Kirk Thompson, a Newcastle-based practitioner, has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being found guilty of manslaughter, assault and drug possession.

Following a trial at Newcastle Crown Court in April 2014, Mr Thompson - who according to the Guardian had at one point been tipped for the job of Chief Veterinary Officer - was convicted of the manslaughter of David Kochs at Mr Thompson’s flat during a crystal-meth-fuelled 'extreme' sadomasochistic gay sex session. He was also convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm (also on Mr Kochs) and possession of methylamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug, both offences occurring on the same night. Mr Thompson was subsequently sentenced to a total of fifteen years’ imprisonment.

Whilst the RCVS opened a case against Mr Thompson in February 2014, it only received confirmation from the Supreme Court of the final conclusion of his subsequent (and ultimately unsuccessful) appeals against his conviction and sentencing in October 2015. The Disciplinary Committee therefore served a Notice of Inquiry on Mr Thompson in November 2015.

Mr Thompson admitted the convictions but did not attend the hearing, due to his current imprisonment, nor was he represented at it; he also declined the opportunity to attend by video link. After due consideration, the Committee decided that the Notice of Inquiry had been properly served and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in Mr Thompson’s absence.

The Committee was satisfied that Mr Thompson had been convicted of the three offences listed in the charges and concluded that he was not fit to practise as a veterinary surgeon. 

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, its chairman Professor Alistair Barr said: “[We are] satisfied that the type and nature of [Mr Thompson’s] criminal conduct falls seriously below the standard expected of a member of the profession. [We have] noted that Mr Thompson recognises the disrepute his actions have brought on the profession ... and consider that [his] conduct is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.

“In the circumstances, [we have] concluded that, in the public interest, there is only one proportionate sanction that could be imposed, namely the removal of Mr Thompson’s name from the Register.”

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

Devon vet Jo Dyer has launched a petition for the RCVS to remove mandatory house visits from the Code of Professional Conduct, in response to the College's call for evidence on the provision of 24-hour emergency veterinary cover.

Clause 3.13 of the Code currently says: "Clients may request attendance on a sick or injured animal away from the practice premises and, in some circumstances, it may be desirable to do so. On rare occasions, it may be necessary on clinical or welfare grounds. The decision to attend away from the practice is for the veterinary surgeon, having carefully balanced the needs of the animal against the safety implications of making the visit; a veterinary surgeon is not expected to risk 'life or limb', or that of anyone else to provide the service."

In other words, whilst it is not mandatory to accede to every request for a home visit, the Code starts by saying: 'it may be desirable' and 'it may be necessary', thereby implying that the veterinary surgeon will need to explain themselves if they decide against.

Jo argues that this ambiguity, coupled with outcome of recent disciplinary cases and the risk, however small, of losing one's livelihood, means that there are many practitioners, particularly younger and less experienced graduates, who are now fearful of refusing home visits, rendering them to all intents and purposes mandatory. It's a situation compounded by the perception that if push comes to shove, a practitioner's actions will be judged by a Disciplinary Committee whose members may be out of touch with the sometimes harsher realities of life in practice.

Jo also points to the increased risk of assault that practitioners face when making home visits, rather than treating the patient from the relative security of the practice premises. She also makes the point that leaving a practice unattended (as can happen if the only vet on the premises has to go on a home visit), may compromise the welfare of any other animals that need emergency treatment in the meantime. 

The petition calls for the complete removal of clause 3.13 from the Code, and for clause 3.2 to be amended to read: 'The responsibility for the welfare of an animal rests primarily with the owner, keeper or carer of the animal. Veterinary surgeons are unable to make a definitive decision regarding diagnosis and treatment until they have undertaken a physical examination of an animal. This examination may take place at the surgery or other address entirely at the discretion of the veterinary surgeon on duty. It is expected that farm animals and equines will mainly be examined away from the surgery and pets at the surgery."

Jo said: "It is important to stress that I am not calling for the abolition of home visits, and nor do I think this would be the effect of my proposed change to the CoPC. The profession is almost entirely made up of people who care desperately about the quality of the service they offer, and who want to offer the best to their patients and their clients. Of course we'll continue to make home visits. But I do feel passionately that the decision in each case must rest unambiguously with the veterinary surgeon concerned and not be subject afterwards to the judgement of others."

