The Disciplinary Committee heard that in 2018, when Dr Dyson was employed as Head of Clinical Orthopaedics at the Animal Health Trust (AHT), she completed a research project: ‘Influence of rider: horse body weight ratios on equine welfare and performance – a pilot study’, for which she had previously been given the go-ahead by the AHT’s Clinical Research Ethics Committee. The results of the study were then submitted to the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and Research for publication.
After peer-reviewing the project paper at the request of Journal Editor Karen Overall, Dr Matthew Parker, a Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Pharmacology at the University of Portsmouth, was concerned by the lack of a Home Office licence and asked for details of the licence or an explanation of why the project didn’t need one, and for the paper to be re-submitted.
In reply, Dr Dyson then emailed Ms Overall saying: “We have a former Home Office Inspector on our AHT Ethical Committee and two current licence holders (Named Veterinary Surgeons) who are fully conversant with the current legislation ... I also sought informal advice from a current Inspector. All were fully aware of the protocols to be employed and gave me assurance that in their opinion Home Office approval would not be required”.
Ms Overall then asked Dr Dyson to obtain a letter from the Home Office to support this position.
On 24 December 2018, Dr Dyson sent Ms Overall a letter purportedly from a Home Office Inspector called Dr Butler who, she explained, had advised her during the planning phase of the project. In the letter, the fictitious Dr Butler confirmed that their advice was sought for the project and that in their opinion, a Home Office Licence was not required.
Ms Overall then sent the letter to Dr Parker for further review, who decided to contact Dr Martin Whiting, Head of Operations at the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) to ask if he knew of Dr Butler.
Dr Whiting confirmed that the Home Office had no record of employing a Dr Butler as an Inspector and that they were in the process of making further inquiries into the matter.
After Dr Whiting’s reply was forwarded to Dr Dyson, she replied to him saying that she thought the studies’ procedures did not meet the criteria for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), but that this was questioned by peer reviewers.
She said that her decision to send Dr Butler’s letter was one that she would ‘eternally regret’ and that she was ‘an inherently honest person’.
She explained that she was under a huge amount of pressure in her personal and professional life and that she was ‘fully aware that [she] acted completely inappropriately and she requested the incident be overlooked’.
In March 2019, Dr Dyson sent a letter to William Reynolds, Head of the Home Office ASRU, in which she expressed remorse for writing the letter. Mr Reynolds subsequently raised a concern with the RCVS about Dr Dyson’s alleged behaviour.
Dr Jane Downes, who chaired the Disciplinary Committee, and spoke on its behalf, said: “The Committee heard from Dr Dyson that she had no recollection of several events detailed in the charge, including writing the letter from Dr Butler and sending the email to Ms Overall which contained Dr Butler’s letter. She accepted that the letter was dishonest and that it should not have been sent. However, she also claimed that, as she could not remember writing the letter, she did not act dishonestly.
The Committee heard testimonials from several witnesses who held Dr Dyson in high regard, including colleagues from the AHT, who attested to her integrity.
However, there were many dubious claims made by Dr Dyson throughout the hearing, including that the Home Office Inspector that she referenced as ‘my friendly inspector’ was someone who could have given informed consent to a project as Dr Dyson confirmed that she had met the individual briefly, around two and a half years ago at a drinks reception.
In reaching its decisions, the Committee considered Dr Dyson’s previously impeccable character, the written and verbal testimonies from witnesses. They also considered that during the hearing, Dr Dyson explained that at the time she fabricated the letter, she was under a lot of work and personal pressures, including managing a workload amidst colleagues’ resigning or going on maternity leave and it being the anniversary of her dog having to be humanely destroyed.
However, it did not accept Dr Dyson’s claims that she had amnesia at this time, and considered that she had not owned up to her wrongdoing until it was discovered. Although Dr Dyson maintained her actions were not pre-meditated, the Committee considered that, in the case of the forged letter, a certain amount of planning and careful thought was involved. The Committee believed that Dr Dyson knew what she was doing at the time, but acknowledged she may subsequently have blanked out what she did.
The Committee found all but one of the allegations proved and confirmed that it “was satisfied that the writing and sending of that letter was the culmination of a course of dishonest conduct.”
Committee Chair Dr Downes said: “In assessing [the evidence of] Dr Dyson the Committee took into account the difficulty faced by any Respondent appearing before their Regulator and also the various interruptions occasioned by issues which had to be dealt with during her evidence. Whilst [Dr Dyson is] undoubtedly highly qualified and highly respected, the Committee nevertheless considered her evidence lacked credibility and was not reliable.”
The Committee found that Dr Dyson’s conduct had breached parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Dr Downes continued: “The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and [was] not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon Dr Dyson and discredit upon the profession.
"For whatever reason, Dr Dyson chose not to respond to Ms Overall’s email on 30th November 2018 in an honest and straightforward way. Instead, she lied about the makeup of the AHT Ethical Committee in order to cloak her response with authority.
"She also lied about having received advice from a current Inspector for the same reason. In the Committee’s view, she made a conscious decision to provide a dishonest response. She no doubt believed that would be the end of the matter.
"When that did not work, she lied further in the email to her co-author, Andrew Hemmings, claiming to have a letter from her friendly Inspector. When that too did not work, she impersonated a Home Office Inspector in creating the ‘Dr Butler letter’.
"She then added a false declaration to the manuscript, which she subsequently submitted to the Journal along with an email containing yet further lies. That was all done in a blatant and wilful attempt to deceive Ms Overall ... into believing the contents of the correspondence to be true, that confirmation a Home Office Licence was not required had been obtained and all was therefore well with the submitted manuscript.
