View all veterinary jobs
Dermot Costello, a Shropshire practitioner, has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for 10 weeks after he admitted being dishonest with a client and falsifying records about the treatment of her dog.
Mr Costello faced four charges against him:
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Costelloe, a partner at a veterinary practice in Market Drayton, Shropshire, admitted all heads of charge against him.
Scruffy had been brought to Mr Costelloe for a consultation on 27 October 2014. He carried out a physical examination and arranged for radiographs and routine blood tests while also prescribing anti-inflammatory tablets for spondylosis. Scruffy was brought back to the practice on 30 October 2014 following the deterioration of her condition. Further assessment took place and an abdominal scan was arranged for the next day. She stayed at the practice overnight, but died at some point during the night of 30 to 31 October 2014.
A telephone call between Mrs Green and Mr Costelloe took place shortly after 8am on 31 October during which he told her that "they had struggled with Scruffy all night" and that, as they were speaking, Scruffy was on oxygen and struggling to breathe.
After Mrs Green said she wanted to come to the practice to be with her dog, Mr Costelloe told her to wait and that he would call her back in two minutes. He did so and told her Scruffy had died five minutes ago, when in fact she had died at some point between 11pm on 30 October and 8am on 31 October.
Mr Costelloe continued the deception at meetings with Mrs Green on 31 October and 19 November 2014 and she was given the falsified clinical records on 4 December 2014. Another meeting took place on 14 January 2015 where Mr Costelloe finally admitted his deception to her. This resulted in Mrs Green submitting a formal complaint to the RCVS on 23 February 2015. He admitted his deception to the College in writing on 4 August 2015.
The Committee decided that all four heads of charge amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect as his actions contravened several sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in relation to being open and honest with clients; keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical records; and not engaging in any actions or behaviour that would likely bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.
The Committee noted that, in his statement, Mr Costelloe gave a number of reasons for his conduct, including concern over Mrs Green’s reaction to the death of her dog and concern for the young vet who was on duty when Scruffy died. However, the Committee considered that the need to be open and honest with his clients should have been put above the needs of his practice.
In considering its sanction against Mr Costelloe, the Committee heard mitigating evidence from four character witnesses called on his behalf, as well as a number of written testimonials, and also had regard to his evident remorse, shame and insight into his behaviour.
However, it also considered a number of aggravating factors, including the fact that the misconduct had premeditated elements, was sustained over a period of weeks, and constituted a clear breach of client trust.
The Committee decided that the most appropriate sanction was to suspend Mr Costelloe from the Register for a period of 10 weeks. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It [the Committee] concluded that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. The Committee took the view that the likelihood of repetition of dishonest conduct was very low. It had found no ‘attitude of dishonesty’ in the respondent. There were no risks to the welfare or health of animals. The respondent was a good veterinary surgeon and he had shown considerable insight regarding his dishonesty, for example, by actively seeking out Ms Green to tell her the truth.
"The Committee does not condone what the respondent has done. It considers that the public interest requires that there has to be confidence that veterinary surgeons do not fabricate accounts or documents, no matter what their intentions."
She added: "The Committee has therefore determined that suspension for a period of 10 weeks is proportionate in all the circumstances to mark the nature and gravity of the case and is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, and directs the Registrar accordingly."
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Surrey vet Matthew Morgan has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted and imprisoned for four counts of pet insurance fraud.
Mr Morgan was convicted, upon his own confession, of dishonestly making false representations to make gain for himself/another or to cause loss to other/ expose other to risk on 22 July 2013 at the Central Criminal Court and, on 23 August 2013, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mr Morgan, who was not present at the hearing but represented by Mr Laurence Imrie, Solicitor Advocate, had, between 13 November 2009 and 21 December 2012, taken out 18 insurance policies for veterinary cover with four separate insurance providers - Direct Line, Pet Plan, Pet Protect and Sainsbury's - in relation to a number of pets. Of these pets, only one, namely his pet cat, actually existed - the rest were fictitious.
During this period, the respondent made 50 claims on the insurance policies, seeking payment to reimburse him for the cost of veterinary treatment for the fictitious animals and also making false claims for treatment for his own pet cat, including for invented injuries 'sustained' during a non-existent car accident. As a result of the claims, the insurance companies made 54 payments to Mr Morgan to which he was not entitled, totalling £198,295.
At the time he began committing the offences Mr Morgan was working as a veterinary surgeon at a practice in Kent and, in order to support his fraudulent claims, used the practice's official stationery and stamps to fabricate invoices, clinical records and insurance claims. He continued to make fraudulent claims after leaving the practice, having taken the practice's headed paper and stamp with him.
Mr Morgan's actions came to light in December 2012 after submitting a claim to Direct Line for an operation on the spine of his own cat. The insurance company became suspicious and contacted the Kent practice which confirmed he had not treated the cat. An investigation by the insurers and, subsequently, the police began.
On 31 December 2012 Mr Morgan voluntarily attended a police station where he admitted fraudulently claiming £5,534.52 from Pet Plan and £7,610.03 from Direct Line, citing financial pressure caused by divorce, but failed to admit to the rest of his fraudulent activities. He was arrested on 25 January 2013 and, upon searching his home, police found the stamp and headed paper along with documents relating to the insurance claims.
The Disciplinary Committee, in considering the conduct of Mr Morgan, took into account a number of serious aggravating factors. This included the very high degree of financial gain from the fraudulent activities, the fact that there were 50 separate premeditated acts of dishonesty over a three-year period, the betrayal of trust of his former employer and the insurance companies, the potential reputational risk for his former employer, the abuse of his position as a veterinary surgeon and the fact that completion of insurance claims is an act of veterinary certification.
The Committee also considered, in mitigation, a letter from Mr Morgan to the Committee, three testimonials and representation from his legal representative. These cited the fact that Mr Morgan, when he committed the fraudulent activities, was heavily in debt, had serious domestic difficulties and was suffering from depression, although no medical evidence was submitted to the Committee.
However, it was the Committee's decision that the sanction of removing Mr Morgan from the Register had to be taken, in order to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee its Vice-Chairman, Ms Judith Webb, said: "The Committee is of the view that the Respondent's conduct in this case was deplorable ... Such conduct can only undermine public confidence in the profession. The Respondent abused his position as a veterinary surgeon to perpetrate a deliberate long-term fraud on insurers for personal gain.
"The Committee is conscious that its role is not to punish but to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession. Due to the serious nature of the matters before it...the Committee has no doubt that the only suitable sanction is to direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent's name from the Register."