To sign the petition, visit: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/royal-college-of-veterinary-surgeons-remove-mandatory-house-visits-from-the-code-of-professional-conduct

The RCVS has responded to the outcry sparked by the Disciplinary Committee striking off a veterinary surgeon that delayed an out-of-hours home visit to a dog that had been run over by its owner, a farmer.

The RCVS response addresses three main issues raised by the case:

• Many have expressed concern that this rule sets some sort of precedent through which any veterinary surgeon who doesn't attend a home visit within a certain time frame will automatically be struck off. The RCVS says that it has no legal framework for taking precedence into account.
• Some of the comments made in the case summary appeared to demonstrate a lack of veterinary knowledge on the part of the DC, leading to questions over whether lay members in particular have any training or experience of the issues facing veterinary surgeons in practice every day. In the College's response it highlights that DC members undergo one-day induction training, two-day annual training and any additional training as and when necessary. However this is legal training and lay members do not have to have any experience of veterinary practice.
• There has been some discussion concerning whether the ruling was in keeping with current advice in the Code of Professional Conduct, or whether it represented a new commitment for veterinary surgeons to attend home visits (where necessary) within the hour. The College confirmed that the current advice in the Code on 24-hour first aid and pain relief is consistent with the decision:
  • 1.4 Veterinary surgeons in practice must take steps to provide 24-hour emergency first aid and pain relief to animals according to their skills and the specific situation.
  • Supporting guidance can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/247care, and includes the following: 3.14 Clients may request attendance on a sick or injured animal away from the practice premises and, in some circumstances, it may be desirable to do so. On rare occasions, it may be necessary on clinical or welfare grounds. The decision to attend away from the practice is for the veterinary surgeon, having carefully balanced the needs of the animal against the safety implications of making the visit; a veterinary surgeon is not expected to risk 'life or limb', or that of anyone else to provide the service.

However, the College has not yet responded to many of the other issues being debated, including:

• The case report says: "The Committee is satisfied that the delay caused Mitzi [the dog] unnecessary suffering, which was evidenced by her uncharacteristically biting Mr Matthews' [the owner] son." What evidence does the DC have to support this assertion that uncharacteristic biting is evidence of unnecessary suffering? 
• The case report says that the defendant: "...offered no advice to Mr Matthews as to how Mitzi's condition could be alleviated whilst waiting for the home visit." That beggars the question what advice would it have been possible to give under the circumstances (i.e. an animal that has been run over and not yet seen by the veterinary surgeon)?
• The case report says: "His [the vet's] advice that the dog should be moved on a blanket was completely wrong, as the dog may have had an injured back." What evidence base does the DC have to support this statement? How else would the RCVS recommend an animal is moved?
• The case report says: "The Committee listened carefully to the record of the four telephone conversations, which it considers showed an absence of compassion on his [the vet's] part." Was this merely a result of a cultural difference? If Mr Chikosi sounded not compassionate, but businesslike, would that not have been equally appropriate for an emergency situation? Should veterinary surgeons now fear that if their bedside manner is not up to scratch, they face removal from the register? Is it appropriate for the DC to comment on a veterinary surgeon's manner, or is it more appropriate to allow market forces to apply? 
• The severity of the sanction. Striking off is the ultimate penalty; the removal of a veterinary surgeon's ability to earn a livelihood in the UK. Mr Chikosi made one (arguably) poor decision which led to a delay in euthanasia of an hour. Should he have faced the ultimate sanction for this? In a poll on vetsurgeon.org, 53.7% of 123 participants felt Mr Chikosi had no case to answer in the first place, 40.7% said he acted unprofessionally, but the sanction was unduly harsh. Only 5.7% said the sanction was appropriate.
• Is it fair that the ultimate sanction can be applied in situations where the respondent has failed (for whatever reason) to respond to the charges and is not represented at the hearing? The case report says that documents were emailed and posted to Mr Chikosi in Zimbabwe, to where he had returned, but not whether receipt was acknowledged.
• Where in the ruling was there any recognition of the owner's responsibility to the animal and its welfare? Should a farmer and his son reasonably have been able to transport the animal to the practice?
• The case report says that: "Mr Matthews [the owner] told him [Mr Chikosi] that it would only take Mr Chikosi ten minutes to come out to the farm. Was this, in fact, more a turn of phrase than a fair reflection of the likely journey time? If not a turn of phrase, is it likely an underestimate (because the owner was trying to persuade Mr Chikosi to come), particularly if Mr Chikosi was unfamiliar with the address. Either way, many have commented that with the return journey, the likely time away from the practice would be at least an hour, which would further explain Mr Chikosi's reluctance to leave the practice and attend the house.  
• Exactly what responsibility does Mr Chikosi's employer bear for the fact that he was in a situation whereby he felt unable to do a home visit?  Varying reports suggest a difference in Mr Chikosi's employer's official written policy towards home visits, and an unwritten policy. Alternatively, he may simply have misunderstood the policy, written or otherwise. Was it explained clearly?
• Is it fair to enforce the harshest penalty on a veterinary surgeon who carries out orders which go against the GtPC when they might face the loss of their job if they do otherwise?  