"There was no rush, or urgency to have the paper published and the actions were not done in a moment of panic. No doubt she had not planned the entire course of events in advance, but instead reacted to each new obstacle that came her way, but her overall course of dishonest conduct spanned over three weeks.
“The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Dyson of any decision to remove her from the Register but had to weigh her interests with those of the public.
"In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, as detailed above, Dr Dyson’s undoubted distinguished international career and reputation and the need to act proportionally.
"However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register."
Ophtocycline is licensed for the treatment of keratitis, conjunctivitis and blepharitis caused by Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus spp., Proteus spp., and/or Pseudomonas spp.
Dechra says chlortetracycline hydrochloride works against both aerobic and anaerobic Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria.
The recommended dosage is four times a day for five days. The 10 mg/g ophthalmic ointment has a 14-day broached shelf life. There is a one-day withdrawal period for meat and offal.
Dechra Brand Manager Carol Morgan said: "Ophtocycline provides veterinary professionals with a targeted treatment to effectively tackle the growing and reproducing bacteria that causes these eye conditions.
"Chlortetracycline is a bacteriostatic antibiotic which interferes with bacterial protein synthesis in the rapidly growing and reproducing bacterial cell and has both time-dependent and concentration dependent effects.
"We are very pleased to be able to roll out this product to the UK market as part of our ophthalmic range alongside popular products such as Isathal."
For more information visit: www.dechra.co.uk
Henry Schein said in a statement on Friday that it had sold the business in order to focus on its dental and medical markets and pursue new investment opportunities.
Covetrus says it will be using the experience, technology and global scale of the merged companies to provide veterinary practices with a more comprehensive set of integrated services and technology solutions, and tools to strengthen client relationships and grow their practice.
Covetrus launched on Nasdaq last Friday, when President and Chief Executive Officer Benjamin Shaw, said: "Today marks an important new chapter in the world of veterinary medicine, as we launch Covetrus as a new company listed on Nasdaq.
"We look forward to strengthening our customer relationships and expanding our veterinary practice partnerships worldwide as we bring more comprehensive and powerful solutions to market to meet their evolving needs and improve health and financial outcomes."
The association has released figures from its Voice of the Veterinary Profession survey in which 86% of 671 veterinary surgeons polled in May/June last year had treated conformation-related health problems in brachycephalic cats, such as Persians and Exotic Shorthairs.
The most common conformation-related treatments carried out by these vets were for:
Eye problems (69%)
Breathing/respiratory problems (60%)
Dental issues (45%) and
Skin problems (32%).
The survey also found that on average, 28% of the flat-faced cats vets see in their practices have had or would benefit from having treatment for conformation-related health or welfare problems.
Respondents also said that only a quarter of brachycephalic cat owners were already aware of the potential health issues and just one in twenty were aware of the additional costs associated with the breeds before choosing their pet.
BVA Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz said: "Everyone knows that the internet loves cat photos and videos. But as time passes we’ve noticed a growing appetite for novelty creeping in - with quirky and unusual cat breeds proving increasingly popular on social media.
"Currently the UK population of pure breed cats is very small as most cat owners opt for regular non-pedigree ‘moggies’. However, we are worried that the popularity on the internet of breeds with extreme conformation, such as the very flat-faced Persians and Exotic Shorthairs, or gene abnormalities such as cause the ears to bend forward in the Scottish Fold breed, may prompt increased demand among consumers who are unaware of the potential serious health and welfare issues associated with such breeding.
"These figures show that many, many owners are choosing pets without understanding either the possible welfare implications of their extreme features or the potential cost of treating them."
The BVA, which has been campaigning to curb the growing popularity of brachycephalic breeds of dog for some time, says it is keen to emphasise that health and welfare issues relating to extreme conformation are not limited to dogs or to brachycephaly. To that end, it will be launching a wider position statement on extreme conformation in animals later this summer.
For BVA #BreedtoBreathe campaign materials, including infographics and videos which draw attention to the serious health issues experienced by brachycephalic animals, visit: www.bva.co.uk/brachys.
Photo: Shutterstock/Piyato
The campaign – Cats deserve pain relief too – has been prompted by a recent study1 which revealed that perioperative analgesia following neutering was only given to 33% of cats compared with 75% of dogs, a statistic which ISFM says it is very keen to change.
The campaign, which includes a free webinar for veterinary professionals, highlights the reasons many cats are not receiving postoperative analgesia, and aims to encourage practices to review their policies on prescribing analgesics for routine neutering procedures.
ISFM says it already encourages the routine assessment and treatment of pain in cats. However, recognition of pain is not always straightforward and the perception that cats experience less pain than dogs with neutering may largely reflect different behavioural responses to pain between the two species rather than genuine differences in the experience of pain.
The charity says that physiologically, it makes sense that both species are likely to feel pain for several days after a surgical procedure and studies have shown that cats do show behavioural changes indicative of pain for 3 days or more after neutering.2 However we also know that cats are less demonstrative and less likely to show overt signs of pain such as vocalisation.
Additional reasons why cats receive less analgesia post-operatively than dogs, may include the following:
According to the WSAVA pain management guidelines,4 the use of preventative/multimodal analgesia, along with careful tissue handling and adherence to good surgical principles is strongly recommended.
The guidelines additionally suggest that analgesia following castration or ovariohysterectomy/ovariectomy may be required for up to 3 days after surgery using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
As part of this awareness campaign, ISFM, supported by Boehringer Ingelheim is running a free webinar on Wednesday 31st August at 8.00pm.
