View all veterinary jobs
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
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 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
Nick Stace, CEO of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), has issued a swift and robust response to the call by Unite for a shake up for the profession's regulatory system.
"Unite's suggestion that veterinary regulation should be under the scrutiny of the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) is misguided, because the PSA is there to oversee regulation in the human healthcare sector and the RCVS already has Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Privy Council oversight.
"Its further thoughts around the RCVS disciplinary process are out of date and missing the point. We would be very happy to help put them right and to hear any legitimate concerns they may have.
"Unite is calling for the College to no longer 'set the rules and hand down judgments', when in fact last year we successfully achieved a Legislative Reform Order, backed by the profession, to ensure that our Disciplinary and Preliminary Investigation Committees will become independent from Council.
"Unite also talks about the profession's disquiet about last year's Disciplinary Hearing into Mr Chikosi, something we are well aware of and are currently responding to by looking at the biggest area of concern, the provision of 24/7 emergency cover. Our fact-finding mission is seeking views from the profession and the public.
"More broadly, though, feedback from our First Rate Regulator initiative has shown that the profession does have confidence in our disciplinary procedures and that they are certainly not subject to 'long-standing discontent'.
"The First Rate Regulator initiative is also leading to significant improvements in the way that complaints are handled, including speed to resolution.
"Unite is seeking to recruit members of the veterinary team as members of its union and it may be more successful in that pursuit if it was to start to understand the profession better, perhaps beginning with getting its facts right.
"We would be delighted to meet with Unite to put them right where they are factually wrong, and hear what they have to say."
The programme, which will look at the achievements and contributions of people of African and Afro-Caribbean descent, will see Dr Greene being interviewed by presenter Alex Beresford alongside a number of other prominent black Britons including athlete and broadcaster Colin Jackson, publisher and author Margaret Busby, Mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees, and nurse and academic Dame Elizabeth Anionwu.
Mandisa said: “I am immensely honoured to be the first Black President of the RCVS and to use this opportunity to speak to the black community, and indeed all communities, about my love of veterinary science and the importance of the work we do in safeguarding animal health and welfare and wider public health.
"I am a great believer in the phrase ‘if you see it, you can be it’ and I hope that my various talks this month and, particularly the upcoming ITV documentary, will help people recognise that veterinary professionals can come from a diverse range of backgrounds and that, provided they have the drive and the ambition, there should be no barriers to them meeting their dreams."
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against Duncan Davidson MRCVS, a South London veterinary surgeon accused of clinical failings in relation to his treatment of a cat and of keeping poor and misleading clinical records.
The Committee heard the case against Dr Davidson, who was the sole practitioner and owner of Mitcham Veterinary Clinic until his retirement from clinical practice in November 2014, at a hearing which concluded on 22nd January.
The first charge against Dr Davidson alleged that, between 7 November 2013 and 13 December 2013, he had failed to provide adequate care to Ameira, an Egyptian Mau cat. The charge was in four parts: that he had inappropriately administered corticosteroids; had failed to administer adequate fluid therapy; discharged the cat to its owner suggesting a referral when he should have suggested or arranged a same-day referral; and that he failed to communicate the urgency of referral/ further investigation of the cat’s condition to her owner.
The second charge was that, between 7 November 2013 and 17 January 2014, he dishonestly made retrospective alterations to Ameira’s clinical records and failed to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical records.
From the outset Dr Davidson, who attended the hearing, did not admit the charges against him and denied that his conduct, if found proven, constituted serious professional misconduct.
A summary of the circumstances of the case were that the cat had been admitted to Dr Davidson’s practice on 8 November 2013 with poor appetite and a piece of thread in its mouth. The cat was later admitted, on 21 November, with dehydration and was diagnosed with a linear foreign body (ie the thread) on 25 November 2013. Dr Davidson continued to treat Ameira with corticosteroids and rehydration fluids at the practice but a second opinion was sought by Ameira’s owner from a nearby veterinary practice. This practice referred the cat to the Royal Veterinary College for treatment. Surgery to remove the linear foreign body was undertaken on 13 December 2013, albeit with a poor prognosis, and Ameira subsequently suffered two cardiac arrests and died on 14 December 2013.