For the full response, visit: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-events/news/response-to-feedback-on-recent-disciplinary-hearing/

The RCVS has tightened up the Code of Professional Conduct concerning how general practitioners refer cases and how veterinary professionals talk about referral surgeons.

The first change has been made to paragraph 1.6 which now advises general practitioners to check whether the vet they are referring a case to is on the RCVS Specialist or Advanced Practitioner list, explaining the difference to the client and what sets them apart from other vets who might be prepared to accept a referral. 

Also, practitioners who accept a referral should provide information to the referrer about the experience and status of those likely to be responsible for the case.

The guidance about conflicts of interest in paragraph 1.7 has also been amended such that referring surgeons should tell clients if they are referring their case to a practice owned by the same group.

There is new guidance about how vets and nurses talk about referral practitioners, with the new advice being to focus on accepted terms such as 'RCVS Specialist' and 'RCVS Advanced Practitioner', and avoid more general terms like 'referral surgeon' or 'consultant' to avoid confusion or implying that individuals hold more qualifications than they do.

Lastly, there is new guidance that vets may only use the name 'Specialist' in the name of their practice where there is genuine and meaningful involvement, and oversight, in case management by at least one RCVS specialist in all disciplines where any clinical services are offered under the business name.

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/code-of-professional-conduct-for-veterinary-surgeons/supporting-guidance/referrals-and-second-opinions/ 

The Disciplinary Committee has suspended a veterinary surgeon from the register for three months, for not carrying out or arranging the euthanasia of a cat, and for dishonesty in his subsequent account of events.

At the outset of the two-day hearing, Mr Bogdanowicz admitted all the parts of the charge, which related to events occurring around 24 June 2011, whilst he was working at Best Friends Veterinary Group, Thrapston.

The Committee was asked to decide if Mr Bogdanowicz's actions amounted to serious professional misconduct and to decide upon any sanction.

Mr Bogdanowicz had been requested by the owners of Jason, a 14-year old Maine Coon cat, to undertake euthanasia, rather than further treatment following abdominal surgery.

Unknown to Jason's owners, Mr Bogdanowicz instead allowed a registered veterinary nurse to take the cat home, from where it subsequently escaped.

Mr Bogdanowicz then colluded in an attempt made by the veterinary nurse to cover up what had occurred and only told the truth when discrepancies in the nurse's story were challenged by the practice.

In mitigation, the Committee was satisfied Mr Bogdanowicz's decision not to put the cat to sleep was taken without full reflection on the consequences of the decision.

It was also satisfied that there was no evidence of injury to Jason and no payment had been sought or made for putting the cat to sleep. He had apologised to the cat's owners and was truthful to the College after the complaint was made.

Mr Bogdanowicz had an otherwise unblemished career and produced impressive testimonials from his clients as evidence of the high regard in which he was held.

However, the Committee also found that despite having had several occasions to tell his employers the truth, Mr Bogdanowicz had done so only after inconsistencies were revealed in the account of the veterinary nurse.

By not asking for the cat to be brought back for a post-operative check, Mr Bogdanovicz had also abdicated his own professional responsibilities.

Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee considers that it is unlikely that Mr Bogdanowicz will put himself in a similar position again. Having heard his evidence, it has formed the view that he has learnt his lesson from these proceedings.

"The Committee considers that it would perform a disservice to the community at large to direct a lengthy suspension of Mr Bogdanowicz's name from the Register."

The Committee directed that Mr Bogdanowicz's name be suspended from the Register for three months.

A joint statement issued by the RCVS and the BVA with updated guidance for the professions about working during the coronavirus pandemic has led to an outcry on social media and highlighted flaws in the structure of the veterinary profession. 

Earlier this month, the government had exempted veterinary surgeries from the requirement to close their doors during the pandemic. Strictly speaking, the exemption meant that practices could carry on offering the same level of service as before, provided they followed further government guidelines on social distancing.