David Yates (Manchester RSPCA) and Jo Murrell (Reader in Veterinary Anaesthesia, Bristol University, UK) will be on hand to discuss, 'Neutering in practice: are your anaesthesia, analgesia and surgical protocols up to scratch?'
To register for the free webinar, go to: http://icatcare.org/learn/webinars and for further information about the campaign, visit: http://icatcare.org/campaigns/cats-deserve-pain-relief-too.
References
Earlier this month, the government had exempted veterinary surgeries from the requirement to close their doors during the pandemic. Strictly speaking, the exemption meant that practices could carry on offering the same level of service as before, provided they followed further government guidelines on social distancing.
However, the College then advised that non-essential treatments should not be carried out until further notice, and that animals should only be seen in emergency, or if their health was likely to deteriorate as a result of inaction.
This included vaccination, where RCVS advice stated that whilst routine vaccinations were considered not urgent, there "may be scenarios where, in your professional judgement, vaccines are being given to reduce a real and imminent risk of disease; this includes in the face of an animal disease outbreak, or in a scenario where part of a vaccine course has been given and the animal may be exposed to the disease."
The updated College guidelines, issued last Thursday evening, appeared little changed, except to say that its advice concerning vaccinations is under review. Meanwhile, its new flowchart gives a very clear framework for veterinary professionals to work within, essentially leaving it to your own professional judgement to weigh up the risks.
However, the BVA went further, declaring amongst other things, that:
Vaccinations – we are now recommending that primary vaccinations and year 1 boosters in dogs and cats go ahead due to the increased risk of disease outbreak over a longer period of time, and annual leptospirosis vaccination due to the zoonotic risk. If additional component of the core vaccine is due at the same time, it should also be administered. In addition, we’re recommending rabbit vaccinations go ahead due to the seasonal disease risks. Rabies vaccinations should be carried out if required for certification reasons
.... leading to an outcry that the BVA's advice appeared to be being relaxed at precisely the point when the government is imploring the public to stay at home, and that:
To add further fuel to the flames, the British Small Animal Veterinary Association then issued a statement to the effect that it had not been consulted during the preparation of the new BVA guidelines, which BVA past President Robin Hargreaves felt was so economical with the truth that he resigned his BSAVA membership on the spot.
COMMENTAt the end of it all, there is but one simple truth for every veterinary surgeon who is working in these difficult times, and it is this: The government and the RCVS guidance gives you the freedom to exercise your professional judgement concerning whether or not an animal needs to be seen for whatever reason. Provided you can explain why you reasonably concluded that an animal should or should not be seen, that is all that matters. It trumps everything else.
This whole farago has highlighted a number of important issues in the profession, starting with the social media conspiracy theories that the new guidance came after pressure from corporate practices when as far as I can tell, it appears to have been driven by a genuine concern that that failure to vaccinate could cause significant welfare issues in the future.
That seems a reasonable argument, and very much in line with the College advice. But that in turn raises a far bigger question, which is what on earth the BVA (a voluntary membership organisation) was doing issuing what appeared to be instructions ostensibly for all members of the profession. Notwithstanding the fact that BVA recommendations have no legal weight, having all these chefs running around with different recipe books is itself a recipe for muddled communications and confusion over leadership.
In turn, that raises the even bigger question of what the BVA's role should be. Should it be snuggling up in bed with the RCVS, issuing joint edicts? Or should it instead be holding the College to account, challenging its decisions and demanding clarification where clarification is necessary. I would argue the latter. In this situation, the ONLY organisation issuing guidelines about vaccinations for practising vets should be the regulator. And it is the role of the BVA to challenge those guidelines if necessary, or to demand clarification.
Which leads me on to the next thing, which is that increasingly, members of the profession seem to demand explicit rules or guidelines to operate within. There are lots of hypotheses for why this might be true. Perhaps because we live in a more (or seemingly more) litigious world and veterinary professionals like the reassurance rules provide. Perhaps it is because the younger cohort of vets lack the self-confidence needed for decision-making. Perhaps corporatisation has a part to play, in that employees of larger organisations tend to play more by the rules. Or perhaps it is a consequence of the growth in the 'refer everything’ culture which means vets take fewer clinical risks.
Whatever the reason, it seems clear that in some cases, the RCVS tack of "you're a professional, decide for yourself" is perfectly reasonable, whereas on other occasions, such as Schedule 3, more explicit guidelines are demonstrably necessary. Once again, surely the role of the BVA as the "Voice of the profession” is not to issue its own advice, but to press the College for more explicit guidelines as necessary.
Lastly, there is the role of Facebook in all of this. Quite obviously vets are no more immune to conspiracy theories than members of the public who think that coronavirus is spread by 5G telephone masts. Sadly, the truth is usually far less exciting. However, the problem at the moment is that the growth in social media and Facebook groups has left the regulator and the representative associations on the back foot, such that it is often left to individuals from those organisations who 'happen to come across OK online' (rather than having any properly defined role) to firefight.
Photo: https://www.scientificanimations.com/wiki-images/
The company says the new method, which was developed with Professor Ian Ramsey at the University of Glasgow, has been introduced following recent studies that showed a lack of correlation between ACTH stimulation test results and the clinical status of dogs treated with Vetoryl 1,2
Craig Sankey, Brand Manager at Dechra Veterinary Products, said: "Vetoryl is a medicine that will normally deliver major clinical benefits to a patient with canine Cushing's syndrome but finding a stable, long-term dosing regimen can be hard if ACTH stimulation tests return varying results.
"Pre-Vetoryl Cortisol monitoring is a reliable alternative to traditional ACTH stimulation tests for several reasons. It predicts clinical signs better, gives more consistent results, is less expensive and is easier to perform.