In terms of its findings on the first charge, the Committee heard from an expert witness, Mr Hurst, regarding the use of the corticosteroids which were administered to the cat by Dr Davidson on 22, 27 and 30 November 2013 and 5 and 12 December 2013. Although Mr Hurst said that a minority of veterinary surgeons may have provided corticosteroids when the cat was first presented to Dr Davidson on 8 November; when it was determined by Dr Davidson’s colleague Mr Holden that the cat’s condition was due to it having ingested thread, the use of corticosteroids was inappropriate from then on and would be considered contra-indicated. The Committee found this charge proven.
The Committee did not find the charge against Dr Davidson that he failed to provide adequate fluid therapy proven. When the cat was presented to the practice on 21 November 2013 suffering from dehydration, fluid rehydration was given but not administered intravenously. The Committee concluded that intravenous hydration was not necessary because the clinical records from both Dr Davidson and the Royal Veterinary College indicated that Ameira was only moderately dehydrated.
Regarding the referral of Ameira, the Committee could not be sure that the cat was sufficiently unwell on 23 November that it required immediate referral. Dr Davidson had sent Ameira home with her owner on that date on the basis that she was stable and that he would arrange a referral for her on 25 November. There was conflicting evidence from Dr Davidson and Ameira’s owner on the matter of whether, on 23 November, Ameira’s owner was advised that the cat’s condition was critical or that a referral was urgently required. Dr Davidson accepted that he did not seek to make an urgent referral. The charge was not proven.
Regarding the communication of the urgency for further investigation of Ameira’s condition, the Committee found that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that Dr Davidson did not adequately communicate with Ameira’s owner after the diagnosis of a linear foreign body was made on 25 November. According to Dr Davidson, he explained the risk of further damage to the oesophageal and gastrointestinal tract and offered further radiography. This was strongly contested by Ameira’s owner. However, ultimately the Committee were unable to be satisfied as to which version was correct to the necessary standard of proof required.
Regarding the retrospective amendment of clinical records, the Committee found that although there were some “troubling aspects” about the case, particularly evidence of a telephone call with the RCVS Professional Conduct Department in which Dr Davidson said that no retrospective alterations had been made, it was unable to be satisfied so as to be sure of his motivation for changing the records. His contention was that changes had been made as he was concerned he would be subject to civil litigation by Ameira’s owner. However, the Committee found the charge not proven, also taking into account Dr Davidson’s good character and unblemished professional record over 40 years.
However, the Committee did find that Dr Davidson’s clinical records were illegible. Dr Davidson recognised the poor quality of his handwriting, which the veterinary surgeons to whom Ameira was referred were unable to understand. The Committee found this charge proven.
Taking into account the charges it found proven, the Committee then considered whether they constituted serious professional conduct either individually or cumulatively. Judith Webb, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "It does not consider that on the facts of this case the administration of corticosteroids amounted to disgraceful misconduct."
She added: "The Committee has already emphasised the importance of making legible handwritten records but it does not consider that the failure to do so in this case amounts to disgraceful misconduct.... The Committee has found that Dr Davidson was wrong to make retrospective entries in this case without making it clear when such alterations were made. The Committee does not consider that in this case the making of those alterations was capable of being disgraceful misconduct. The case is dismissed."
Morally injurious events are defined as experiences which violate one's moral or ethical code.
The research will consider the types of moral injuries veterinary professionals might encounter, their prevalence, the perceptions amongst professionals around how these moral injuries come about, and what support is needed when they occur.
The project is being led by psychologists Professor Neil Greenberg, Dr Dominic Murphy and Dr Victoria Williamson.