However, the College then advised that non-essential treatments should not be carried out until further notice, and that animals should only be seen in emergency, or if their health was likely to deteriorate as a result of inaction.

This included vaccination, where RCVS advice stated that whilst routine vaccinations were considered not urgent, there "may be scenarios where, in your professional judgement, vaccines are being given to reduce a real and imminent risk of disease; this includes in the face of an animal disease outbreak, or in a scenario where part of a vaccine course has been given and the animal may be exposed to the disease." 

The updated College guidelines, issued last Thursday evening, appeared little changed, except to say that its advice concerning vaccinations is under review. Meanwhile, its new flowchart gives a very clear framework for veterinary professionals to work within, essentially leaving it to your own professional judgement to weigh up the risks.

However, the BVA went further, declaring amongst other things, that:

Vaccinations – we are now recommending that primary vaccinations and year 1 boosters in dogs and cats go ahead due to the increased risk of disease outbreak over a longer period of time, and annual leptospirosis vaccination due to the zoonotic risk. If additional component of the core vaccine is due at the same time, it should also be administered. In addition, we’re recommending rabbit vaccinations go ahead due to the seasonal disease risks. Rabies vaccinations should be carried out if required for certification reasons

.... leading to an outcry that the BVA's advice appeared to be being relaxed at precisely the point when the government is imploring the public to stay at home, and that:

• it must have been the result of pressure from corporate veterinary businesses which are taking a severe financial hit from the loss of vaccination sales,
• that it would lead to veterinary surgeons being forced by their (probably corporate) employers to work when they believe it is wrong to do so,
• that it would put unnecessary strain on practices that are struggling to look after urgent case with reduced staff,
• that it would lead to pressure from the public to carry out non-essential vaccinations,
• that it would cause Vesuvius to erupt and the oceans to boil.

To add further fuel to the flames, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association then issued a statement to the effect that it had not been consulted during the preparation of the new BVA guidelines, which BVA past President Robin Hargreaves felt was so economical with the truth that he resigned his BSAVA membership on the spot.

COMMENT
At the end of it all, there is but one simple truth for every veterinary surgeon who is working in these difficult times, and it is this: The government and the RCVS guidance gives you the freedom to exercise your professional judgement concerning whether or not an animal needs to be seen for whatever reason. Provided you can explain why you reasonably concluded that an animal should or should not be seen, that is all that matters. It trumps everything else.  

This whole farago has highlighted a number of important issues in the profession, starting with the social media conspiracy theories that the new guidance came after pressure from corporate practices when as far as I can tell, it appears to have been driven by a genuine concern that that failure to vaccinate could cause significant welfare issues in the future.

That seems a reasonable argument, and very much in line with the College advice. But that in turn raises a far bigger question, which is what on earth the BVA (a voluntary membership organisation) was doing issuing what appeared to be instructions ostensibly for all members of the profession. Notwithstanding the fact that BVA recommendations have no legal weight, having all these chefs running around with different recipe books is itself a recipe for muddled communications and confusion over leadership.

In turn, that raises the even bigger question of what the BVA's role should be. Should it be snuggling up in bed with the RCVS, issuing joint edicts? Or should it instead be holding the College to account, challenging its decisions and demanding clarification where clarification is necessary. I would argue the latter. In this situation, the ONLY organisation issuing guidelines about vaccinations for practising vets should be the regulator. And it is the role of the BVA to challenge those guidelines if necessary, or to demand clarification.

Which leads me on to the next thing, which is that increasingly, members of the profession seem to demand explicit rules or guidelines to operate within. There are lots of hypotheses for why this might be true. Perhaps because we live in a more (or seemingly more) litigious world and veterinary professionals like the reassurance rules provide. Perhaps it is because the younger cohort of vets lack the self-confidence needed for decision-making. Perhaps corporatisation has a part to play, in that employees of larger organisations tend to play more by the rules. Or perhaps it is a consequence of the growth in the 'refer everything’ culture which means vets take fewer clinical risks.  

Whatever the reason, it seems clear that in some cases, the RCVS tack of "you're a professional, decide for yourself" is perfectly reasonable, whereas on other occasions, such as Schedule 3, more explicit guidelines are demonstrably necessary. Once again, surely the role of the BVA as the "Voice of the profession” is not to issue its own advice, but to press the College for more explicit guidelines as necessary.