"Our online guide gives veterinary professionals a detailed insight into how they can integrate PVC into their treatment plans and the benefits it can bring to their patients and practice."
Information about Pre-Vetoryl Cortisol monitoring is now available at www.dechra.co.uk/prevetorylcortisol, together with other resources for patients on Vetoryl.
Dechra also hosts a website for owners whose pets have been prescribed Vetoryl: www.canine-cushings.co.uk.
In total Mr Hendrie Smith had faced eight charges against him, all of which related to him undertaking the euthanasia of a German Shepherd named Bouncer during a home visit in January 2017.
The charges alleged that when John Hendrie Smith undertook the euthanasia of Bouncer he had:
1. failed to ensure he was sufficiently prepared for the euthanasia in that he failed to attend the visit with a muzzle and failed to attend with any sedative and the means of administering sedative;
2. failed to delay the euthanasia until he was in possession of the above items;
3. undertook the euthanasia by means of an injection without first sedating Bouncer;
4. failed to provide Bouncer’s owner with an adequate explanation of the procedure. Including:
a. failing to explain that the procedure involved an attempt at injection directly into the heart;
b. failing to explain that an injection into the heart without sedation is (except in extreme circumstances) not an accepted means of euthanasia;
c. wrongly stated that Bouncer would not feel the injection;
d. failed to provide an explanation of the risks;
e. failed to explain the risks and signs of narcotic excitement;
f. failed to explain the risks of injection into the heart without sedation;
5. failed to obtain Bouncer’s owner’s informed consent for the procedure;
6. failed to make any clinical records in respect of the procedure;
7. provided inadequate veterinary care to Bouncer and caused him unnecessary suffering; and
8. failed to communicate with Bouncer’s owner.
Having considered evidence about the case from Bouncer’s owner, his owner’s former partner, two expert witnesses and Mr Hendrie Smith, the Committee found all of the charges against Mr Hendrie Smith proven, with the exception of charge 4(e) on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence against him on this particular charge.
In considering whether the charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee heard further evidence from the College’s two expert witnesses, and submissions from both the College and Mr Hendrie Smith. Having considered the evidence and submissions, the Committee concluded that in relation to each of the charges found proven, Mr Hendrie Smith’s conduct had fallen far below that which was to be expected from a veterinary surgeon and was therefore serious professional misconduct.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate following its earlier findings against Mr Hendrie Smith. The Committee took into account a number of mitigating and aggravating factors. In mitigation the Committee considered that this was a single, isolated incident and that Mr Hendrie Smith had been a practising veterinary surgeon for 65 years and had an otherwise unblemished career with no adverse professional findings against him. It also took into account testimonials from professional colleagues, clients and his local community.
However, the Committee also considered the aggravating factors which included actual injury and unnecessary suffering to an animal, a blatant disregard of the systems that regulate the veterinary profession including the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance relating to euthanasia, informed consent, preventing unnecessary suffering and working within one’s area of competence.
In explaining its decision to direct his removal from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, the Committee noted Mr Hendrie Smith’s lack of insight into his behaviour, which included denying that he was at fault, challenging several of the Committee’s findings and disputing that an intracardiac injection into the heart of a dog without administering sedation or anaesthesia was wholly unacceptable, despite expert opinion to the contrary.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent, in his oral evidence, admitted that he was not really a small animal vet, and had not been dealing regularly with small animals for a significant period of time. His specialisation in recent years was with large farm animals. The Committee considered that the respondent had, and still has, no concept of the difficulties now recognised as inherent in the procedure he performed, or the risks of pain and suffering it posed to the animal."
She added: "The Committee has found that the respondent’s conduct in attempting an intracardiac injection without prior sedation or anaesthesia caused appalling pain and suffering to Bouncer, as evidenced by his screaming, and was wholly unnecessary. The respondent accepted that he had a sedative in his car, but chose not to postpone attempted euthanasia so that he could sedate his patient first.
"The respondent explained in his oral evidence that he had, in the past, euthanased over 200 dogs by intracardiac injection without sedation or anaesthesia. The Committee concludes that this was the respondent’s customary method of euthanasia, and he did not understand why it was wholly unacceptable for a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon to carry out euthanasia in this way. Given his lack of insight, the Committee considers that there is a risk that, if the respondent were to be asked to euthanase a dog in the future, he would be likely to use his customary method, and thereby cause injury and suffering to another animal."
In determining the sanction the Committee decided that, because there had been a serious departure from the professional standards set out in the Code, serious harm was caused and there was a serious risk of harm to animals in the future, that removing Mr Hendrie Smith from the Register was the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest.
Mr Hendrie Smith has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The Committee heard that Mr Dingemanse had one conviction relating to four separate offences committed in 2019 of making indecent photographs of a child Category A, B and C and possession of 22 extreme pornographic images that were grossly offensive.
He had been sentenced at Oxford Crown Court to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, directed to sign the sex offenders register for 10 years and fined £420 for prosecution costs and £140 victim surcharge.
The Committee were presented with evidence taken from the transcripts of Dr Dingemanse’s Crown Court sentencing hearing.
The transcript outlined that Dr Dingemanse used an online messaging service to engage in conversations about child sexual abuse under a pseudonym. According to Wales Online, the conversations related to children as young as four.
His IP address was traced and he was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.
Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature of circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Dingemanse unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
In its decision relating to Dr Dingemanse’s fitness to practise, the Committee described Dr Dingemanse’s behaviour which led to the conviction as “inexplicable” and “abhorrent”, and that his possession of the images of children and animals was “disgraceful conduct of the most grievous and reprehensible kind.”