The research revolves around an online questionnaire which the researchers say should take no more than 20 minutes to complete: https://tinyurl.com/y7ue5ezw
Victoria said: “If you have experienced an upsetting event in your veterinary role, it would be really helpful if you could fill in our questionnaire which is anonymous and confidential. As part of this study, we are particularly interested in hearing about experiences that may have caused you to question the kind of person you are, or the kind of world we live in. These are things that you feel you may have done or failed to do, or things that others did or failed to do.
"We hope our results will help us to find better ways of meeting the needs of veterinarians in future so we would encourage veterinary professionals to also circulate this study to colleagues. Some participants may be invited to take part in a follow-up telephone interview; however, we would like to assure you this element of the project is completely voluntary.”
The survey will be followed by 1 hour telephone interviews with those who have indicated they are happy to be interviewed about their thoughts, feelings and beliefs since their challenging experience and how the event may have affected them.
The results of the study will be published in scientific journals and summaries will be made available for the relevant stakeholders with the aim of informing future research studies to support veterinary wellbeing, as well as clinical practice and policy.
Those who wish to find out more about the study before completing the survey can contact Victoria at: victoria.williamson@kcl.ac.uk
Mrs Grecko faced two charges.
The first was that she got a nurse colleague to order griseofulvin, a prescription-only antifungal medication, knowing that it was for human use, rather than legitimate veterinary use.
It was also alleged that she then caused a student veterinary nurse to record the order in the name of another veterinary surgeon, who was not involved in the order or prescription of the medication, and falsely record that it was for Mrs Grecko’s dog.
The second charge was that she had acted dishonestly and misleadingly, as the medication was, in fact, intended for use by her husband.
At the outset of the hearing, Mrs Grecko admitted she had asked her RVN colleague to order the medication and for her SVN colleague to record that the medication was for her dog and that doing this was dishonest and misleading.
Mrs Grecko accepted that these admitted charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
She denied asking an SVN to record it under the name of another veterinary surgeon.
However, the Committee heard from two eye-witnesses who testified consistently that Mrs Grecko had told her SVN colleague to record the medication under another vet's name, and from another witness who testified that Mrs Grecko had made a similar admission.
It therefore found it proven that she had asked her SVN colleague to make a false record, that it was dishonest and misleading, and that together, the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee considered that Mrs Grecko’s conduct had breached her obligations as a veterinary surgeon to respect the proper protections that were in place for the control of prescription-only medications.
"She had committed a serious abuse of her position in using the fact that she could obtain medications by virtue of her profession to circumvent the protections.
"She had been prepared to involve others in the course of the conduct.
"In addition, Mrs Grecko had been prepared to engage in an attempt to conceal her actions and falsify the clinical records in the process.
“Although it was acknowledged that Mrs Grecko may have been subject to some conflicting demands, being affected by her husband’s interests and may have felt a pressure to act, the Committee considered that she had completely failed to acknowledge and respect her overriding professional responsibilities.”
The Committee considered that the offence was a serious one, taking into account the abuse of position and pre-meditated and dishonest conduct.
The Committee also took into account previous adverse findings against Mrs Grecko from 2011, which involved misconduct of a very similar nature, which meant that they could not accept her argument that she had learnt her lesson, and also meant that, in the Committee’s judgement, she presented a significant risk of further repeated errors of judgement and dishonest conduct.
Mr Morris added: “Further, the Committee considered that members of the public would be very concerned to learn that, having once been reprimanded for her previous dishonest conduct, Mrs Grecko had repeated her behaviour.
“It [the Committee] concluded that this rendered Mrs Grecko’s disgraceful conduct in a professional respect incompatible with continued registration and no lesser sanction than removal from the Register would be sufficient to protect the wider public interest in maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper professional standards.”
Mrs Grecko now has 28 days from being informed of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Nominations are now open for candidates wishing to stand in the 2012 RCVS Council and RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council elections.
