term is available, due to a member retiring mid-term; this will be filled by the third-placed candidate.
There are four candidates for the three seats:
All votes must be received before 5pm on 27 April 2011 - a slightly earlier deadline than usual, which takes account of the extra public holiday for the Royal Wedding.
Any veterinary surgeon who has not received their ballot paper should contact Ian Holloway (020 7202 0727 i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk) for an official duplicate; veterinary nurses missing their ballot papers should contact Annette Amato (020 7202 0713 a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).
The updated guidance follows a public campaign known as ‘Tuk’s Law’, which was started after a healthy dog by that name was euthanased despite its microchip being dually registered with a rehoming centre as a 'rescue backup'.
In response, the RCVS and the BVA agreed that more should be done to prevent occasions where a dog might be needlessly put to sleep, but voiced concerns that a legislative approach could undermine a vet’s clinical judgement, unfairly involve veterinary surgeons in ownership disputes or potential criminality, and leave vets unfairly exposed to financial sanctions.
In consultation with Defra, the RCVS and BVA therefore jointly agreed to strengthen the Code of Professional Conduct as follows:
Chapter 8 (para 8.9)
There may be circumstances where a request is made by a client for the destruction of a dog, where in the clinical/professional judgement of the veterinary surgeon destruction of the dog is not necessary, for instance where there are no health or welfare reasons for the dog to be euthanised.
In these circumstances, before carrying out the request for euthanasia the veterinary surgeon should scan the dog for a microchip and check the relevant database if a microchip is found.
Chapter (paras 29.25 -29.27)
Clients may have a contract with the shelter from which they acquired the dog such that it can be returned to that shelter, and that it may be appropriate to discuss this with them prior to euthanasia. Alternatively, there may be another individual willing to take responsibility for the dog (who may be named on the microchip database), and this may also be discussed with the client.
The updated guidance supports existing best practice in terms of discussing alternatives to euthanasia with clients, and give vets flexibility where, in their professional judgment, scanning is not appropriate; this might be if scanning would itself cause a welfare problem, or where a vulnerable client might be involved.
The RCVS Standards Committee says it recognised the difficulties experienced by veterinary surgeons in dealing with the current microchip database system, but felt that introducing these provisions into the guidance was a more proportionate response than the alternative of legislation with substantial fines.
BVA Senior Vice President Dr Daniella Dos Santos MRCVS said: “One of the most important jobs as a vet is having those difficult conversations with clients about euthanasia where we talk through all the options that are in the animal’s best interests. But where the vet doesn’t consider that euthanasia is necessary, the new guidance clearly sets out the steps we need to take. We support this constructive approach that addresses the campaigners’ concerns without undermining veterinary judgement.”
The RCVS is reminding veterinary surgeons that their renewal fees to remain on the Register for 2014/15 are now due.
Registration renewal forms have been sent to all vets reminding them that payment to remain on the Register is due by 31 March 2014. If the College does not receive payment before 1 April, £35 will be added to the renewal fee and any vets who have still not paid before 1 June will be removed from the Register.
This year the RCVS has updated its online 'My Account' area (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) to allow vets to manage their details and pay their renewal fees more quickly and easily. Login details have been sent to all vets and the system is now operational. The changes to the area are the first phase of a project to make it more accessible and user-friendly and to allow vets to better manage their details online.
As part of the renewal process, vets are asked to confirm that their details on the Register are correct, including membership category and correspondence details. Those who are in the 'UK Practising' or 'Practising outside the UK' membership categories should also confirm - via the registration renewal form or the online 'My Account' area - that they are compliant with the requirements for continuing professional development (CPD) of 105 hours over three years. Vets with any cautions, convictions or adverse findings against them dating from 1 January 2006 onwards, should also declare them. For further details on these declarations vets should visit www.rcvs.org.uk/convictions.
Fees can be paid by credit card through the 'My Account' area or by cheque, bank draft or credit card via the registration renewal form sent in the post. Details of how to pay by bank transfer are also on the form.
Vets who have any concerns or questions about renewing their registration, logging in to 'My Account' or who need to request a registration renewal form, can contact the Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or email membership@rcvs.org.uk.
The College says that 1CPD has been designed to facilitate the new outcomes-focused CPD model which was introduced in 2020 and becomes mandatory from 2022.