The Committee did not consider that there were any mitigating factors in the case, but did consider there to be several aggravating factors including: actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; lack of integrity for a regulated professional to have behaved in such a way; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, added: “Dr Dingemanse’s conduct was [also] liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and to undermine public confidence in the profession.
"The fact that he was a veterinary surgeon was made clear at the Crown Court hearing.
"The Committee considered that members of the public would rightly be appalled that a registered veterinary surgeon had committed offences of this nature.”
When deciding on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account all of the evidence, including Dr Dingemanse’s expression of remorse and steps towards rehabilitation.
Mr Dingemanse's solicitor invited the Committee to consider suspending Dr Dingemanse from the Register as his client’s sanction, but the Committee did not feel that this was appropriate.
Cerys Jones added: “The Committee considered that suspending Dr Dingemanse’s registration would not be sufficient to maintain confidence in the profession and that therefore, for public interest reasons, as well as animal protection, a suspension would not be sufficient.
"Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Dingemanse’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon and that all of the above matters listed were applicable in this case.
"The Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register.”
Dr Dingemanse has 28 days from being notified of his 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
Dr Botes faced a total of nine charges against him, relating to performing (or recommending) inappropriate total hip replacements on five dogs without adequate investigation and without getting informed consent from the owners.
One of the charges also related to a failure to keep adequate, clear and detailed clinical records in relation to the five dogs.
Dr Botes denied the first two charges which were later dismissed because the owner did not attend the hearing and counsels agreed that it would not be in the public interest to pursue them.
Dr Botes admitted the other seven charges and that they amounted to serious professional misconduct, and they were therefore found proven by the Committee.
In considering whether the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee considered an expert report from Professor John Innes, RCVS Specialist in Small Animal Surgery (Orthopaedics) and Mr Midgley, RCVS Advanced Practitioner (Small Animal Orthopaedics).
Ian Arundale, Chair of the Committee, said: “In coming to its decisions, the Committee took into account Professor Innes’ opinions that it was not reasonable for Dr Botes to have carried out the THR without sufficient investigation into Kilo’s pain; that the THR undertaken in respect of Sora was not in the animal’s best interests; and that it was ‘entirely unnecessary’ to recommend the THR in respect of Penny.
"In addition, the Committee has found that both THRs performed in respect of Daisy were not in her best interests.
"Thus, in the Committee’s view, Dr Botes’ actions and omissions did not ensure the animals’ health and welfare.”
The Committee took into account that the THRs in question were a source of financial gain, that Dr Botes’ conduct was repeated over a considerable period of time and that he was in an increased position of trust and responsibility because of perceived expertise in small animal orthopaedics and its education.
However, the Committee took into account, as a mitigating factor, that Dr Botes has indicated some insight into some aspects of the charges in his written communications to the College, in his witness statement dated 29 December 2021, and in his admissions at the start of this inquiry.
The Committee then considered what would be an appropriate and proportionate sanction, hearing from several character witnesses including Dr Midgely, who was put forward as Dr Botes’ proposed supervisor if the committee agreed to a postponement with undertakings.
When making their decision, the Committee took into account the fact that Dr Botes had been suspended from the Register in 2008 for six months for serious professional misconduct over the care of a dog that had been involved in a road traffic accident.
The Committee considered a postponement of judgment with undertakings, which was submitted by Dr Botes’ counsel.
However, the Committee took the view that a postponement would not be appropriate because the failings were not in limited aspects of practice but were wide-ranging, covering the fundamental requirements of any veterinary surgeon.
In the Committee’s view, this would mean nothing less than direct supervision, where Dr Botes’ practice was directly monitored on a day-to-day basis would be sufficient to protect animals, clients, and to uphold the wider public interest.
It would be impracticable to formulate undertakings capable of effectively addressing these issues.
The Committee also noted that the disgraceful conduct was serious and there was a pattern of sustained and persistent misconduct.
The Committee therefore did not believe that no further action, a reprimand or a warning were appropriate or proportionate outcomes.
The Committee also considered whether suspension was appropriate but concluded that there was a real risk of repetition of the behaviours outlined in the charges, and so the Committee was unable to conclude that Dr Botes would be fit to return to practice after a period of suspension.
The Committee therefore decided to direct that Dr Botes should be removed from the Register indefinitely.
In coming to this decision, the Committee carefully applied the principle of proportionality and took into account the impact of such a sanction on Dr Botes both professionally and financially, and took into account his witness statement in this regard.
Ian Arundale added: “In light of the gravity of the conduct, and all of the factors taken into account, any lesser sanction would lack a deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
"Removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.”
Dr Botes has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
Vets4Pets has announced that it is piloting a 'revolutionary' new 24/7 service at its practices in Rayleigh in Essex, Rustington in Sussex and Bournemouth in Dorset.
The company says that clients of the new 24/7 clinics will be able to have their pets seen and treated at any time by the same team, with the same level of service and at the same price as daytime treatment.
Research carried out by Vets4Pets showed that pet owners struggle to fit visits into their busy working lives, so the 24 hour practices will offer consultations up to 10:00pm and allow clients to drop pets off early in the morning, before traditional practices open.
In addition, the 24/7 clinics will see emergency and routine cases around the clock at no extra cost and will provide care for pets that need to be hospitalised overnight. Vets4Pets says that the practices are equipped with in-house surgical facilities, lab, pharmacy, digital x-ray and ultrasound, and will have a veterinary surgeon and nurse on-site at all times, so its clients will get the highest standard of care.