Jane Hern, RCVS Registrar said: "The veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses that sit on the RCVS and VN Councils are vital to the governance of their professions, and in steering the activities the College undertakes under its Royal Charter. If you're interested in making sure that your profession is well-governed, its standards are upheld, and the interests of animals and the public are protected, why not consider standing in these elections?"
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 next 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).
All 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.
Nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2012. Full details and guidance notes for both elections will be available on the RCVS website shortly on the RCVS Council Election page and VN Council Election page.
Nomination forms and candidate information forms for RCVS Council may be requested from Mrs Gabi Braun (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk) and those for VN Council from Mrs Annette Amato (020 7202 0713 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).
The RCVS has announced that voting is now open for the 2016 Council elections.
Ballot papers with candidate details, biographies and manifestos have been posted to all veterinary surgeons this week.
Eight candidates are standing in the RCVS Council election this year, with the six who receive the most votes joining Council at RCVS Day on Friday 15 July 2016 for a four-year term. The candidates are:
Each candidate in both elections has produced a short video in which they answer two questions which they have selected from those submitted to the RCVS in advance by members of the professions. The videos can be viewed at: www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote16 along with their biographies, manifesto statements and contact details.
Bradley Viner, RCVS President, said: "Last year the candidate videos had over 3,500 views and we hope to increase that this year as it is a very direct and democratic way of finding out more about each candidate and their views. I would urge each member of the profession, whether vets or veterinary nurses, to make a vote for their preferred candidates as they really can make a difference when it comes to the future direction of the College."
All votes must be cast, either online or by post, by 5pm on Friday 29 April 2016. Online votes for RCVS Council candidates can be made at www.ersvotes.com/vetvote16.
Any veterinary surgeon who has not received a ballot paper should contact Ian Holloway, RCVS Communications Manager, on 020 7202 0727 or i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk.
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 has released the photograph of a man apprehended by Wiltshire police whilst working as a bogus veterinary surgeon at a practice in Swindon.
Peter Keniry, who had been practising under the name of a properly qualified and legitimately registered veterinary surgeon Shaun Kehoe, was arrested on 23 August and appeared in Swindon Magistrates' Court on charges of fraud and practising veterinary surgery unlawfully. He was released on bail.
Mr Keniry is no stranger to the College or the police, and has already been dealt with in 1998, 2001 and 2005 for similar offences. On each occasion, Mr Keniry has impersonated a member of the College whose name is legitimately on the Register, which makes it difficult even for practices that do check the credentials of prospective employees.
Gordon Hockey, Head of Professional Conduct and Assistant Registrar at the RCVS said: "We were alerted to the potential fraud on 23 August and immediately liaised with the police to facilitate Mr Keniry's arrest that same day. The next day, RCVS Council member Dr Bob Moore and I visited Swindon police station to assist the police.
"It appears that Mr Keniry has continued his pattern of re-offending, and we hope that by publicising his photograph any other practice that has employed him recently will recognise him and contact the RCVS Professional Conduct Department, and potential employers and locum agencies will keep his photograph to reduce the chances of this happening again."
The RCVS Professional Conduct Department can be contacted on: profcon@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0789.
In November 2024, the RCVS Education Committee agreed to grant the veterinary degree conditional accreditation after an accreditation visitation earlier that year found deficiencies with the degree meant it only met 27 of the 77 RCVS accreditation standards.
55 recommendations for improvement were made by the visitation panel.
A subsequent visit in September 2025 found that while there were still a significant number of standards to be met, many of the recommendations for improvement had either been achieved, or significant progress had been made towards them being met.
The Education Committee therefore decided to grant the programme conditional accreditation for one year, with an action plan and timetable being put into place to guide how and when the 20 outstanding recommendations would be met.
The next accreditation visit to Cambridge will take place in October 2026.