Lastly, there is the role of Facebook in all of this. Quite obviously vets are no more immune to conspiracy theories than members of the public who think that coronavirus is spread by 5G telephone masts. Sadly, the truth is usually far less exciting. However, the problem at the moment is that the growth in social media and Facebook groups has left the regulator and the representative associations on the back foot, such that it is often left to individuals from those organisations who 'happen to come across OK online' (rather than having any properly defined role) to firefight.

Photo: https://www.scientificanimations.com/wiki-images/

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a veterinary surgeon formerly practising in Southampton for failing to make animal welfare his primary concern.

At a hearing this week, adjourned from September 2010, the Disciplinary Committee heard charges against Michael Albring, formerly of VetCall practice, Bitterne, Southampton. Mr Albring was said to have failed to make a home visit to attend Bear, a Newfoundland dog belonging to Mrs Thacker, when he knew, or ought to have known, that there were clinical or welfare grounds making a home visit necessary.

The hearing was held in Mr Albring's absence; the Committee considered that, having postponed the case last year at his request, Mr Albring had had ample time to prepare his case and submit any mitigations, and sufficient opportunity to attend. Additional adjournment would further delay the matter's resolution and not be in the wider interests of justice, or public confidence in either the RCVS disciplinary system or the veterinary profession.

On the evening of 19 December 2009, Mr Albring had been the veterinary surgeon on duty at VetCall, a practice that provides the out of-hours emergency cover for several local veterinary practices, including the one where Bear was registered. When Mrs Thacker's daughter, Ms Davidson, telephoned VetCall to request a home visit as the dog had collapsed, she was told that it was against practice policy for the practice to be left unmanned so this would not be possible. This was despite a written policy which accepted and made provision for the rare occasions when a home visit would be necessary. Phoning again later, the information about practice policy was repeated and Ms Davidson directed to a local animal ambulance service, which attended.

The ambulance driver found that the dog could not be transported in the ambulance and telephoned VetCall to say a home visit was needed. This was refused by Mr Albring even, the Committee noted, when the ambulance driver offered to collect Mr Albring, drive him to Ms Davidson's home 10-15 minutes away, assist with the euthanasia, and return him to the clinic. In the interim, Ms Davidson had also sought help from a separate practice and, subsequent to Mr Albring's refusal to visit, their on-duty veterinary surgeon attended and euthanased Bear. 

The Committee found that Mr Albring's refusal to visit, once it was clear Bear could not be transported, and he knew that a home visit was necessary on welfare grounds, resulted in Bear spending longer than necessary in pain and distress. This was not a case where the pressure of work or the welfare needs of other animals prevented Mr Albring from attending, and it was also relevant that Mr Albring was specifically employed to work out of hours in an emergency clinic. Serious, too, was his failure to reply promptly to communications from the RCVS, or show insight into the seriousness of his conduct.

In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated case, and there were no previous findings against Mr Albring.  He was in sole charge of an emergency clinic covering 15-20 practices across Southampton and Portsmouth, which would make, in some circumstances, home visits difficult.

Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee is concerned that the actual policy pursued by the clinic regarding domiciliary visits was different to the written one.

"In effect, a no-visits policy existed at the VetCall clinic and this must have added to the pressure under which the Respondent [Mr Albring] was working.

"The Committee is mindful that the object of sanctions is not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain appropriate standards," she continued, noting that as animal welfare had knowingly been neglected and Mr Albring had demonstrated no insight, a warning or reprimand would not be enough.  "A period of suspension would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold standards," she said.

The Committee directed that Mr Albring's name be suspended from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons for ten months.

At its January meeting today, RCVS Council agreed a series of proposals for the future reform of the College's governance structure which will now go to consultation with the profession and the public before being integrated into the overall recommendations for legislative reform. 

Amongst the proposals agreed by Council was to move towards an independent appointment system for Council membership to replace the current election system.

In addition, Council voted:

• for the composition of Council to be a matter for more flexible secondary legislation rather than it being fixed via primary legislation;
• to an increase in the proportion of lay members, with a decision about whether Council should adopt parity of veterinary professionals and lay members to follow the consultation,
• to reform its composition to remove the Veterinary Schools Council (VSC) appointees. Currently the VSC has three appointed Council members
• to consult with the profession and public on two options for the future composition of a 24-person RCVS Council, which would ensure this was as balanced as possible. The first option is a Council that has a slim majority of members drawn from the veterinary professions (of whom a majority would be veterinary surgeons) compared to lay members. The second option is a Council with exact parity between veterinary professionals (of whom a majority would be veterinary surgeons) and lay members. 