Clients of other practices within the group will also be able to use these facilities if their own vet feels their pet would benefit from overnight care and is within driving distance of a 24/7 practice.
Kirsty Bridger MRCVS, Joint Venture Partner at Rayleigh Vets4Pets said: “We have been telling our clients about 24/7 for the last few weeks and we have only received positive responses. The perceived increase level of service has been so well received and customers are delighted that we will be offering out of hours services with no extra charge. This is about listening to what our clients need and providing them with more convenience and excellent service however and whenever we can.”
Sally Hopson, CEO of the Vet Group said: “All of us at Vets4Pets are focused on leading innovation in the veterinary sector, and as our clients live increasingly busy lives, these 24/7 pilot practices are our way of helping them manage their hectic schedules, while also ensuring that pets in need of urgent treatment can be seen at any time. We are very excited about the potential of our 24/7 practices and our ability to offer customers extended quality, service and convenience of veterinary care.”
VetSurgeon.org asked Vets4Pets some questions about the new 24/7 practices:
VetSurgeon: Is V4P going to offer an OOH referral service to other practices?V4P: As this is a pilot, initially Rayleigh will only be offering this service to other practices within the VetGroup. However, once we understand more about how the model works, we may open the service to other practices, particularly in areas where there are few or no other options for them to outsource OOH cover.
VetSurgeon: How is V4P able to offer OOH consultations at the same price as daytime consults?V4P: At Vets4Pets we care about offering our clients the best service we can. We believe that it's important that clients can access veterinary care at all times of the day or night without prohibitive surcharges. The 24/7 business model is built around this concept. This is clearly a significant change from the traditional way of thinking about out of hours care within the industry and we think clients and their pets will benefit.
VetSurgeon: How will it affect the quality of life of the vets & nurses working at the practices?V4P: We have thought carefully about the rotas that the vets and nurses will be working. We've looked at best practice within the veterinary industry and in other industries which work around the clock and we have developed guidelines based on these benchmarks which will then be flexed depending on the requirements of each individual team.
VetSurgeon: Does V4P think others will follow?V4P: We hope this is something that will expand across our own group once we've completed the initial pilot phase. We believe it's the right thing to do for our clients and for their pets. This is a new way of thinking about out of hours care and we're lucky to be able to work with forward thinking Joint Venture Partners who are putting their clients at the centre of their thinking. If others follow the model, that can only be a good thing for pet owners and for pets.
VetSurgeon: Does this threaten Vets Now?V4P: We work with Vets Now in many of our practices and we hope to continue to have a positive working relationship in the future. VetsNow have a different and well established business model. Our objective is simply to offer our clients and their pets the best levels of care that we can by being able to provide them with the same level of service at the same price at any time of day or night.
VetSurgeon.org visited a random selection of stands in the commercial exhibition at BSAVA Congress, and asked: "What's new and exciting?"
Here's what they said:
A German Shepherd bitch is making an impressive recovery from serious burns, after treatment with manuka honey impregnated dressings.
'Lady' sustained her injuries after being trapped in a blazing house in Cornwall, as reported by the BBC. She has since been under the care of Amanda Manley at the Cornwall Animal Hospital, who has been using Activon Tulle Manuka honey impregnated dressings to treat the wounds.
Amanda said: "I'd like to say it was all down to the manuka honey, although it's difficult to make a scientific judgement without a control in place. Nevertheless I am very impressed with the results and will definitely use honey again in a similar situation"
Rachel Fuller, Product Manager for Activon (medical grade manuka honey dressings) at Dechra Veterinary Products said: "In human medicine, manuka honey has become popular as a result of its antibacterial and healing properties. All honey has a degree of effectiveness, but the unique properties of manuka honey make it by far the most effective for use on wounds. It is now gaining recognition among veterinary professionals, which has led to the introduction of honey-based wound management systems for animal care".
According to Dechra, Manuka honey has been shown to be effective against over 70 strains of bacteria commonly found in wounds, including MRSA1. It also has an osmotic effect which draws fluid from a wound bed and helps to remove slough and debride necrotic tissue that can harbour bacteria and impede wound healing2. It protects the wound bed and provides a moist wound healing environment3 and the water soluble antioxidants provide favourable conditions that help to promote granulation and epithelialisation, thus faster healing. There is a rapid reduction in odour when honey is applied to a malodorous wound and it also acts as an anti-inflammatory, which therefore reduces pain.
The Cornwall Animal Hospital is a registered charity which exists to provide affordable pet care to those on a low income. It has provided all Lady's treatment at cost, including the Activon dressings, which have since been replaced by Dechra as a gesture of support.
Photographs of the case at initial examination, post debridement / pre-treatment and post treatment are in the galleries.
The Canadian company highlights research which showed that the biggest challenge UK veterinary clinics face is the volume of pets (57%), followed by being overbooked (50%) and unable to take on new patients1.
In addition, earlier research has shown that 37%2 of vets are “actively” thinking about quitting, with 80%3 of the UK profession leaving to get a better work-life balance.
Hence the company offers a service through which UK practices can divert non-urgent calls to Vetster, to relieve some of the pressure.
Vetster says the most common cases treated by its veterinary surgeons are dermatology, gastrointestinal, respiratory, urinary tract, ophthalmology and musculoskeletal issues.
By diverting these cases to UK-licensed vets online, Vetster says it aims to relieve the pressure on clinics so that they can better serve pets in need of surgery, immunisations, bloodwork and other clinical treatments.
Mark Bordo, CEO and coFounder of Vetster said: “We are experiencing a global crisis in pet care exacerbated by the pandemic.
“Veterinarians are facing tremendous pressure to provide services to millions of pet owners.