It was agreed that this timeframe and accreditation status would ensure that progress towards meeting accreditation standards continued at pace, allowing the Department to demonstrate its commitment to student wellbeing and support for learning across the entirety of the veterinary programme.
An RCVS spokesperson said: “We appreciate the considerable efforts and hard work that the staff team within the veterinary department at Cambridge University have put into rectifying many of the issues identified in the 2024 accreditation event, for taking on board the constructive advice that was given and working together to make many of the necessary improvements.
“However, as the report shows, there are still several outstanding areas of concern, and so the Education Committee agreed that it was not yet in a position to grant Cambridge’s veterinary degree full accreditation.
“We have collaborated with Cambridge on putting together an action plan and timeline for meeting the 20 remaining recommendations and we hope that it will continue on its current trajectory towards meeting the RCVS accreditation standards.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/university-of-cambridge-2025-report/
Photo: © Copyright John Sutton and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.
The RCVS has announced the steps it will be taking in response to the Standards Committee's review of 24/7 emergency care.
Whilst the College has stopped short of making home visits entirely discretionary, it has confirmed that with regards to 24/7 emergency care overall:
This follows RCVS Council's agreement in principle on recommendations that flowed from the Standards Committee's comprehensive review of 24/7 emergency care. The review was triggered by a number of issues, including the profession's response to the Chikosi Disciplinary Hearing of June 2013.
The College says the recommendations were developed out of a detailed process of evidence gathering, which included 656 pages of views submitted to the College, 2,801 signatures to a petition on home visits, a three-day select-committee-style hearing where representatives from 15 organisations and a further 10 individuals gave their views, a snapshot of responses from 1,062 vets taking part in the RCVS Survey of the Professions, and an online survey of 1,250 animal owners.
Council praised the work, which had been carried out under the guidance of Standards Committee Chair Clare Tapsfield-Wright, and agreed that draft changes to the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct should be refined and agreed by the Standards Committee and published over the next couple of months.
Clare said: "This process was not carried out as a typical consultation, with proposals being issued for consideration: we really wanted to be open to the views of the profession and the public from the start.
"We found that the profession did not wish to remove the 24/7 requirement, but there was a lot of frustration and concern, particularly around safety, home visits, who should be seen, outsourcing and contingency planning.
"The Standards Committee looked in detail at all of these issues and I am delighted to have Council's support for the general direction of our proposals. We will now review some changes to the wording of the new guidance, to improve clarity, and publish it as soon as possible."
President Neil Smith said: "I am delighted with the way this process has been carried out. No doubt the outcome will not please everyone, but these changes are based on robust evidence.
"The approach taken by the Standards Committee forms a useful model that could be adapted to address other such issues that we may face in the future."
The presentation given to Council on 5 June can be downloaded from the RCVS website at https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-events/news/council-agrees-new-emphasis-for-24-7-guidance/ .
The RCVS is inviting responses from veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and animal owners to a call for evidence on the provision of 24-hour emergency veterinary care, in order to understand how best to meet the expectations of all those involved.
In an open letter to the profession and the public published on the RCVS website, the Chairman of the RCVS Standards Committee, Clare Tapsfield-Wright, said:
"Over the past two years, lay people working with the RCVS have raised questions about the veterinary profession's ability to provide 24/7 to the extent required by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, and said there is a disconnect between the public's expectations and the profession's capacity to meet those expectations."
Clare also refers to an RCVS Disciplinary Committee Inquiry in June 2013, which raised a number of issues on home visits by veterinary surgeons, including: speed of response; travelling time and distance; daytime versus out-of-hours obligations; individual versus corporate responsibility; and, staffing levels and contingency plans.
The letter is accompanied by a range of background information, including the reports of Lay Observers to the RCVS Preliminary Investigation Committee; Working Party reports from the College's 2009 consultation on 24-hour emergency cover; and, further details about the June 2013 DC Inquiry.
