Jane (or John) Doe was charged with having stolen midazolam, butorphanol and promethazine hydrochloride from their practice for use other than for veterinary purposes, making false clinical records concerning the use of drugs on their own dogs to disguise the fact that the drugs were instead being used for non-veterinary uses, and drawing up medication taken from the practice into a syringe for the purpose of self-medicating.
In addition, they were charged that their conduct was dishonest.
The Committee found it proven that Jane/John Doe had taken approximately 150 vials of midazolam, 87 ampoules, 112 tablets and one elixir bottle of promethazine hydrocholoride, and 0.2mls of butorphanol together with Iml of midazolam for their dog at a time when their dog was, in fact, dead.
The Committee also found it proven that the defendant had drawn up medication for the purpose of self-medicating, and had created false clinical records.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee concluded that the respondent had abused their position of trust, that their actions were dishonest, prolonged and repeated in nature, and undermined the reputation of the profession as a whole.
Therefore the only appropriate action was removal from the Register.
Unusually, the RCVS did not issue a press release about this case, as it normally does.
There was also a protracted delay between the hearing and the report of the hearing being published on the College website.
Furthermore, when it was finally published, the report had been redacted to remove any reference to the name, gender or location of the respondent.
When asked why, the College said: "Matters of a highly confidential nature arose following the hearing which led to a delay in the decisions being published.
“The decisions have been redacted and we cannot provide the reasons for the redactions as that would necessarily involve disclosure of confidential and personal information.
"However, the circumstances are considered to be exceptional and the College’s decision to make the redactions was only made following very careful consideration of evidence provided to the RCVS.
"The decision has been published on the RCVS website in its redacted form and in view of the timeframe and the circumstances, it has not been considered appropriate to issue a press release.”
CommentThe College will for sure have had very good reasons for redacting the name of the respondent in this case.
One has to assume there must have been a very real threat to the respondent’s life, and under those circumstances, confidentiality is absolutely right and proper.
However, whatever the reason, secrecy is never a good look, especially when it comes in the form of a cape worn by a regulator.
So it is frustrating to hear that the College has again made a rod for its own back, when it could so easily have included a very general one-line explanation for why it felt redaction was necessary, without compromising the individual’s confidentiality.
It would have been enough, for example, just to say that the College felt there was a risk to life. People would accept that.
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.