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The course was developed with RCVS Leadership and Inclusion Manager, Gurpreet Gill (pictured), and aims to increase self-awareness of unconscious bias, explore strategies to reduce it, and promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in the workplace.
Gurpreet said: “Unconscious bias is an area that some within the professions may not be familiar with and so this course provides an overview of unconscious bias and its impact in the workplace.
“We also explore strategies that we can all apply to help reduce unconscious bias.
"This is important in helping to achieve fairer and more equitable working environments, and I’d encourage any veterinary professional, whatever your role, to undertake the course.”
The course is accessible free via the RCVS Academy, and takes about an hour and three quarters to complete,
Building on the unconscious bias course, the RCVSA academy has also launched a course for members of the Fellowship Credentials Panels, who are responsible for assessing applications to the Fellowship.
Dr Niall Connell FRCVS, Acting Chair of the Fellowship Board, the governing body for the learned society, said: “This course explores the complexities of assessing applications, ensuring that each candidate receives a fair and thorough evaluation.
"Participants will gain insights into best practices for reviewing applications, offering constructive feedback, and identifying and addressing potential biases that may influence decision-making.
"By completing this course, participants will gain a heightened proficiency in assessing applications and managing bias, enabling them to support the RCVS’ mission of fostering equity, diversity and inclusion within the Fellowship.”
https://academy.rcvs.org.uk
As of today, veterinary surgeons in the UK can call themselves 'Doctor', following a decision made by the RCVS Council.
The decision to allow the use of the courtesy title followed a consultation which received 11,202 responses, of which 81% were in favour of the change, 13% against, and 6% did not mind either way.
The College says the idea is to align the UK with international practice, provide greater clarity for the profession and offer reassurance to clients and the animal-owning public that all veterinary surgeons registered with the RCVS, regardless of where they qualified, have veterinary degrees of an appropriate standard. Most international veterinary surgeons use the title and, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment.
RCVS President Professor Stuart Reid said: "I am very pleased that the response from the consultation gave Council such clear direction and has allowed us to bring UK vets in line with the majority of veterinarians worldwide. It was my privilege to pose the question, which has been well and truly answered by the profession and the public.
"Whether one regards the decision as correcting a historical anomaly or simply providing greater clarity at home and abroad, there is no doubt that the issue has generated huge interest. Yet regardless of whether individual vets choose to use the title, it will not change the profession's ongoing commitment to the very highest of standards."
Nearly 50% of respondents to the consultation were veterinary surgeons, 22% veterinary students, 21% animal-owning members of the public, and the rest were veterinary nurses, veterinary nurse students, practice managers and non-animal-owning members of the public.
RCVS CEO, Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that such a strong message came from both the public and the profession on this issue. We have a responsibility to maintain confidence in the veterinary profession and this move will help underline to the public in particular that veterinary surgeons work to very high standards, regardless of where they qualified."
Use of the title is optional, and guidance has been produced to support the change. It stresses that veterinary surgeons using the title should be careful not to mislead the public, and that it is important that the use of 'Doctor' or 'Dr' by a veterinary surgeon does not suggest or imply that they hold a medical qualification or a PhD. If the title is used, the veterinary surgeon should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'.
The guidance is available as part of supporting guidance chapter 23 to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, and can be read online at www.rcvs.org.uk/advertising (see paragraphs 23.6-23.8).
Veterinary surgeons may start using the title straight away; details about how their RCVS Register entry can be updated will be issued over the coming months.
The RCVS has announced that it has accepted the resignation of council member Bob Partridge.
Bob, who had been an elected member of the RCVS Council since July 2006, tendered his resignation for personal reasons.
Peter Robinson will take up the vacated Council position, as he came next in the ballot in the 2013 election.
The 1CPD homepage now displays two progress bars: one to track the number of CPD hours currently achieved and recorded, and another to show how many hours have been reflected on.
Once the number of required CPD hours has been recorded and reflected on, a message appears to tell the user that they're CPD compliant.
This change will not affect existing CPD records, and all previously inputted activities and reflections will remain in the system.
Jenny Soreskog-Turp, RCVS Lead for Postgraduate Education, said: “We hope that the changes to the 1CPD platform will allow people to track their CPD more easily.
"A key element in outcomes-focused CPD includes reflecting on what you have learned as this is known to have a positive impact on both personal professionalism and patient-health outcomes.
“It should be noted that any CPD you have already undertaken for this year but have not yet reflected on will still remain in the system.
"However, in order to be compliant for 2023, you must reflect on every CPD activity completed.
"If you have completed your hours but have not reflected, this will show as non-compliant.
"In order to make those hours count, you simply need to go back and add your reflections.
"This doesn’t have to be a long and onerous task – uploading audio notes, adding an attachment, or writing a few notes stating what you learnt and how you will use this newly acquired knowledge moving forward will all suffice.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd
Andreea Maria Bacaintan was convicted by the Bucharest Court of Law in October 2017 of bribing a professor during her final year at university in order to pass an examination, a charge to which she had pleaded guilty.
Miss Bacaintan was fined and sentenced to a period of one year and four months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with requirements for supervision and unpaid community service work. The case against Miss Bacaintan was that this conviction renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
However, the Committee also heard and accepted that Miss Bacaintan had been the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by members of staff at the University to extort money from students before they would let them pass the exam.
At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted the facts as contained in the charge and that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery. However, notwithstanding Miss Bacaintan’s acceptance that she was unfit, the issue of whether or not she was fit to practice remained one for the Committee’s judgement.
The Committee considered whether or not Miss Bacaintan’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. In coming to its decision, the Committee took into account the submissions it had heard from Nicole Curtis, acting for the College, and from Miss Bacaintan, who represented herself.
Ms Curtis submitted that the nature and circumstances of the offence, which involved an element of dishonesty and which led to the conviction, were such as to render Miss Bacaintan unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK. Miss Bacaintan’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession, as it undermined the examination system.
The Committee also considered the mitigating factors associated with the conviction, namely that this was a single, isolated incident and that Miss Bacaintan was clearly the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by staff at the University.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Surgeon.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Miss Bacaintan. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials submitted on her behalf. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan understood the magnitude of what she had done and was highly unlikely to repeat her dishonest behaviour.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Ian Green said: "This was a truly exceptional case where, whilst she had been dishonest, which the Committee in no way condoned, she had felt compelled to act in this way. The Committee was persuaded that Miss Bacaintan had herself been the victim of a corrupt system and had acted out of desperation in the final stages of her degree and with the genuine fear that if she did not “play the game” she would not graduate, thereby throwing away six years of hard work.
