Bedford vet struck off for allowing dog to suffer

RE: Bedford vet struck off for allowing dog to suffer

Cristina Diaz-Madronero GP Cert(Derm) — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 13:26:33 GMT

I do totally agree Mr Parker.

RE: Bedford vet struck off for allowing dog to suffer

George Packer — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:20:39 GMT

Appalling. What a difficult situation the vet found himself in. Leave and be disciplined for not providing advertised emergency cover, stay and be struck off by unrealistic know-alls. The problem here is the utterly unrealistic expectation that vets can perform home visits at the drop of a hat.

RE: Bedford vet struck off for allowing dog to suffer

K Kuc — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 23:57:27 GMT

"The committee is satisfied the delay caused unnecessary suffering", "evidenced by uncharacteristic biting", "the owner had recognised severity of the injuries". Sounds like a case based on guess work and assumption. Oh dear, oh dear, have any of these people worked outside an office?

RE: Bedford vet struck off for allowing dog to suffer

zalenski81 — Thu, 04 Jul 2013 20:09:09 GMT

Surely vets now are partly at fault as that is their policy?

RE: Bedford vet struck off for allowing dog to suffer

Pieter Fourie — Thu, 04 Jul 2013 19:18:42 GMT

Pretty damn harsh considering mthat an equally or more serious case may have arrived at a known emergency service only to find no vet there.

RE: Bedford vet struck off for allowing dog to suffer

Mike Dale — Thu, 04 Jul 2013 17:39:13 GMT

seems a bit harsh to me too, but we don't know the details of the case.

RE: Bedford vet struck off for allowing dog to suffer

Sunsea — Thu, 04 Jul 2013 15:19:00 GMT

Wow seems a bit harsh