Council was tied on whether to separate the position of RCVS President and the Chair of RCVS Council, meaning that this will come back for decision at a later date following the consultation.

RCVS President susan paterson, said: “The unique way that RCVS Council is currently constituted with annual elections to Council is an old model of self-regulation which is no longer found in other professions including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, solicitors and social workers, among others.

“As a responsible regulator we have a duty to operate in a way that recognises modern principles of regulation, and best meets our objectives to enhance society through improved animal health and welfare by setting, upholding and advancing the educational, ethical and clinical standards for the veterinary professions.

"The College’s recommendations would see us retain self-regulation in the sense of independence from government, and maintain registrants within our governance framework, while better assuring the public that we are acting on their behalf.

“It is our firm belief that, among other things, moving to an all-appointed Council member system, whereby those who serve on Council are selected via an independent process based on their knowledge and experience to ensure input from all parts of the veterinary sector, will better serve our aims, as will having a better balance of professional and lay members.

"Of course, veterinary expertise, knowledge and experience will also remain a vital part of any future arrangements throughout our committee structure, so the veterinary voice will be as important as ever in our policy and decision-making processes.

rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/18-january-2024/

Further details about the consultation process will be published in due course.

Discuss here: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/f/non-clinical-questions/30878/what-do-you-think-about-the-rcvs-proposals-to-stop-council-elections-and-move-to-appointed-members-with-equal-or-almost-equal-number-of-lay-members/243481

There has been a notable change to the RCVS council elections this year: candidates are now required to answer a number of insightful questions so that voters can better understand what they would bring to the party if elected. 

In previous years, candidates were only asked to provide manifestos, which often contained information that wasn't especially relevant to whether or not they should be elected to Council. 

Now, they are asked to share their reasons for wanting to be elected, what they can bring to Council and what experience they have. 

That should make it much easier for voters to pick the right candidates, which is no bad thing because there are 20 vets standing this year, a record since electronic records began in 1997 and 1 more than the previous best in 2014.

This year’s candidates are:

Louise Allum MRCVS
Sam Bescoby MRCVS
Andrew Clemence MRCVS
Tshidi Gardiner MRCVS
Reginald Godwin MRCVS
Paddy Gordon MRCVS
Danielle Greenberg MRCVS
Gerard Henry MRCVS
Richard Hillman MRCVS
Benjamin Kennedy MRCVS
Darren Partridge MRCVS
Martin Peaty MRCVS
Alison Price MRCVS
Peter Robinson MRCVS
Jennifer Simmons MRCVS
Sadie Spencer MRCVS
Mary Thomas MRCVS
William Wilkinson MRCVS
Lara Wilson MRCVS

and the inevitable Tom Lonsdale MRCVS.

The full biographies and election statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote25.

The four candidates who get the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the College’s Annual General Meeting on Friday 4 July 2025.

Simon Wiklund, Assistant Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “We are glad to see such a large number of veterinary professionals putting themselves forward as candidates for this year’s elections.

"It is worth noting that any future governance changes, including RCVS and VN Councils becoming all-appointed bodies, are contingent on new legislation and, until that happens, we will continue to hold our annual elections.

“You may have also noticed some differences with this year’s elections, particularly in terms of the candidate statements.

"This is thanks to a change to our election scheme, which provides greater flexibility about how we run our elections, and the information that we can ask the candidates to submit.

“This means that, rather than asking candidates for a broad manifesto statement, we’ve asked them to answer key questions that are relevant to the role of a Council member, including what skills and experiences they can bring to the table.”

Ahead of the elections, RCVS will be running its ‘Quiz the candidates’ initiative in which veterinary surgeons can submit questions to the candidates standing in their respective elections, in order to better understand them and their views.

However, due to the additional information now included in each of their statements, this year candidates will only answer one question of their choice each.

Before submitting questions to the candidates, please note the RCVS will only accept one question per person. Offensive, defamatory and inaccurate questions will be rejected by the Returning Officer and not be passed on to candidates.

Veterinary surgeons can submit a question to the RCVS Council candidates by emailing vetvote25@rcvs.org.uk.  

The Competition and Markets Authority has unveiled a package of veterinary transparency reforms that will require practices to publish prices, give written estimates and tighten complaints handling.