"It was notable that she did not succumb to the corrupt scheme until the third time of trying to pass this exam. It was clear from the evidence that she was not alone in paying up to try and pass this exam and that at least 30 and possibly many more students had done the same thing."
In such circumstances and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Miss Bacaintan and to warn her about her future conduct.
Based on the reported facts, what I'd like to know is why the DC even reprimanded a veterinary surgeon who was clearly being extorted herself, and what action was taken against the University staff?
Discuss here.
The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
An online quiz by the RCVS has shown that veterinary surgeons generally have good understanding of the Guide to Professional Conduct, but that misconceptions about the role of the college are rife.
Around 850 people completed the quiz since it was launched in November 2009, with veterinary surgeons accounting for 70% of those that took part. The average score was 20 out of 25
Despite the high average score, there were several questions which a very significant number of people got wrong. The worst related to the role of the RCVS: 76% of people wrongly thought that the College's remit included negligence, whilst 66% believed that the RCVS could not consider criminal convictions (it can).
Nearly half of those taking part were not aware that the standard of proof to which the RCVS Disciplinary Committee must be satisfied is 'so as to be sure' - the same as for a criminal court.
Other questions poorly answered related to 24-hour cover, delegation to paraprofessionals, consent and ownership of records. The RCVS Communications Board will consider how to improve communications in these areas.
In terms of age, the highest scoring age-band was 51-60, achieving an average of 20.5 right answers; the lowest was '30 or under', at 18.7. However, this is not backed up by distribution of complaints to the RCVS, where only 27% of complaints relate to those who have less than ten years' post-qualification experience, although this group makes up 43% of registrations.
The results indicate that there is no significant difference between the genders in terms of Guide knowledge, at 19.54 right answers for men and 19.46 for women. Meanwhile, only 34% of complaints to the RCVS are made about women, while they account for 51% of the Register. However, as women tend to dominate the younger end of the profession, this statistic may be linked to the fact that a greater percentage of complaints relate to older individuals, more likely to be men.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Head of Communications said: "We hoped the quiz would offer a light-hearted way for vets - and others - to review their knowledge of the Guide, which can be a dry read, and have been pleased with the response.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a veterinary surgeon said to have been dishonest in claims made against insurance following a dog's veterinary treatment.
At the end of the four-day hearing, the Committee found Sheena Brimelow, formerly employed by Kinver Veterinary Practice in Kinver, Stourbridge, not guilty of charges relating to seven insurance claims submitted between 1 January 2008 and 1 October 2009. These related to her parent's dog, a Cairn terrier, which she had treated at her then employer's practice. Ms Brimelow admitted that she had submitted invoices with her claims showing the retail prices for several items, when she had paid the practice only the cost prices. She said that she had deleted records from the practice computer showing the retail prices so that the ingoings and outgoings in the practice finances were accurate.
The Committee considered whether Ms Brimelow had either behaved dishonestly or, in the alternative, ought to have known not to have included the sums she did in the insurance claims forms. The Committee found that Ms Brimelow was an honest and reliable witness. She had explained openly what she had done, entirely consistently, from the first time the allegations had been put to her by the practice owner. It noted that an insurance company representative also considered her actions to be "a genuine misunderstanding," although subsequently a complaint was made by the insurance company to the College about Ms Brimelow's actions. The Committee found there were no clear guidelines in the practice as to how staff insurance claims should be handled. It also felt that, as a result of the insurer's communications failures, it was not difficult to believe that Ms Brimelow was unaware of how claims concerning the insured pets of veterinary practice staff members were expected to be handled.
From the evidence presented in the hearing, the Committee calculated that Ms Brimelow had benefited by only £90.50. The Committee noted that she had offered to repay any monies to her employer or the insurer, and that the insurer's loss adjusters had thought this was a matter for Ms Brimelow and her employer. The College had also referred the matter to the police, who said it was not in the public interest to proceed with the matter, a decision they based on the low value of the loss and Ms Brimelow's offer to pay back the money.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee notes the reasons given by the police for undertaking no criminal investigation in this case, and agrees with that analysis. The Committee must apply the same standard of proof as would have been applied in a criminal case. In all the circumstances, the Committee is far short of being satisfied so that it is sure that Ms Brimelow acted dishonestly in this case."
"The Committee considers that [Ms Brimelow] was naïve and misguided in handling the insurance claims in the way that she did," he continued. "However, the Committee considers there was a lack of proper guidance within the practice as to how staff insurance claims should be handled. In these circumstances the Committee is not sure that the College has proved that the Respondent ought to have known that she should not have included sums on the claims form, which did not represent the costs that she had incurred."
Both elements of the charge were accordingly dismissed.
Lizzie joined the College as Head of Communications in February 2005, in which role she oversaw the launch of the Practice Standards Scheme in 2006, an overhaul of the College’s design and branding in 2011 and the joint British Veterinary Association Vet Futures project in 2014. More recently, she has been the driving force behind the Mind Matters mental health initiative.
Lizzie was appointed as Director of Strategic Communications in November 2015 and Deputy CEO in September 2016. She became Acting CEO when Nick Stace left the position of CEO at the end of September 2017.
The College advertised the position in the Sunday Times online for four weeks, and used a recruitment agency called Saxton Bampfylde. In all, 60 candidates applied.
RCVS President Professor Stephen May said: "This was a very rigorous recruitment process with a very strong field of candidates and so it is a testament to Lizzie’s abilities and achievements that she saw off all the opposition.
"For some time Lizzie has been involved in setting the direction of the College through the Strategic Plan and the initiatives and projects that she has managed, which really have had a very tangible impact on the profession.
"For example, the Vet Futures project has encouraged the profession to think more strategically about the issues that are facing it and how to achieve constructive solutions, while the Mind Matters Initiative has helped get veterinary mental health further up the agenda and reduced the stigma that many feel about it.
"Her drive and her passion has really pushed these projects forward and I believe she will bring this to the role of CEO.”
Lizzie said: "I am delighted and feel honoured to have been chosen to take the College forward into its next stage of development. I see the Council’s choice of an internal candidate, able to maintain momentum for change and help the College continue on our current strategic path, as an endorsement of the amazing work of the staff at Belgravia House.
"Under Nick Stace’s leadership, the College achieved some really excellent things for the profession, the public, and animal health and welfare, and I look forward to our next exciting chapter."
The consultation is open to veterinary surgeons, nurses, students, and the public.
One of the main - and most controversial - proposals in the consultation, which was unveiled by RCVS President Sue Patterson at BVA Live last week, is that the elected councils would be replaced by an independent merit-and-skills appointment-based system.