"Vetster’s virtual care platform connects pet owners with licensed UK veterinarians to provide support when their clinic is closed, to answer a non-urgent question, and to improve the health outcomes of their pet and help ensure owners can care for their animals.”
Veterinary surgeons in search of a better work life balance can also join Vetster to create a virtual care practice that provides teletriage and addresses non-urgent issues.
Mark added: “Veterinarians are able to incorporate a new modality of practice to improve their work-life-balance, serve pet owners outside of a clinic environment, and hopefully practice for longer avoiding burnout and stress associated with this much-needed profession.”
Vetster is not available as a white label service at this time, and VetSurgeon.org understands that when it is clear an online consultation requires hands-on care, the owner is referred to the local practice on the platform, which may or may not be their normal practice.
Vets interested in offering consultations through Vetster can visit: https://vetster.com/en-gb/for-vets
Veterinary practices that are interested in having Vetster provide OOH support to clients, can visit: https://vetster.com/en-ca/for-vet-clinics
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.
For the research, being conducted by David Mills MRCVS (pictured) and VetSurgeon.org Editor Arlo Guthrie, vets are being asked to complete an eight question survey which asks how things like money, trial by social media, insurance and fear of complaint affect the way they practise.
All answers will treated as strictly confidential and data processed anonymously.
However, those who are happy to share their names will be entered into a draw for three £50 Amazon vouchers.
David said: “All practising vets are aware of the recent noise about high vet fees and the CMA investigation as well as the various competing pressures when advising owners.
"For the first time in the profession, this study will allow vets to have their say on the considerations that owners may not see or be aware of.
"Please take 5 minutes (max) of your time to complete the survey and help us build a better evidence base than the current soup of anecdote and opinion"
https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/7979966/VetSurgeon-org-Factors-influencing-the-clinical-advice-given-by-vets-to-clients
Shortlink: https://bit.ly/clinicalinfluences
The survey closes on 15th December 2024
Galliprant is a first in a class of drugs called piprants, or non-COX-inhibiting prostaglandin receptor antagonists (PRAs), which specifically target the EP4 receptor largely responsible for OA pain and inflammation1,3 without interfering with other prostanoids and receptors, thereby minimising the impact on gastrointestinal and kidney homeostasis.1,4
According to Elanco, the main benefit of the new drug is that it can be given in the earlier stages of the disease; from first diagnosis in fact. Speaking at the London Vet Show in 2018, Dr Kristin Kirkby Shaw, Surgeon and Rehabilitation Specialist at the Animal Surgical Clinic of Seattle, said: "…being much more targeted, it makes us feel more comfortable starting this product in an earlier stage of osteoarthritis."
In the target animal safety study, Galliprant was well-tolerated over 9 months at doses equivalent to 15 times the target dose.5 Kristen said: "I challenge anyone to think of another product that has been given in a safety study at that high of a level for that duration of time."
The efficacy of Galliprant was demonstrated in the field study at the licensed target dose of 2mg/kg body weight, with treatment success seen by owners in their dogs at home, and confirmed by vet assessment.2 Owners saw statistically significant improvements in pain severity and interference with daily activities vs placebo at days 7, 14, 21 and 28.2
For more information, visit www.galliprant.co.uk. You can also watch Dr Kristen Kirkby Shaw's London Vet Show presentation and other expert opinion here.
References:
Virbac says there is mounting evidence of a growing change in the attitude of pet owners towards permanent castration, that research has shown that 25% of pet owners are concerned or very concerned that neutering could be harmful for their dog1. The permanency of surgery has been cited as the reason why 67% of owners with entire male dogs have not yet opted for the procedure2.
Hence the campaign to raise awareness of Suprelorin, the company's reversible alternative to surgical castration, which uses visual metaphors to explain that there is: 'more than one way to crack a nut'.
The video is also broadcast on the campaign website: www.morethanoneway.co.uk.
Veterinary practices are invited to participate in the campaign by contacting their Virbac Territory Manager to order waiting room and client materials, or to book a Suprelorin lunch meeting for their practice.
Suprelorin Product Manager Claire Lewis said: "Pet owner attitudes are definitely changing so by offering a choice when it comes to castration, veterinary practices have the opportunity to not only increase their overall castration rate, but also enhance their relationship with their clients."
At the start of the hearing the RCVS applied for it to take place in the absence of Mr Dobson, who had failed to respond when informed about the hearing. The application was granted by the DC on the basis that Mr Dobson, by refusing to respond to communications from the College – including by letter, telephone and email – had voluntarily waived his right to attend.
There were three sets of charges against Mr Dobson. The first charge was in June 2018, while he was not on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, Mr Dobson had carried out an equine pre-purchase examination (PPE) and used the postnominals MRCVS to sign the associated PPE certificate and covering letter.
The Committee found this charge proven after it was presented with evidence of the certificate and covering letter alongside the fact that Mr Dobson had been removed from the Register on 1 June 2018 for non-payment of the annual renewal fee needed to remain on the RCVS Register. He was only restored to the Register upon paying his outstanding fee in late November 2018.
The second charge was that Mr Dobson did not have any professional indemnity insurance (or PII) or other equivalent arrangements in between June 2018 and August 2020. He also failed to provide adequate details of his PII when requested by the RCVS.
The Committee was presented with evidence that Mr Dobson had failed to confirm that he had PII arrangements or other equivalent arrangements in place prior to August 2020 and that he had failed to respond to numerous requests for evidence from the College. On this basis the Committee found the charges proven.