Although the regulator says the changes should impose only limited administrative costs, VetSurgeon.org estimates that implementation may still run to several thousand pounds for some practices.

Under the reforms, practices will need to:

• Update signage and marketing materials if part of a group to display the practice owner.
• Ensure marketing materials and signage clearly set out out-of-hours arrangements, staff qualifications and accreditations.
• Publish a standardised price list online and in-practice for consultations and a wide range of diagnostics, treatments and procedures defined by the CMA, for five standardised pet characteristic and weight categories.
• Publish prices for commonly sold flea, tick and worm products, plus a link to the VMD Register of online retailers, both online and in-practice.
• Publish full pet care plan details, including standalone prices and an explanation of any claimed cost savings.
• Submit practice information and pricing data to the RCVS for publication via an upgraded Find a Vet comparison platform.
• Provide written estimates for treatment pathways likely to cost £500 or more and update them if costs are likely to increase by 20% or £500.
• Provide itemised bills.
• Put written clinical freedom policies and processes in place.
• Give clients written information produced by the RCVS about prescriptions and buying medicines elsewhere, including via practice websites, posters and emails, and tell owners during consultations.
• Provide written prescriptions at the end of a consultation or digitally within 48 hours.
• When prescribing own-brand medicines, tell clients about the reference product alternative and identify it in writing.
• Provide additional information to owners receiving ongoing medication about their ability to request a written prescription and potential savings from buying medicines elsewhere.
• Check any out-of-hours contract to ensure notice periods do not exceed 12 months and no termination fee applies after that period.
• Offer a communal cremation service and publish clear information about cremation options and prices, including add-ons.
• Put a written complaints procedure in place, publish it and keep a complaint log.
• Take part in mediation in good faith when required.

In total, the CMA package introduces more than a dozen new operational requirements for veterinary practices.

Practices will also have to pay a new levy to the RCVS to fund its expanded role running the price comparison service, estimated at £450-£550 annually, after a £150-£250 setup charge.

Once the Order is made — currently expected in September 2026 — most of the transparency measures will need to be implemented within three months by larger veterinary groups and six months by smaller practices.

More operational changes, such as written estimates, itemised billing and the new prescription rules, follow later, with smaller practices typically given up to 12 months to comply.

The final stage will see practices submitting data to the RCVS for its upgraded Find a Vet comparison platform once the system has been built.

Prescription fees will be capped at £21 for the first medicine prescribed in a consultation and £12.50 for each additional medicine, with both figures rising annually in line with CPI, and practices will need to assess the impact on their business model.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week directed that the name of a man who had been illegally practising as a veterinary surgeon in the North West of England be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of fraudulent registration.

In March 2008, Russell Lewis Oakes had been charged with fraudulent entry onto the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, on the basis that he had (either (A) knowingly, or (B) unknowingly) submitted a fake degree certificate and letter of 'good standing' from Murdoch University, Australia. Mr Oakes agreed that the hearing could proceed in his absence provided the Committee confined itself to consideration of charge B alone.

The hearing commenced on 18 April 2008, but the Committee decided to adjourn, as Mr Oakes was also subject to a police investigation which required that the hearing be held in private. The Committee felt that it was in the public interest for an open hearing to take place in respect of both charges at a later date. Mr Oakes' bail conditions prevented him from practising as a veterinary surgeon at this time.

On 16 October 2009, Mr Oakes was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court, on a guilty plea, of a substantial number of offences, including those under consideration by the Committee: he was sentenced on 11 January 2010 to two years in prison.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee's hearing resumed and concluded on 5 February 2010. Mr Oakes was not present.

The Committee was provided with evidence from RCVS staff regarding the registration process, and received statutory declarations from representatives at Murdoch University. The latter confirmed that signatures on the certificate submitted by Mr Oakes were fake and that there had never been a student with his name at the University. Furthermore, a letter purporting to be one of support from Professor Edwards of Murdoch University contained text he would not have written and was signed with a false signature.

The Committee was also provided with evidence from equine veterinary surgeon Seamus Miller, who had become suspicious of Mr Oakes' qualifications and membership of the College. He outlined incidents which had cast doubt on Mr Oakes' competence. Mr Miller's complaint had initiated enquires which led to the charges against Mr Oakes by the College, and the Committee recorded its commendation of Mr Miller, and his colleagues.

Having found that Mr Oakes knowingly submitted fraudulent registration documents, the Committee was bound, under Sections 14 and 16 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, and paragraph 17 of the 2004 Rules, to direct that his name be removed from the Register.