An important part of this new model is reflection, so 1CPD encourages vets to reflect on the quality, relevance and impact of their CPD activities.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education said: "Although the outcomes-focused element of these changes won’t become mandatory until January 2022, we recommend that you incorporate reflection in your cycle of planning, doing and recording CPD as soon as possible, and our new 1CPD app makes this much easier to do than before.
"Research has found that reflection enhances the quality, impact and relevance of CPD as professionals consider what they have learned, how they will apply their learning and how it will improve their practice. To support this CPD model, which research has shown has a positive impact on both professionalism and patient outcomes, the 1CPD platform facilitates reflection by allowing you to record your reflective notes on your recorded CPD activities, through a variety of means including text, audio or uploading a document."
The old PDR was taken offline last Friday and all of the data saved in the PDR has been transferred to 1CPD.
The 1CPD app is now available for both Apple and Android devices, available on and off line, and through a new dedicated website, all of which is now accessible using the same credentials used to access My Account.
Richard Burley, RCVS Chief Technology Officer, said: "1CPD provides a range of enhancements to RCVS’ previous offerings in this space and represents an important step forward in the College’s digital approach. Built on the latest best-practice technologies, it improves on every aspect of our previous approach to CPD support, delivering the first stage of a new, integrated, career-long CPD support capability for members.”
The launch of 1CPD also coincides with a change to the way that the College assesses CPD compliance, moving to an annual CPD requirement of 35 hours a year for veterinary surgeons and 15 hours a year for veterinary nurses.
More information on the CPD changes, along with accompanying resources, can be found on the RCVS website: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd2020.
So that practices can make sure everyone in their team is aware of the changes, the RCVS has also produced a poster which can be downloaded at: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/cpd-poster/.
For more information, contact the Education team on 0203 795 5595. For technical advice about 1CPD, email the RCVS at onecpd@rcvs.org.uk.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct a Hampshire veterinary surgeon found guilty of serious professional misconduct for cumulative failures to provide adequate professional care, and insufficient regard for animal welfare whilst treating a dog that had ingested broken glass.
The sanction was decided following a 12-month postponement of a decision ordered at a hearing on 19 November 2010.
At last week's hearing, the Committee was asked to decide what sanction would be appropriate in the case of Peter Ardle MacMahon for his treatment of a Cocker Spaniel called Wilfred, while working as a locum in Portsmouth. In 2010, the Committee found that Mr MacMahon had not removed the ingested glass from Wilfred's stomach or adequately checked that he had done so; had inadequately prevented abdominal contamination; and, had failed to communicate this contamination problem to Wilfred's usual veterinary surgeon. Considering these charges cumulatively, the Committee found that the treatment Mr MacMahon provided to Wilfred had fallen far short of the standard to be expected in the profession and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Shortly prior to treating Wilfred, Mr MacMahon had returned to practice after a ten-year absence and, at last year's hearing, agreed to comply with undertakings regarding his professional development. These included performing at least 70 hours of medical and surgical continuing professional development (CPD); providing the Disciplinary Committee Chairman with quarterly CPD reports and two employer reports regarding his competence; observing 24 days of current practice by shadowing another veterinary surgeon; and, providing reports from this veterinary surgeon as to his competence and a case diary.
The Committee considered the factual findings from the November 2010 hearing and the concerns then expressed about Mr MacMahon's conduct and capabilities as a veterinary surgeon, as well as his compliance with the agreed undertakings. As advised by the Legal Assessor, the Committee's considerations of sanction began at the lowest level that would ensure that the welfare of animals was properly protected; that proper standards would be maintained among practitioners in the profession; and, that would be in the interests of the public.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, Chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "The Committee is satisfied that the respondent had complied fully with the spirit of the requirements of the undertakings he had entered into on 18 November 2010. Indeed, the view is that the respondent has done well to achieve the level of compliance that he has, given that he had suffered a period of significant ill-health during the period since he entered into those undertakings.
"The ultimate decision is that the respondent's conduct [...] warrants the imposition of at least a reprimand," he continued. "However, it is also the Committee's firm view that the respondent must be warned about his future conduct so that he will know the Committee considers he needs to maintain the level of continuous professional development that he has achieved [over the last] 12 months, and to have constantly in mind the paramount obligation of all veterinary surgeons to ensure the welfare of animals under their care.
"Such a warning as to future conduct should, and the Committee believes that it will, serve as a constant reminder to the respondent that he must undertake only those procedures, and only proffer professional advice, in the areas where he has the requisite up-to-date skills, knowledge and experience."