Sue discussed the main benefits of an appointment-based system at BVA Live:
Other proposed changes include:
The good governance proposals are part of the College’s overall legislative reform agenda in which it is seeking to replace the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act with new and more modern, flexible and forward-looking legislation, which would expand the regulatory remit of the College to encompass veterinary practice premises and paraprofessionals, while empowering veterinary nurses and creating a new fitness to practise system.
Sue said: “The current governance structure of the RCVS is set by the VSA and updating our governance systems is a vital prerequisite to getting new primary legislation, as the outdated and out-of-step nature of our current arrangements will be clear to see.
“Governance may not be the most exciting topic, but it is the foundation on which all other aspects of the College’s work rests.
"As a professional regulator with animal health and welfare at our heart, the RCVS has a duty to ensure that our arrangements best serve the public on whose behalf we are entrusted to regulate and uphold veterinary standards, while still maintaining veterinary input in all our decision-making processes.
“We believe these good governance proposals help us meet this mission, ensuring that we are bringing our governance in line with regulatory norms, while still recognising our unique role as a dual regulator and royal college.
"The proposals would also help us get the best talent with the right skillsets and experience to serve on RCVS Council, VN Council and our committees, drawing on both laypeople and the broad sweep of the veterinary professions.
“We acknowledge that there has been some disquiet over the fact that, under these proposals, we would no longer be holding the annual elections to either RCVS Council or VN Council.
"However, we believe that an independent, fair and skills-based appointment process would be a superior way of selecting the membership of RCVS Council and VN Council than the elections which, unfortunately, the vast majority of the veterinary professions do not currently engage in, and which risk creating the impression that the RCVS is some sort of representative organisation.
“We look forward to hearing the considered views of the professions and public regarding our good governance proposals and will carefully review the feedback we receive.”
Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, current Chair of VN Council, added: “In many ways VN Council is ahead of the curve in terms of governance reform with a smaller number of members and two independently-appointed veterinary nurse members – of which I am one – as well as appointed lay members.
“I can personally vouch for the robust nature of the application and independent appointment process for VN Council and how it took into account what I had to offer to the role in terms of my skills, my knowledge and my experience.
“I would like to thank my fellow members of VN Council, including my elected peers, for their positive engagement with the good governance proposals and their recognition that these reforms aren’t about reducing scrutiny of the College or the amount of challenge to its decisions, but about improving outcomes for the public, their animals and the professions at large.”
The good governance recommendations have been drawn up on the basis of the Law Commission’s 2014 Report ‘Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals’, the recommendations from which were adopted by the UK government as being the ‘regulatory norm’.
The College says any future appointment processes for RCVS Council and VN Council would also be based on the Professional Standards Authority’s appointment principles of merit, fairness, transparency and openness and having a process that inspires confidence.
The deadline for completing the consultation is Monday 22 July 2024.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/ensuring-good-governance/
The College will also be presenting the proposals at a Zoom webinar called being chaired by Sue between 7pm and 8pm tomorrow evening, Tuesday 11 June 2024: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ensuring-good-governance-tickets-920243973497
The Daily Mail yesterday published a 'shocking exposé' which portrays the veterinary profession as one that 'puts pets through painful and unnecessary treatments to fleece their trusting owners'.
The story is based on an interview with ex-vet Matthew Watkinson to promote his new book: 'On The Destiny Of Species'.
In the interview, Mr Watkinson claims the veterinary profession is to blame for much of the animal suffering in the UK, and that 'money - not the welfare of the animal - is often at the forefront of the vet's mind'.
In the interview, Mr Watkinson
The RCVS issued a swift response, which you can read here.
Later in the day, Mr Watkinson appeared on Radio 5 Live opposite ex BVA President, Nicky Paull. The interview can be heard for the next 6 days on BBC iplayer here.
It is not yet clear the degree to which the Daily Mail might have sensationalised Mr Watkinson's interview. In his blog, he claims it did, but defiantly defends his main argument that the profession is fighting natural selection, and thereby harming animal welfare.
Seems to me that some aspects of Mr Watkinson's argument are perhaps worthy of debate, but they've been obscured by the glare of the critical headline, and the Daily Mail's predictable preoccupation with the sensational but unrepresentative. So I'm delighted to see that whilst writing this story, Mr Watkinson has joined us in the VetSurgeon forums to put forward his case.
Brave man.
In a letter to Danny, RCVS President Christopher Tufnell wrote:
"As the regulator of the veterinary profession, we place an emphasis on the importance of evidence-based veterinary medicine. We therefore recommend that there should be a cautious approach to homeopathy for animals and that normal evidential standards should be applied to complementary treatments."
Danny said: "A cautious approach? What, like this claim by the BAHVS that homeopathy cures cancer?. Or would you say that this claim on national TV represents a cautious approach?
"Talking about homeopathy and normal evidential standards in the same breath is oxymoronic. If you apply normal evidential standards to homeopathy, it is completely ineffective and should not therefore be used in animals."
Mr Tufnell wrote: "We believe it is also essential that such treatments, until they can be proved, are complementary rather than 'alternative' and that they are therefore used alongside conventional treatment."
Danny said: "This argument makes sense whilst evidence-gathering for new treatment modalities. Homeopathy, however, has been with us since 1796. In that time, there has been no good evidence that homeopathy is effective for any condition. Against that, we now have the benefit of an increasing body of meta analyses that show it isn’t. How much more evidence does the RCVS require?"
Mr Tufnell wrote: "Whatever views there may be within the veterinary profession, it is clear that there is a demand from some clients for complementary therapies for their animals."
Danny said: "That may be true, but client demand is not an argument for prescribing medicines shown not to work. Nor should ill-informed client demand trump animal welfare"
Mr Tufnell added: "It is better that they [clients] should seek advice from a veterinary surgeon - who is qualified to make a diagnosis, and can be held to account for the treatment given - rather than turning to a practitioner who does not have veterinary training."
Danny said: "It makes no difference to the animal's suffering whether effective treatment is withheld by a layperson or a qualified vet. At what point do we trust the clinical judgement of vets who subscribe to this magical thinking? In the case of hyperthyroidism in a cat, at what point do we trust them to start giving proper treatment? Maybe when the T4 levels reach a certain number? Or when renal failure kicks in? Or when the cat loses a certain percentage of its body weight?"
Finally, Mr Tufnell wrote: "homeopathy is currently accepted by society and recognised by UK medicines legislation and does not, in itself, cause harm to animals."
Danny said: "I'm not sure how it is possible to claim homeopathy is 'accepted by society'. What constitutes 'societal acceptance'? The NHS says that: 'The ideas that underpin homeopathy are not accepted by mainstream science, and are not consistent with long-accepted principles on the way that the physical world works'; the Australian Government says: 'Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious.' Clearly homeopathy is far from being accepted by society.