Alison Bruce, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "Even if it retained any discretion by virtue of Section 16 of the Act in respect of sanction, the Committee would have had no hesitation in directing Mr Oakes' name to be removed from the Register in this case. This was a deliberate and dishonest offence by a man without the necessary qualifications to practise as a veterinary surgeon, and it had the effect of exposing members of the public to his fraud, and their animals to harm."

The College has revised its registration procedures in the light of this case, and now requests that all registrants produce original copies of certificates and letters of 'good standing' at the registration ceremony.

The RCVS is encouraging veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other members of the practice team to respond to a government consultation on changing the law to introduce English language testing for veterinary surgeons who have qualified from elsewhere in the European Union.

Under the proposals outlined in the consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the test would apply before an individual joined the Register and only where the RCVS had ‘serious and concrete doubts’ about their English language abilities. The plan to consult on this issue had been welcomed by RCVS Council at its June 2015 meeting.

Every year, around half of all new veterinary surgeon registrants are from outside the UK, the majority from other EU or European Economic Area (EEA) countries. These individuals fall within the scope of the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications (MRPQ) Directive, which applies to all EU nationals wishing to practise in a regulated profession in another member state.

Last year, a revised version of the MRPQ Directive came into force, which made a number of changes, including clarifying and reinforcing the role of competent authorities such as the RCVS. One of these changes is that language testing is expressly permitted, but only where serious concerns have been identified.

Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: “Under the current legislation the College is not able to bar someone from joining the Register, and therefore practising, on the basis of language ability, even where we may have serious concerns.

“I would encourage all veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other members of the practice team to engage with this consultation and consider whether the College should have the right to impose a language test where it has serious doubts, more in line with medical doctors, and the form such testing would take.”

Under the proposals, applicants would be asked a series of questions concerning their language qualifications, experience and general ability to use the English language before registering. Depending on how they answer the questions they may then have to pass a language test before registering, or delay their application while they improve their language skills.

The consultation results will inform the College’s work with Defra to determine whether to proceed with implementation and, if so, to develop the most appropriate system of language testing. The College would implement language testing for veterinary nurses in parallel with any changes for veterinary surgeons.

Those who wish to take part in the consultation can do so at https://consult.defra.gov.uk/animal-health-and-welfare/vet_language_controls. The deadline for responses is Wednesday 30 September 2015.

Results for the 2010 RCVS Council elections have been released today and, following a slight increase in turnout for the second year running, four existing Council Members and one former Member have been returned for another four years. However, new to Council this year and securing the most votes was Preston-based veterinary practitioner David Catlow.

4,232 veterinary surgeons out of a possible 22,541 cast their votes this year, an increase of 0.6% from 18.2% in 2009. The results of the voting are as follows:

CATLOW, David Frederick. 2,383. Elected.
TAPSFIELD-WRIGHT. Clare Joan. 2,352. Elected.
SHIELD, Christine Fiona. 2,133. Elected.
MOLYNEUX, Jacqueline Rosina. 2,111. Elected.
SMITH, Neil Christopher. 2,089. Elected.
PARTRIDGE, Robert Duncan. 1,971. Elected.
NELL, Adi. 1,781.            
ANDERSON, Roy Paxton. 1,455.           
GODDARD, Philip Campbell. 1,385.            
LONSDALE, Thomas, 380. 

Terms of office for the six successful candidates will (re)commence at RCVS Day on 2 July 2010.

Following a successful partnership last year, the RCVS again teamed up with this website to allow voters more opportunity to quiz the candidates directly and find out more about their views.

Once again, this seemed to prove popular with the electorate although it presented candidates with a large increase in their workload during the voting period. Page views in the election section rose 23% to 28,347 this year; 48 discussion threads were started (slightly down from 53) and total responses rose dramatically by 47% to 988.

A new incentive for members to vote this year was a pledge to donate 20p per voter to the DEC Haiti Earthquake Appeal. A donation of just over £845 will therefore be made shortly.

RCVS Registrar Jane Hern said: "An increase in turnout, if only a small one, is to be welcomed and I hope we can continue to increase members' interest in the composition and activities of RCVS Council. I'd like to thank all ten candidates who stood for election this year; my congratulations to those elected and my commiserations to those who weren't successful this time."

Note: there was no VN Council election this year as only two nominations were received for the two available places. These will be filled by Suzanne May RVN and Hilary Orpet RVN.