The Committee reprimanded Mr MacMahon and warned him as to his future conduct.
The RCVS is now accepting applications from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who wish to serve as members of the RCVS Ethics Review Panel (ERP).
The ERP has been established by the RCVS in order to facilitate access to ethical review for those wishing to undertake practice-based research outside of a university or industry context. The ERP will begin considering research proposals from veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses from 1 August 2016 and the trial will run for a period of one year. The process will be limited to considering research projects involving cats and/or dogs during the trial period, with the possibility of expanding to other species if the trial is extended or made permanent.
The trial came about following a joint working party established by the RCVS and British Veterinary Association which reported on ethical review and found that an increasing amount of clinical research was being conducted by vets based in private practice. One of the key recommendations of the report was that the RCVS should consider establishing a committee for ethical review of practice-based research.
Ahead of the launch of the ERP, the RCVS is currently looking to recruit four veterinary surgeon members and a veterinary nurse member to the Panel to join a lay member and ethicist Chair.
More details about the roles, the function of the ERP and how to apply can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/workforus and www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics. Those who are interested in applying can also email ethics@rcvs.org.uk for an informal discussion. The closing date for applications is 15 April 2016.
Belfast-based Des Thompson MRCVS was presented with the first ever RCVS Queen's Medal by Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace this afternoon.
Des, pictured right showing off the new medal with his wife Rosalie, received two separate nominations for the medal, both citing his decades of active involvement in veterinary politics which includes being president of the RCVS, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS) and the Northern Ireland Veterinary Association, among other organisations.
Also cited was his willingness to help other members of the profession, particularly young vets at the beginning of their careers, through his involvement with organisations such as the Young Vet Network in Northern Ireland and the Veterinary Benevolent Fund.
The Queen's Medal was launched in 2013, with the approval of Her Majesty as Patron of the RCVS, and is now the highest award that can be bestowed upon a veterinary surgeon in recognition of a particularly outstanding contribution to the profession. In receiving the medal, Des was joined by Professor Stuart Reid, current RCVS President, Colonel Neil Smith, immediate past President, and Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar.
Des said: "It was a complete honour and a wonderful experience to be received by Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace today, and I'm thrilled to have been awarded the RCVS Queen's Medal. Her Majesty was interested to hear about Northern Ireland, and the fact that I've been practising there since I qualified."
The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Dr Martin Whiting, considered two charges against Mr Shah.
The first charge alleged that in June 2018 Mr Shah allowed a kitten to be anaesthetised for a castration without having first undertaken a clinical examination.
Then, having failed to locate a second testicle during the surgery, it was alleged that Mr Shah failed to contact the owner to inform her of this failure and to discuss the treatment options arising as a result, before ending his attempts at the castration.
The charge then alleged that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the owner was fully informed of the details of the surgery, and failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the kitten.
The second charge alleged that, in relation to the conduct in charge one, Mr Shah failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS about his conduct in relation to neutering surgery and related clinical note-keeping and communication with clients.
In particular, this related to a reprimand issued in September 2016 by the Disciplinary Committee following its finding of disgraceful conduct with regards to his discharge of a dog following castration in 2014, and advice issued to Mr Shah by letter of 21 March 2018 by the College’s Preliminary Investigation Committee with regards to circumstances surrounding canine spay surgery performed by him in 2016.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Shah denied all of the charges.
Nevertheless, the Committee found the following charge one sub-charges proved: that Mr Shah allowed the kitten to be anaesthetised without having first undertaken a clinical examination of the kitten and/or ensuring that they had undergone a clinical examination by another veterinary surgeon; that Mr Shah failed to devise an adequate plan for the completion of the castration, that he failed to take adequate steps to ensure that the owner was fully informed post-operatively of the details of the said surgery; and that he failed to make adequate clinical notes in relation to the findings of his examination under anaesthesia, his surgical approach, post-operative communication with the owners and his plan for completion of the castration.
The Committee also found all of charge two proved.
The Committee then went on to consider whether or not, in relation to the proved charges, Mr Shah’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account the risk of injury to an animal, the contravention of previous advice given by the College, lack of insight, and the previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee.
With regards to mitigating factors, the Committee accepted that the conduct was not premeditated, that there was no financial gain and that, notwithstanding the contents of charge two, the first charge was a single and isolated incident.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Shah’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and consequently that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Mr Shah. The Committee first considered lesser sanctions, including postponement with undertakings and a reprimand and warning. Neither would be sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest and uphold proper standards because Mr Shah had already been given a reprimand and warning in 2016, which appeared, to the Committee, to have had no effect.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Dr Whiting said: "It is clear to the Committee that in this case, the respondent has failed to demonstrate any insight into the seriousness of his misconduct.