"Even if it was, the argument that we should prescribe medicines because they are 'societally accepted' is no different to the argument that we should do so because there is 'consumer demand.' Both are plainly wrong. Presumably the RCVS wouldn't approve of veterinary surgeons prescribing antibiotics just because there is 'consumer demand', or because they are 'societally accepted'.
As to the veterinary medicines regulations, homeopathic remedies were ‘grandfathered’ and have not had to prove efficacy to become authorised. So their recognition by UK medicines legislation is meaningless.
"Lastly, homeopathy does, in itself, cause harm to animals when given ahead of, or in place of proven treatments."
At the same time as Danny was running his petition for banning homeopathy, the Campaign For Rational Veterinary Medicine has been running a petition which instead asks that the RCVS takes steps to allow animal owners to make a more informed decision, thereby limiting the harm that homeopathy causes animals.
This petition, which is for the veterinary profession only, has so far gathered over 400 signatures, and the campaign organisers are now inviting anyone who signed the petition to ban homeopathy to consider signing this one as a pragmatic alternative.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has this week directed that the name of a Grimsby veterinary surgeon should be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct for advising and undertaking surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or considering alternative treatment options; failing to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaking procedures outside his area of competence; failing to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failing to provide his patients with adequate pain relief.
Mr Joseph Lennox Holmes, of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby, faced nine charges relating to two separate complaints, at a two-week hearing in October which resumed this week.
These complaints concerned four consecutive staphylectomies and a tracheostomy that Mr Holmes performed on Jake, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel owned by Ms Marsden; the dental treatment he gave to three Persian cats called Dream Topping, Charlie Brown and Henry, together with the advice he gave to their owner, Mrs Auckland.
On 25 October 2007, Mr Holmes performed a staphylectomy on Jake during dental surgery. He gave the Committee various reasons why he thought the procedure was necessary; however, the Committee accepted the opinion of two expert witnesses Professor Dan Brockman, a specialist in soft tissue surgery at the Royal Veterinary College, and Mr Andrew Ash, the senior veterinary surgeon at a 17-vet small animal practice, that there were insufficient clinical grounds for such a surgical procedure to be undertaken. The Committee also found Mr Holmes had not adequately considered other treatments, or obtained fully informed consent from Jake's owner for this procedure.
Mr Holmes performed further staphylectomies and a tracheostomy on Jake, a procedure described by Professor Brockman as "by definition, high risk and best performed by a specialist". He did not consider referral, or inform Mrs Marsden that such referral was an option. Nor did he provide sufficient aftercare or pain relief. Following these surgeries, Jake was euthanased .
In the second complaint, Mr Holmes performed dental extractions on two cats, Dream Topping and Henry, and advised removing teeth from a third, Charlie Brown, in October 2008. The Committee, however, accepted the view of expert witness Mr Ash and Dr David Crossley, RCVS Recognised Specialist in Veterinary Dentistry, that the dental extractions performed, and the advice given, were not justified on the available clinical evidence. The Committee also found that Mr Holmes did not discuss alternative treatment options with Mrs Auckland, or obtain her informed consent. In the case of Dream Topping, consent was sought after the cat had been sedated for an unrelated procedure and Mrs Auckland had felt under pressure to consent.
Mr Holmes had also relied on anaesthesia-inducing drugs to provide analgesia for the dental extractions, without any other form of pain relief. The Committee agreed with the expert witnesses that this was wholly inadequate.
The Committee found many aggravating factors in both cases, including actual injury to animals from unnecessary surgery, and a serious breach of the trust in which Mr Holmes' clients had placed in him to make the welfare of their animals his primary consideration. His repeated misconduct had been sustained over a period of time in the face of a previous adverse finding of the Committee in 2006.
It also found that Mr Holmes failed to appreciate when a case was outwith his experience, and had continued his course of action despite Jake's deterioration; he had not considered referral or accepted that others in the profession might know more than he did; in formulating clinical practice and policies, he made no reference to peer-reviewed literature or continued professional development; and, his use of outmoded drugs and medicines intended for human use was of concern, as was his lack of appreciation of the need for adequate pain relief when performing painful surgical procedures.
Towards the end of the hearing, Mr Holmes said in mitigation that he regretted unreservedly any adverse effects that his treatment had had on the animals concerned, and that he now realised that his long history of working alone had allowed him to become professionally isolated, to become over-confident in the value of his own experience and rather "set in his ways".
Having given serious consideration to postponing judgment, subject to undertakings from Mr Holmes, Disciplinary Committee Chairman Mrs Caroline Freedman said: "We are mindful that the sanction which we apply must be proportionate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found proved and must balance the public interests against the interests of the Respondent.
"We are, however, also mindful of Mr Holmes' conduct during the previous 11½ days of the hearing, during which time his every action was vigorously defended and no insight whatsoever was shown."
The Committee also considered suspending Mr Holmes from the Register. "In view of the serious and long-term nature of the conduct found proved in the charges, we do not feel that it is appropriate that Mr Holmes should be permitted to return to the Register without further assessment of his efforts to update his knowledge," said Mrs Freedman, before concluding: "The only appropriate sanction in each case is that the Registrar be directed to remove Mr Holmes' name from the Register."
Mr Chaney was charged with stealing Trazadone and Metacam from the Hampstead practice he worked at, and of unlawfully possessing Trazadone and Metacam. He was also charged with unlawfully administering Butorphanol to a dog and failing to record the administration of the drug in the dogs records. He was also charged with making and deleting false entries into the clinical records of his own dog to the effect that it had been seen by a vet at the practice and that Metacam had been prescribed. The final charge was that his conduct over the false records was dishonest and misleading.
The Committee heard that Mr Chaney’s conduct in relation to the first two charges was discovered when, in July 2018, the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), accompanied by police officers, executed a warrant (for unrelated matters) on the property where he lived. During the course of the search, police officers found Metacam and Trazadone in Mr Chaney’s bedroom which did not seem to have a prescription and so Defra officers launched an investigation.
During the course of this investigation, a Defra investigator was also provided with a video and messages that indicated Mr Chaney had unlawfully administered Butorphanol to a Husky dog in frustration with the animal as it was being too noisy.
The Committee heard that, in November 2018, Mr Chaney accepted a police caution in relation to his possession of Trazadone and Metacam, and the unlawful administration of Butorphanol. The Committee also heard that following the police attending his property and finding the medicines, Mr Chaney went on to create false records at the practice in relation to the examination of his dog in order to justify his unlawful possession of the drugs.
