RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

RE: RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

Zephanie Woodward — Sun, 11 Aug 2013 08:19:27 GMT

RCVS Practice Standards Scheme states that to be a Emergency Veterinary Clinic you must have a vet on site at all times. How can they punish him for waiting for back up?

RE: RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

Ciarao79 — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:46:07 GMT

Had the Veterinarian in question left the clinic to deal with this case, the '24 hour' emergency clinic would no longer have a Veterinary Surgeon on site. Therefore, had my dog been involved in a RTA and I HAD managed to get him to the hospital, would I have had to wait for an hour for him to return to the clinic, and if so would he have been then struck off for keeping my dog waiting an hour??? Ultimate punishment for a no win situation dealt out by people who have long forgotten the realities of working on the 'front line' in 1st opinion practice.

RE: RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

Pieter Fourie — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:09:40 GMT

A totally nonsensical decision and a 'we shall show who is boss' penalty.

RE: RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

arken — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 19:08:37 GMT

I had the same thought as "batman". Would we have had the same ruling if his country of origin was the UK?

RE: RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

Gareth C. — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:19:31 GMT

There will be an interview with richard dixon, founder and md of vets now (mr chikosi's employer) in this months crosswords column in vet practice magazine

RE: RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

Vicki Mason — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 13:47:57 GMT

How much more grievous complaint would be against this Vet had he left the clinic unattended to go immediately on this house call? How many other complaints might there have been from other emergencies arriving without a vet in the clinic? Was additional cover even available for him? I think this is a very heavy handed, unfair reaction from the DC, and yes I'm sure many of us feel we could so easily see ourselves in a similar situation at some point in our careers. I have great sympathy for the vet.

RE: RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

batman — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 02:08:38 GMT

The complaint was spurious and the ruling - senseless. I cannot believe that a committee of practising vets would have reached such a decision. I'll say what some of you are surely thinking - perhaps the severity of the sanction is somehow connected to the fact that the defendant is Zimbabwean?

RE: RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

john wilcox — Sat, 06 Jul 2013 23:30:42 GMT

I think one reason there is such a response is many vets reading this think if I was in that situation I may very well have acted upon similar lines. Advised owners brought pet in, waited for cover to arrive, then go on house call.

RE: RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

Caroline Murray — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 04:18:35 GMT

Why has Vets Now not been disciplined as surely they are responsible for the vets working for them? This is not the first time vets working for them have been disciplined while they have not.

RE: RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

David Carser — Thu, 04 Jul 2013 18:01:23 GMT

The bottom line in this case is that the penalty in no manner justifies the transgression. Termination of registration is justified only when the offending conduct involves dishonesty or fraud beyond reasonable doubt, or repetitive transgressions of a similar nature in which the respondent fails to meet required minimum standards of conduct despite a number of warnings. Removal of registration can never be justified for delaying an out of hours home visit. The DC got this one badly wrong. The respondent should ask for the full RCVS council to review and set aside the DC's decision, failing which the veterinarian concerned should take this matter on appeal to the courts.

David Carser, President Veterinary Defence Association.

RE: RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

james herriot lied — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 18:46:11 GMT

Hmmm. There is 'no legal framework for taking precedence into account'.

A political statement which has absolutely no meaning, or even basis in principle: the DC has a duty to be fair in its sanctions, and to be consistent; in order to demonstrate the objectivity of any procedure, sanctions applied for similar offences must themselves be similar in extent.

So now, anybody who has failed to visit within a timely fashion must be viewed, at least in part, in the same way.

There are absolutely precedents being set here, and the DC is bound by its own code of conduct to obey them - otherwise it would be admitting that the outcome for any given offence is a random event.

RE: RCVS responds to outcry over DC case

mariette asselbergs — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 17:08:24 GMT

Good summary Arlo, and a really good debate on vetsurgeons.org! Hopefully the RCVS will respond to the last list of issues.