"In this case, the Committee considers that there is evidence of a harmful deep-seated personal attitude problem so far as the respondent is concerned. His pervasive denial of wrongdoing and lack of insight, in spite of the findings of this Committee, is of grave concern.
"The respondent’s persistent abdication of personal responsibility and accountability for anything that went wrong, coupled with his sustained blaming of the nursing staff with whom he worked, displays an attitude which is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee cannot be confident that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour in the event that suspension was found to be the appropriate sanction and that the respondent is fit to practise after any period of suspension.
"This is particularly due to the fact that Mr Shah has failed to have adequate regard to previous advice and warnings from the RCVS, coupled with multiple previous adverse findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Preliminary Investigation Committee. The Committee has reached this conclusion having regard to the seriousness of its findings in this hearing, and the previous advice and warning given to the respondent, none of which appears to have been recognised or heeded."
The Committee therefore concluded that the only sanction which reflects the seriousness of this case, in the light of the previous findings and advice given to the Mr Shah by the College, is to remove him from the Register.
The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Charitable Trust has awarded five new bursaries in its latest grants round.
Two student bursaries were for UK veterinary undergraduates to attend the British Science Festival in Aberdeen from 4-9 September 2012. The bursary winners were Liv Nathan (pictured on right), a third-year veterinary student at the Royal Dick School of Veterinary Studies, and Alahel Mahdmina, a second-year veterinary student at the Royal Veterinary College.
Liv said: "I am very enthusiastic about providing real-life context to science and giving people a space to consider issues arising around science."
The students were required to use their observations and experiences to help the Trust develop future outreach activities to inform and inspire public audiences about veterinary clinical practice and research. Their bursary packages covered all their attendance expenses over the four-day event. One of their achievements was to film an interview with Dr Maggie Aderin-Pockock MBE, a space scientist (pictured on left). Both students will be reporting back in full to the RCVS Charitable Trust with their ideas at the end of October.
Two further bursaries were given to attend a joint symposium on antimicrobial resistance (AMR): 'Antimicrobial Resistance in Human and Veterinary Medicine - One Health, One Problem' to be held at the Royal College of Physicians, London, on Tuesday 2 October 2012.
One winner was Cahir King, a practitioner from Downe Veterinary Clinic in County Down, Northern Ireland. He said: "It will be a privilege to attend a symposium at which so many experts in their field will be speaking. Any vet who has worked on farms will be more than familiar with bugs that are resistant to antibiotic treatment."
The other winner was James Swann, a Junior Clinical Training Scholar (Small Animal) at the Royal Veterinary College. James said: "I am particularly interested in the application of clinical audit in practice to assess problems like AMR, and design effective strategies to deal with them. I believe it should be possible to provide simple audit kits for practices to download and implement, removing much of the inertia that prevents such ideas from being initiated."
The bursary winners will be offered free delegate passes, including lunch, worth £90, and travel expenses.
The final bursary is to attend the Veterinary Biomedical and Pharma Sciences (VBMPS) Congress on 15-16 October, in Birmingham.
The winning entry was from Alexander Stoll, a final-year student at the Royal Veterinary College, who acted as the Royal Veterinary College and UK student ambassador to the European Commission for the 'One Health' message. The Trust was impressed with Alexander's enthusiasm and active engagement in subjects related to One Health. He is a member of the Royal Society for Public Health and a member of the Society of Biology.
Alexander said: "I hope to be inspired to enter a cross-disciplinary career path and also to communicate the potential of a One Health approach, inspired by this congress."
Alexander won a package that includes entry to the conference and admission to all scientific sessions, worth £175, as well as transport costs and overnight food and accommodation.
The PIC decision marked the conclusion of its investigation into a concern that was raised formally last November involving allegations of bullying at Professor Argyle’s workplace, the University of Edinburgh.
Professor Argyle, who had previously decided to step aside from his JVP and Council duties until the concern was investigated and concluded, said: “Despite this outcome from the PIC discussions, I have now made the challenging decision to stand down from my position at the RCVS. This is to ensure there is no further distraction to the College’s important work and activities and that whoever becomes the next JVP has the full support of Council and RCVS members.