The Committee found all the charges against Mr Chaney proven.
The Committee then went on to consider if the charges, taken both individually and in totality, amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee had no doubt that administering a sedative to an animal that required prescription by a veterinary surgeon and then failing to record it in the clinical record with the resultant risk to the animal’s welfare due to lack of knowledge of the administration fell far below the expected standard.
"The Committee also considered that possession of prescription only medicines by a registered veterinary nurse, without the sanction of law, having stolen the same from a practice also fell far below the expected standard.
“The Committee also considered that tampering with the clinical record for a dog, in order to create a misleading impression and in doing so dishonestly, was conduct which fell far below the expected standard.
“Taken as a whole, the Committee considered that Mr Chaney’s conduct had fallen far below the expected standard.”
The Committee therefore found him guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity in relation to all seven charges.
It next went on to consider what sanction, if any, to impose taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors.
In considering the aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that Mr Chaney’s conduct had presented a risk of injury to the animal and that much of his conduct was pre-meditated. It also considered that Mr Chaney’s conduct involved a breach of trust to both the practice where he was employed and the owner of the Husky, and it was also an abuse of position in gaining access to and stealing medication. Lastly, because the charges related to two separate incidents, there was a common thread in Mr Chaney disregarding rules on veterinary medicines.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mr Chaney had reflected on and gained some insight into his behaviour, and acknowledged he had made admissions at the outset of the hearing, including apologising for and showing regret about aspects of his conduct.
However, the Committee did not believe he had addressed his understanding of the effect that this conduct had on the risk to animals, the standards of the profession or the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. In mitigation the Committee also considered a number of positive character references and his previous good character.
Judith Way said: “The Committee determined that it would not be sufficient in the circumstances of the case, to satisfy the public interest to suspend the Respondent’s registration. In its view this case involved a serious departure from identified professional standards. The disregard had been deliberate, in relation to ignoring legislation in respect of prescription-only medication and dishonesty in stealing medication.
"There was evidence of attitudinal issues in relation to that behaviour and insufficient evidence of the development of insight. The dishonesty in relation to the clinical record relating to dog O [his own dog] had been an attempt to conceal earlier dishonesty relating to the theft of the medication. In administering the Butorphanol to dog L [the Husky], Mr Chaney had been putting his own interests in quieting the dog ahead of the dog’s interests, which would have required checking with a veterinary surgeon as to appropriate steps.
"The Committee acknowledged that, by directing removal, there would likely be professional reputational damage to Mr Chaney and possible financial loss. However, in the view of the Committee the requirements of the public interest outweighed these factors.”
Accordingly, the Registrar of the RCVS was directed to remove Mr Chaney’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.
Full details can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The RCVS and BVA have expressed their concern about a BBC Newsline report last week of suspected badger baiting in Northern Ireland, which also alleged that veterinary surgeons might be complicit in this illegal activity by not reporting cases of suspiciously injured animals to the relevant authorities.
Bert Allison MRCVS, President of the North of Ireland Veterinary Association, said: "Our Association, and veterinary surgeons across Northern Ireland and Great Britain, are sickened and appalled by these activities. We are grateful to the BBC for highlighting the problem and bringing it to the attention of the public.
"Veterinary surgeons work under a professional code of conduct to uphold animal health and welfare and care deeply about the animals under their care. The claim by USPCA that veterinary surgeons are deliberately failing to report incidents is therefore shocking.
"However, if there is evidence that this has happened the USPCA must provide all relevant information to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons which is the statutory regulator of the veterinary profession.
"Under our professional code all veterinary surgeons must provide treatment to alleviate the suffering of an animal presented to them however the gangs abusing these animals may be obtaining veterinary care by deception. We are contacting our members urgently to offer support and remind them how to report suspected incidents safely and within the law."
The RCVS says it has yet to be presented with any evidence to support the claims, but will investigate any genuine complaint supported by first-hand evidence.
The College is also reminding veterinary surgeons about its guidance concerning breaching client confidentiality where a veterinary surgeon believes that animal welfare or the public interest may be compromised.
If there is suspicion of animal abuse, as a result of examining an animal, a veterinary surgeon should consider whether the circumstances are sufficiently serious to justify breaching the usual obligations of client confidentiality.
In cases where discussing these concerns with the client would not be appropriate, or where the client's reaction increases rather than allays these concerns, the veterinary surgeon should contact the relevant authorities, for example the RSPCA, SSPCA or USPCA, to report alleged cruelty to an animal.
Such action should only be taken when the veterinary surgeon considers on reasonable grounds that the public interest in protecting an animal overrides the professional obligation to maintain client confidentiality.
A veterinary surgeon may contact the RCVS for advice before any confidential information is divulged (020 7202 0789 / profcon@rcvs.org.uk).
Mr Lomax was found guilty of causing death by careless driving at Shrewsbury Crown Court in July 2019 and was subsequently sentenced to a 12-month community order, 300 hours’ unpaid work, 15-months’ driving disqualification and ordered to pay £1,000 in prosecution costs and victim surcharge of £85.
Mr Lomax declared his conviction to the RCVS in April 2020 as part of his declaration upon renewing his registration, following which the RCVS started its concerns investigation process leading to his appearance before the Disciplinary Committee last Monday.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Lomax admitted the charge against him, which was also accepted by the Committee based on its receipt of the certificate of conviction from Shrewsbury Crown Court.
The Committee then considered whether the conviction rendered Mr Lomax unfit to practise. The RCVS submitted that the nature of the conviction and the devastating consequences of Mr Lomax's conduct, which caused the death of a 64-year-old woman, rendered him unfit to practise.
The College also submitted that his conduct would be considered to have fallen far short of the standard expected of a member of the profession, that it had devastating consequences, and that the conviction would have an impact on the reputation of the profession and the public’s confidence in it.
Mr Lomax’s counsel, who represented him during the hearing, submitted that he did not accept his conduct rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, although Mr Lomax did accept that the impact of his conduct was devastating.
Mr Lomax’s counsel submitted that there was a significant difference between his conduct and its consequences, as evidenced by the fact he was charged with careless driving rather than dangerous driving meaning that, though his standard of driving had fallen below that expected of a competent and careful driver, it did not fall far below. Nor was there a suggestion that Mr Lomax had carried out a deliberate act, was carrying out any dangerous manoeuvres or was otherwise impaired.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “There is no doubt that the consequences of Mr Lomax’s conduct were serious and tragic for the [victim’s] family.
"The Judge at the Crown Court referred to their loss in detail and it no doubt played a significant part in the sentence he passed, as reflected by his comments.
"The Committee was cognisant, however, of the different role it had to perform.