The College says additional feedback will be sought through next year's RCVS Survey of the Professions, and via focus group research for animal owners. Once all responses have been collated, a number of individuals and organisations will be invited to a Standards Committee meeting to present and discuss their views.
Responses in writing are invited by 5pm on Monday, 17 February 2014, and should be emailed to 24-7@rcvs.org.uk or posted to the Professional Conduct Department, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Belgravia House, 62-64 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AF.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has accepted an application for restoration to the RCVS Register by Gordon Lonsdale, who had been struck off in March 2004 for illegally delegating acts of veterinary surgery to insufficiently qualified members of his practice staff.
At the initial Inquiry, Mr Lonsdale, who formerly worked as a sole practitioner in Shropshire, had admitted three separate charges of serious professional misconduct. These included allegations that he had instructed nurses and support staff to undertake dental extractions, dog and cat castrations, the removal of tumours or masses, the induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, lancing abscesses and suturing wounds.
At yesterday's hearing, the onus was on Mr Lonsdale to satisfy the Committee that he was fit to be restored to the Register, not least in view of his former health problems and the eight-year period for which he had been off the Register.
He provided the Committee with evidence of undertaking continuing professional development, including 130 hours of online courses and seven weeks of seeing practice, letters of endorsement from former clients and testimonials from friends and former colleagues.
The Committee accepted Mr Lonsdale's evidence that he had successfully addressed his alcoholism, which it recognised as being a contributory factor to his poor decision making in an isolated working environment. He assured the Committee of his intention that, should his application be successful, he intended to work only in a multi-handed, rather than single-handed, practice in future.
The Committee found him to be an honest and frank witness who had made a credible attempt to refresh his small animal practice knowledge; it was satisfied that he accepted the findings of the original hearing and that he had put the welfare of animals at risk, and it noted his expression of remorse.
In considering Mr Lonsdale's application, the Committee made a number of recommendations, including that he should register for the RCVS Professional Development Phase, undertake certain parts of the RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice, restrict himself to his recognised areas of competence, investigate communication courses run by the Veterinary Defence Society and continue with the mentoring programme provided by the Veterinary Surgeons Health Support Programme. Mr Lonsdale stated that he was willing to follow all of these recommendations.
Professor Peter Lees, who chaired and spoke on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, concluded: "In these circumstances, we do not consider that any further period of erasure would be of benefit either to the public or the veterinary profession. Therefore, we direct the Registrar to restore Mr Lonsdale's name to the Register."
The RCVS is seeking candidates to run for election to the RCVS and VN Councils.
There are six seats on the RCVS Council and two on the VN Council due to be filled in the 2010 election. Candidate nominations must be received by 31 January 2010; voting papers will then be distributed to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote, the election held in March and the results announced early in May. Those elected will take their seats at RCVS Day in July to serve four-year terms.
Jane Hern, RCVS Registrar said: "Like us or loathe us, what the RCVS does impacts directly on the lives of veterinary surgeons and nurses, their clients and patients. Getting regulation right is something that all Members and Listed/Registered VNs have power to influence.
"We know from the reaction we get when we propose changes or ask for your comments that vets and VNs are not backwards about coming forwards," Jane continued. "There has been a substantial rise in the number of vets voting, since a low point in voter turnout was reached in 2002. So, if you know someone you think is up to the job, why not persuade them to stand?"
All 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 elections booklets. Nobody can nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may nominate anyone.
Newly elected RCVS Council members should expect to sit on at least one committee which, together with Council attendances, means a time commitment of at least six to eight days a year. Those elected to the VN Council should expect to spend approximately six to eight days attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees. Both RCVS Council and VN Council members are permitted to claim certain expenditures arising from Council-related duties and their employers can also claim a standard day-rate for loss of earnings.
Nomination forms and full details relating to RCVS Council nominations can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil10 or obtained by contacting the Executive Office (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk). Nomination forms and details relating to the VN Council will be online shortly at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil10 and can also be requested from Annette Amato (020 7202 0788 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).
All nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2010.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has clarified the legal position regarding the disbudding of goats, following recent media reports concerning undercover filming on UK goat farms.
The carrying out of any activity which amounts to veterinary surgery is restricted to veterinary surgeons unless there is a suitable exemption that allows other people to do it. The removal of the horn-bud of goats (disbudding) is considered veterinary surgery under the provisions of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the Act).
Schedule 3 of the Act provides certain exemptions to the restriction on carrying out veterinary surgery, such as those allowing veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses to undertake any medical treatment or any minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) in certain circumstances. However, Schedule 3 specifically provides that these exemptions do not allow non-veterinary surgeons to undertake the disbudding of goats, except the trimming of the insensitive tip of an in-growing horn which, if left untreated, could cause pain or distress.
There are no other Exemption Orders covering the disbudding of goats and therefore this procedure may only be undertaken by veterinary surgeons.
The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007, the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (Wales) Regulations 2007 and the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 all include disbudding of goats as a procedure which can be carried out for non-therapeutic reasons. However, this secondary legislation is subject to the restrictions in the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 and therefore disbudding of goats is restricted to veterinary surgeons.The Welfare of Animals (Permitted Procedures By Lay Persons) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 currently include disbudding of goats as a procedure which may be carried out by non-veterinary surgeons. However, the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 applies to Northern Ireland and the Regulations are scheduled to be amended later in 2012. This will make it clear that only veterinary surgeons may disbud goats in the UK.
The secondary legislation in the UK does not explicitly require anaesthetic to be administered when disbudding goats. However, disbudding should be carried out by veterinary surgeons in accordance with good practice and in such a way as to minimise pain and suffering caused to the animal, which should include use of an anaesthetic.
In summary, only a veterinary surgeon may undertake the disbudding of goats and due to the nature of the procedure, veterinary surgeons disbudding goats should administer anaesthetic.
Nominees for the RCVS Council and its Veterinary Nurses Council have been announced, with 13 candidates for the former and four for the latter.
The nominations closed on 31 January, and the following are standing:
RCVS Council
* denotes current RCVS Council member
VN Council
* denotes current VN Council member
The traditional NVQ 'portfolio' system for student veterinary nurses could be phased out from next summer, under draft proposals from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Awarding Body, which has responsibility for the delivery of VN qualifications.
Proposals include an initial year of full-time college study, during which the student does not need to be employed in a Training Practice (TP), the introduction of compulsory farm animal work experience, the phasing out of the separate Equine Veterinary Nursing qualification and a reduction in practice-based assessment.
The catalyst for reviewing the VN qualification came from Ofqual's plans to introduce the new Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) from summer next year, which effectively scraps the NVQ in its current form. This gave the RCVS Awarding Body an excellent opportunity to reconsider work-based training for VNs in order to improve its effectiveness and efficiency.
The Awarding Body's proposals, on which comments are invited, aim to reduce bureaucracy for those involved with VN training, increase the number of practices able to take part and improve accessibility of training, ultimately increasing the number of qualified VNs available to the profession.
Under the new proposals, VN work-based training would be a two-year, 70-credit Level 3 qualification, equivalent to 700 hours' learning. The first year of this qualification could be delivered either as a full-time college course, or as a part-time day-release over two years (extending the complete training to three years). The first year would incorporate 25 days' work placement, including small animal, equine and farm animal environments - the first time a compulsory farm animal component has been introduced. This first year of the course could be directly accessed by school leavers, as there is no requirement for them to be employed in a practice.
Students would be employed in a Training Practice for the second 'clinical' year (or third year for part-time students). An online log of practical experience, similar to the Professional Development Phase for new veterinary graduates, would replace the current portfolio, with a more comprehensive end-of-year practical exam. There would no longer be a requirement for practice-based assessors, although students would still need to be supported by an experienced clinical mentor, a role many current assessors may assume.