"It is also to reduce the toll this situation has taken on my family, colleagues and students, and on me personally. I am proud and privileged to have served on RCVS Council for nearly ten years and wish it well as it navigates the next chapter in its history."
RCVS President Mandisa Greene said: “I appreciate that this has been an exceptionally difficult situation and very upsetting for all involved.
"I understand why David has taken the difficult decision to stand down from RCVS Council and would like to thank him for his many years of service to the RCVS since joining Council in 2012.
"I would also like to reassure colleagues once again that, throughout, the College has remained firmly committed to following due, proper and fair process in all its regulatory activities."
Following Professor Argyle’s decision to step down, the process for electing a new JVP for the current presidential year will commence.
As Professor Argyle was a Veterinary Schools Council appointee on RCVS Council, it will be for that body to elect a replacement Council member.
Further details will be announced in due course.
Dr Vlad Butnaru faced two charges, the first of which was that in May 2021, he had signed a passport and/or passport application for a horse and electronically signed a declaration stating that he “had read the above microchip, which had previously been implanted for the animal” when, in fact, the microchip had not been inserted into any horse and he had not read it.
The second charge was that, in relation to the matters set out in the first charge, Dr Butnaru’s signed declaration was false, and that he had acted dishonestly and misleadingly, he risked undermining procedures designed to promote animal welfare, and failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate.
Dr Butnaru admitted the first charge on all counts, and that the declaration he had signed was false.
He also admitted that his conduct was misleading and that he had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate.
However, he denied that his conduct had been dishonest and that he had risked undermining a procedure designed to promote animal welfare.
In its decision, the committee noted that Dr Butnaru kept introducing new versions of what happened for the first time at the hearing and changed his account as he went along, as well as being evasive when answering questions.
The Committee therefore felt that Dr Butnaru could not be considered to be a reliable witness, and whilst it did not know the true reason why he was prepared to sign a false declaration on a passport application, it was satisfied that he'd made a false declaration dishonestly.
The Committee also found that Dr Butnaru had failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that the microchip number recorded for the horse was accurate as, if the passport had been issued on a false premise because of misleading information provided by Dr Butnaru, then it could not function as it was meant to which, in the Committee’s view, clearly risked undermining procedures designed to protect animal welfare.
The Committee found that Dr Butnaru had breached the parts 6.2 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct, as well as Principle 1 of the 10 Principles of Certification, namely that ‘a veterinarian should certify only those matters which: a) are within his or her own knowledge; b) can be ascertained by him or her personally; c) are the subject of supporting evidence from an authorised veterinarian who has personal knowledge of the matters in question; or d) are the subject of checks carried out by an Officially Authorised Person (OAP).’
The Committee found there were no mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors, on the other hand, were that Dr Butnaru had participated in premeditated misconduct, made financial gain from his actions as he was paid to make the false declaration, abused his professional position, and showed blatant or wilful disregard of the Horse Passport System and of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.
The Committee found that all proven charges amounted to Disgraceful Conduct in a Professional Respect.
On considering the sanction, the Committee once again considered the aggravating factors, as well as additional mitigating factors in that Dr Butnaru had no previous disciplinary history, showed limited insight by admitting to some of the charges, showed expressions of remorse, and was provided with a positive testimonial.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was cognisant of the importance of a veterinary surgeon’s signature on any document.
"This should have been obvious to any veterinary surgeon, but particularly someone of Dr Butnaru’s 11 years’ experience (at the time of signing).
"The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Butnaru of any decision to remove him from the Register, but had to weigh his interests with those of the public.
“In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, Dr Butnaru’s previous unblemished record and the need to act proportionately.
"However, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons and protecting the welfare of animals, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient.
"His actions were fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register and thus the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The RCVS said: "We understand that there are very strong opinions about the ban, and we respect the rights of individuals to make their own decisions.
"However, expressing these opinions can never justify or include the harassment and abuse of individual vets, vet nurses or their practice colleagues."
The BVA added: “The Government’s XL Bully ban is also placing additional pressure on veterinary teams who are doing their best in very challenging circumstances to help keep responsible XL Bully owners with their pets wherever possible.
"Their commitment extends to supporting clients with any decision-making around euthanasia in individual cases.
"It’s simply unacceptable for these professionals to face additional challenges through abuse, intimidation or threats.
"Such actions can have a hugely negative impact on individual vets and the wider team."
Resources:
Photo: Dlexus