"A criminal conviction marks a breach of criminal law, whereas a finding of unfitness marks a breach of professional standards.
"When looking at the conviction, the Committee focused on the actual conduct of Mr Lomax and the concomitant level of culpability, rather than the consequences. Whilst it would be artificial, insensitive and inappropriate to ignore the consequences, the Committee was concerned with the conduct.”
He added: “The Committee did not consider that Mr Lomax’s conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and concluded that the public, in full knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, would not expect a finding that the conviction renders him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
"Rather, the public would recognise that whilst the consequences were appalling for the [victim’s] family, in terms of Mr Lomax’s culpability this was a momentary piece of poor driving rather than anything more blameworthy. At its height it was careless driving for three or so seconds.
"In the Committee’s view Mr Lomax’s careless behaviour fell below, but not far below, the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Allegations were reported both in The Times, and the Veterinary Record.
In its statement, the College said: "We know that the University of Edinburgh takes any such accusations extremely seriously and that its inquiry fully and robustly investigated the claims in 2019. This inquiry found no evidence of misconduct, a decision that was later upheld after an appeal.
The College recognised the massive impact that bullying can have on anyone who has been subject to it and acknowledged that the individual accounts published in the Veterinary Record were upsetting to read. However it also drew attention to the 'huge amount of stress that can be caused by ‘trial by media’, especially when an inquiry has concluded that there were no issues to be found'.
As to the role of the RCVS Junior Vice-President, the College pointed out that this is a matter for RCVS Council, as the postholder is elected by Council.
Professor Argyle will be making a statement to Council at its next meeting on 5th November, after which Councillors will be able to ask any questions they have, and then consider the matter.
Meanwhile, the College has asked the Vet Record whether any of the people who made the anonymous testimonials would like to supply any information directly.
The RCVS announced in a tweet yesterday afternoon that it will be retaining postnominals on the Register.
#RCVScouncil agrees to retain postnominals on Register. Proposals to improve clarity to come back to future meeting. — RCVS (@RCVS_UK) June 5, 2014
#RCVScouncil agrees to retain postnominals on Register. Proposals to improve clarity to come back to future meeting.
VetSurgeon understands that the proposals to improve clarity may yet involve some rationalisation of the postnominals that will be displayed, but that RCVS Certs and Diplomas will remain.
The decision represents something of a victory for Victoria Lilley’s campaign and yet another indication that under the stewardship of Nick Stace, the RCVS really is evolving to become a more open, responsive organisation.
Ms Hill and Wilfred Wong snatched the child from their foster carer when they arrived home from school on Anglesey.
Hill wrestled the child from the car and put them in a waiting vehicle while Wong held a knife to the foster carer’s throat before slashing one of the carer’s car tyres to stop them following.
Having made their escape, they then transferred the child into the hands of two other conspirators who had hired a car to take the child abroad.
The child was rescued four hours later when the hire car was stopped by police on the M1 in Northamptonshire.
A police investigation later concluded that the child had not been the victim of any abuse.
Ms Hill was sentenced at Caernarfon Crown Court to 19 years, 5 months, with a custodial term of 14 years and five months.
Ms Hill did not attend the RCVS disciplinary hearing as she was serving her prison sentence, and she was not represented.
In relation to the charges, the Committee was presented with the sentencing remarks from Ms Hill’s conviction at Mold Crown Court.
The judge said that Ms Hill had led the conspiracy to kidnap, and that it had caused the victim and the people responsible for their care “unspeakable misery and considerable harm”.
The judge also said that Ms Hill posed a significant risk of causing serious harm in the future.
Dr Hazel Bentall, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee took into account a number of aggravating features when considering the sanctions.
"In particular, the Committee considered that the conviction arose as a result of careful planning over several months and involved the use of violence.
"The Committee concluded that there were no mitigating factors apart from that Dr Hill had no previous regulatory history and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was that Dr Hill’s removal from the Register of veterinary surgeons be maintained.”
Dr Hill has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS has announced that its current Treasurer, Dr Bradley Viner, will be the College's next Vice-President after he was elected to the post at RCVS Council last Thursday.
Dr Viner has been an elected member of Council since 2005 and Treasurer since 2010 and will take up his latest position at RCVS Day - the College's Annual General Meeting - on 11 July. He replaces Professor Stuart Reid, who Council confirmed as President for 2014-15, and will take up his new role in July.
During his time on Council Dr Viner has served on all of the major committees with the exception of the Disciplinary Committee. Outside of Council he runs a group of practices in North West London and is Vice-Chairman of Battersea Dogs and Cats Home.
In his manifesto he set out the nature of his Vice-Presidency, stating: "My personal ethos is very much based upon continual improvement. It is only by having the confidence to discuss openly how things could have been done better that an organisation can learn how to improve.
"I also recognise the vital importance of good communications: with Council; the profession at large; Government; and with other interested organisations. I intend to do my utmost to communicate with them as effectively as possible."
At the same meeting of RCVS Council, Colonel Neil Smith, the current President, was confirmed as Vice-President from July, subject to his re-election in this year's RCVS Council elections.
In addition, Chris Tufnell was re-elected as Chairman of the Education Committee, while David Catlow was elected Chairman of Standards Committee, also subject to his re-election in this year's RCVS Council elections.
Mr Doherty was convicted, with others (who were also convicted), in a conspiracy to deceive members of the public by passing off puppies that had been bred in puppy farms as being the home-bred offspring of domestic pets living in family homes.
Mr Doherty’s role was that he provided vaccinations and vaccination/health check cards which, the court found, materially contributed to the impression that the puppies had been home-bred locally and were in good health.
Mr Doherty was initially convicted of this offence, resulting in eight months’ imprisonment in April 2018.
However, he subsequently appealed the conviction, which was quashed and resulted in a retrial.
On retrial, Mr Doherty was convicted and sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, 150 hours community service and a £100 victim surcharge.
When deciding on the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee considered that a period of suspension would be sufficient to meet the public interest.
In reaching this conclusion, the Committee took into account that Mr Doherty had, as part of his original conviction, already served eight months in prison before the original conviction was quashed and replaced, on retrial, with a suspended sentence.
He had therefore already, in effect, had a period of suspension from practice, which meant that the deterrent factor in a sanction of suspension had been partially met.
In reaching its decision, the Committee also took into account the circumstances of this case and, in particular, the view of the court that Mr Doherty had been motivated solely by animal welfare concerns and not financial gain, and that it was this overriding concern that had allowed others to exploit his willingness to continue to vaccinate puppies despite their source.