The economic feasibility of Equine Veterinary Nurse (EVN) training was also considered, with the conclusion that a broader-based primary qualification, with all students carrying out work experience in a range of practice types, was more sustainable.
The number of training practices has long been recognised as a limiting factor in the UK's capacity to train VNs. In addition to standard TPs, proposals have therefore been made for Auxiliary TPs (ATPs). ATPs would be able to employ and train VN students even if they do not have the facilities to provide all of the work experience required: a formal agreement to allow students to fill the gaps at another practice would be in place.
Finally, the proposals include a beefed up range of post-registration education options, allowing Registered Veterinary Nurses to develop, and be recognised, in their own areas of interest. This would help to create a career ladder for RVNs and assist in their retention within the profession.
"The proposals have been developed following a period of consultation with those involved with the delivery of VN training, and with employers," says Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS Council Member and Chairman of the VN Awarding Body.
"Feedback suggests that the current syllabus and training provides competent nurses who are highly regarded within the profession, but that training is overly burdensome for the practices involved. This, coupled with a recognised shortage of both Training Practices and qualified VNs, meant it was appropriate to think more creatively about how the qualification could be delivered. We hope that the draft proposals will be welcomed by both the veterinary nursing and veterinary professions, and would urge people involved to let us know what they think."
The proposals are available on RCVSonline (www.rcvs.org.uk/latestnews ) - please email your comments to Miss Jane Dawson, Project Consultant (jkhdawson@aol.com), by 31 October 2009. It is appreciated that this is a short deadline, however, the time-frame of the QCF is driving development, as is the need to allow colleges and training providers the maximum possible time to develop the new training structure for 2010/11 delivery.
The survey was sent to all UK veterinary practices on the 25th November with a deadline to respond by the 1st December and received 186 responses, a response rate of 6%.
The survey found that during this period:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “Thank you once again to all the practice staff who took the time to complete this survey, it really is very useful for us to have a clear picture of how coronavirus and its restrictions are affecting day-to-day activities, as it has an impact both on our decision-making and policies, and what we can tell others about the impact on the professions, such as the UK and national governments.
"The overall picture from this survey is that, while for most it is not business as usual, veterinary practices and members of the professions are, to an extent, getting used to the disruption and have plans and policies in place to help mitigate the impact of the mosaic of different restrictions across the UK.
"While there is hope on the horizon with the start of the roll-out of coronavirus vaccines, we will continue to review and keep up-to-date our advice and guidance to ensure that you can practise to the best of your abilities, while keeping safe and within the rules.
“Of course, we also recognise the toll that the pandemic has taken on many people’s mental health and wellbeing, and this is reflected in some of the more concerning statistics around the impact that staff absences can have on the rest of the team.
"We also asked practices what might help them manage from a staff mental health and wellbeing point of view, and will take these suggestions into account when planning further support via our Mind Matters Initiative mental health project. In the meantime, we would like to remind those who are feeling stressed or are in distress that there are sources of help available during these difficult times – these can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/help-links/help-during-covid-19/.”
The full report of the survey is available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
The RCVS has launched a new online form to allow veterinary surgeons to change their Register title to 'Dr'.
You can make the change by logging into the 'My Account' area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) where you can access the form. Usernames and passwords for the My Account area were sent to all veterinary surgeons in February as part of the annual renewal process.
The College says an email confirmation is sent once the form is completed and changes should take effect immediately in the My Account area. However, it may take up to 24 hours before the title appears on an individual's Register entry.
The use of 'Doctor' as a courtesy title was approved by RCVS Council at its March meeting, following a public consultation which garnered more than 11,000 responses.
Use of the title is optional and veterinary surgeons who choose to use 'Doctor' or 'Dr' should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'. This ensures that they do not mislead the public by suggesting or implying that they hold a human medical qualification or a PhD.