There were no concerns as to Mr Doherty’s skill or dedication as a veterinary surgeon and with regard to the single issue of the appropriate vaccination of puppies and their onward sale, the Committee noted the changes that Mr Doherty had made to his practice procedures to avoid any similar problems occurring in the future.
The full decision and findings from the hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The RCVS is reminding veterinary surgeons and nurses that there is one week left till the deadline for nominations for the 2012 RCVS and RCVS VN Council elections.
Nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the RCVS on or before 31 January 2012.
Prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, manifesto and photograph for inclusion in the RCVS News Extra election specials.
Nobody may nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may make a nomination.
Full details and guidance notes for both elections are available online from the RCVS Council Election page (www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil12) and VN Council Election page (www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil12).
Nomination forms and candidate information forms for RCVS Council may also be requested from Mrs Gabriella Braun (020 7202 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk) and those for VN Council from Mrs Annette Amato (020 7202 0713 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).
Six seats on RCVS Council and two on VN Council are due to be filled in the 2012 elections.
Those elected will take their seats on RCVS Day in July, to serve four-year terms, and will be expected to spend at least six to eight days a year attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees (a loss-of-earnings allowance is available).
RCVS President, Dr Jerry Davies, has committed to prioritise the establishment of a new Audit and Risk Committee, following publication of the recommendations of a report into two overspends at the College.
Earlier this year, outgoing President Peter Jinman had announced that a review would be carried out into the circumstances that led to higher-than-expected expenditure on the College's new database and building development works in the Lower Ground Floor at Belgravia House.
The RCVS Officer team asked Professor Bill McKelvey - a member of the College's Governance Review Group - and two of the College's Privy Council-appointed Council members to look at all aspects that related to its budgeting and expenditure process of those projects, and propose lessons that should be learned.
Dr Davies said: "That such a review was required is regretted, but I would like to thank Professor McKelvey, Richard Davis and Judith Webb for their diligence in this work. Their recommendations will be a very helpful addition to the work that is currently underway to ensure corporate governance is fit for purpose and, in particular, that the management of capital projects within the College is optimised."
The full Overspend Report (one sentence was redacted on legal advice) was considered by Council at its meeting on 3 November. Council agreed that the recommendations should be made public. The College is currently seeking further legal advice on whether it is proper for the report to be made available under the Freedom of Information Act.
Dr Davies added: "The recommendations of the report are under consideration by a group of five past Presidents, together with Richard Davis and Judith Webb as lay members of Council, under the Chairmanship of Peter Jinman, and their proposals will be considered by Council in due course.
"The recommendation that an Audit and Risk Committee be set up will be prioritised, as this was highlighted as an imperative. Other related activities, such as the development of a protocol for the management of major projects, had already been put in place by Officers prior to the overspend review."
Regarding the two projects at the heart of the report, the College says building work in the Lower Ground Floor at Belgravia House has been complete for some time and the new rooms and their facilities are being used, particularly when Disciplinary Committee hearings render much of the rest of the building out of bounds. The new data management system is also in use and an external consultant is currently looking at the work that has been carried out so far, and will make recommendations for the future.
"Meanwhile, although there are many lessons to be learned from the report, it's business as usual in terms of bringing to a conclusion many of our important ongoing initiatives, such as the introduction of the new Code of Professional Conduct, the consultations on the recommendations of the Specialisation Working Party and a draft Performance Protocol, and, of course, the ongoing work of the Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees," said Dr Davies.
The recommendations of the report, which were adopted by Council, can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/McKelvey.
The protesters, which VetSurgeon.org understands comprise six veterinary surgeons and 30-40 pet owners, started their march in Parliament Square and are now bearing down on the RCVS Headquarters in Horseferry Road.
The campaigners are, we are told, protesting against the RCVS position statement on complementary and homeopathic veterinary medicines.
No word yet on how the College proposes to defend itself from the hoard; certainly no sign of any cauldrons of boiling oil atop the battlements, nor any riot police yet in evidence.
More news as it happens. VetSurgeon.org has a photographer on the ground ...UPDATES
1:00pm: The protesters have arrived at Belgravia House. A couple of protesters are armed with umbrellas, presumably to guard against the ever-present risk of overdose. It's getting messy: we're hearing that they've blocked the pavement. Wait up. Someone has emerged from the College to speak with them. Well hello, Mr President.
1:01pm: We were hoping that some of the protesters might, I dunno, handcuff themselves to Belgravia House or something. But after a tense standoff lasting over 36 seconds, it looks like the protest is petering out already. Apparently they've started dispersing to the park opposite.
1:02pm: Yup, they've all gone off to the park now. This may go down as one of the shortest protests in history.
1:16pm: Word has it they've headed off to the White Horse and Bower.More photos of this momentous occasion to follow ...
1. The seasoned campaigner is always careful to choose any banner that appears over their head with great care.
2. It was a beautiful march. A big march. The bigliest. Haven't seen that many people on the street since Donald Trump's inauguration.
3. The RCVS headquarters under siege.
4. Millie the dog (perhaps better called 'Millie the anecdote') illustrates the flawed thinking behind homeopathy.
5. Nobody told this campaigner than homeopathy wasn't banned in the first place. You can get it from any tap.
6. RCVS President, Professor Stephen May, presumably wishing he'd taken the day off work.
7. It took some hours moments before the crowd dispersed fully and life in London was able to return to normal.
3.43pm: The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has issued a statement following the march, which says:
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons today met a delegation of around 40 animal owners and veterinary surgeons who wished to voice their concern about a recent position statement by RCVS Council on the use of complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathy.
President Stephen May and CEO Lizzie Lockett received a copy of an online petition that was set up following the statement, which has since received around 15,000 signatures, including around 11,000 from supporters in the UK.
Stephen and Lizzie also took time to hear accounts and stories from the supporters, and to listen to the points they wished to raise.
In view of the cold, wet weather, the College had laid on some hot drinks for all the visitors, and invited the delegation inside, but these were declined.
Stephen said: "We were pleased to be able to meet our visitors today and to receive their petition, although it was a little tricky trying to answer questions on a busy London pavement!
"We continue to recognise that homeopathy and other complementary therapies are popular amongst some animal owners and certain members of the veterinary profession, as indicated by today’s delegation, but it is worth reiterating that the RCVS Council statement does not ban their use.
"What it does state, is that in order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary, rather than alternative, to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based on sound scientific principles.
"This is similar to the position that we have held on complementary therapies for many years, but we will always be happy to receive and consider scientific evidence that demonstrates their efficacy."
I wouldn't hold your breath.
All photographs ©2017 Under licence to London News Pictures Ltd. +44 208 088 1155