The third and final charge was that Mr Dobson had failed to respond to numerous requests from the RCVS, including: failing to provide written comments on concerns relating to the equine PPE; failing to provide written comments on the concern that he had carried out the PPE and used the postnominals MRCVS while not on the Register; failing to provide details of his continuing professional development (CPD) for the previous three years; and failing to provide copies of his Day Book and/or Controlled Drugs Register. All elements of this charge were found proven when the Committee was presented with evidence of numerous attempts to contact him that went unacknowledged and unanswered.
Regarding the first charge, the Committee recognised that Mr Dobson had not intentionally allowed his registration with the College to expire and that it was down to administrative error. However, it also considered that he had not responded to or taken action upon receiving numerous reminders to pay his fees. It considered that Mr Dobson had therefore acted recklessly in not only allowing his registration to expire but in continuing to practise veterinary surgery while not registered, a criminal act in contravention of the Veterinary Surgeons Act. The Committee therefore found that the first charge amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee also found that the remaining charges constituted serious professional misconduct.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: "The respondent demonstrated a pattern of behaviour in not responding, which was sustained and persistent. He asked for extensions of time but did not make good on his assurances that he would provide information. Due to the length of time during which the respondent failed to comply with the requests, as well as the proliferation of issues in respect of which he did not comply, the Committee was of the view that he demonstrated a wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the regulatory processes. This was particularly serious in light of the reliance which the RCVS places upon its members to cooperate with providing it with information relating to their professional practice which is relevant to the RCVS’s regulation of the profession.
"There was no harm caused to animals or the public, and the Committee acknowledged that practice circumstances have been made more difficult in general by the Covid-19 pandemic. However… the respondent’s failures to comply were serious and undermined the functions of the RCVS. The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s failures fell so far below what was expected as to amount to serious professional misconduct."
Having found that all the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct the Committee then considered the most appropriate sanction for Mr Dobson. In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered Mr Dobson’s recklessness in failing to renew his registration and practising while it was lapsed, his pattern of not responding to the RCVS, the fact that financial gain was obtained as a result of misconduct, a wilful disregard to the RCVS and regulation, and limited evidence of insight. In mitigation the Committee considered Mr Dobson’s previous good character, a long and otherwise unblemished career, the fact that no animals were harmed and increased demands on time and processes due to Covid-19.
However, taking all of the information into account, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction due to the sustained and prolonged nature of the misconduct.
Cerys Jones said: “The respondent demonstrated a wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the regulatory processes by way of his disgraceful conduct. In addition, his lack of engagement with the hearing process indicates to the Committee that he is not engaging with his regulator and, along with the limited insight and lack of remediation with respect to the disgraceful conduct, this demonstrates a lack of insight into the seriousness of his actions or their consequences.”
For the study the RVC used VetCompass, its pioneering technology which analyses the veterinary records of 10 million animals from 1,000 veterinary practices in the UK and is now the world’s largest research database of anonymised clinical records.
The college says this made the study the largest-ever conducted into osteoarthritis in dogs under veterinary care – covering 455,557 dogs.
The study found that:
Rottweilers are the breed most prone to osteoarthritis, with the Old English Sheepdog and Dogue de Bordeaux also being very prone to the condition.
The large population of Labrador Retrievers in the UK makes them the most commonly treated breed for osteoarthritis in the UK.
2.5% of dogs involved in the study had osteoarthritis (which would equate to a total of around 200,000 dogs in the UK).
Dogs that were above average weight for their breed were nearly 2.3 times more likely to be diagnosed with the condition.
Males dogs were 1.2 times more likely to have osteoarthritis than female dogs.
The RVC says that on average, dogs receive their first diagnosis by the age of 10.5 years. Of the dogs who are diagnosed with osteoarthritis, 75% of cases are recommended to remain on medication as a form of pain relief.
It is hoped that this research will improve diagnosis times, which will enable dogs suffering from osteoarthritis to be treated faster.
Dr Dan O’Neill, RVC Senior Lecturer and co-author said: "Breed predisposition to disease is now recognised as one of the biggest problems facing dogs. Studies of huge populations, such as this one, are giving us vital insights into breed-related health problems in dogs that would have been impossible before VetCompass. This study has enabled us to positively support changes in dog welfare."
Reference
Anderson KL, O'Neill DG, Brodbelt DC, Church DB, Meeson RL, Sargan D, et al.: Prevalence, duration and risk factors for appendicular osteoarthritis in a UK dog population under primary veterinary care. Scientific Reports 2018,8(1):5641.
Photo: Dog hip arthritis. Richard Meeson.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against a Hampshire-based veterinary surgeon who first registered in 1950, following his undertakings firstly to request removal from the RCVS Register and secondly never apply to be restored to it.
At yesterday's hearing, William Bamber Cartmell of Wickham, near Fareham, was due to face seven heads of charge containing "serious allegations" relating to his provision of expert evidence in a case involving the RSPCA; his certification, following clinical examination, of the health of two horses for a prospective purchaser; and his clinical competence during treatment of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel called Milly.
However, before the Committee considered any of the facts behind these charges - all of which Mr Cartmell denied - the College submitted an application suggesting that they should be adjourned, providing that Mr Cartmell agreed to the three undertakings (the third being not to act as an expert witness in litigation in future). The College also suggested that, should Mr Cartmell subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Committee should resume its consideration of the charges, along with his breach of the undertakings.
The Committee was advised that none of the complainants in the case - which could have exceeded four weeks and incurred considerable costs - dissented from the proposed course of action. It also heard that Mr Cartmell had recently retired from his practice, which was now closed and his clients dispersed to other practices. In over 60 years of practising, there had been no adverse disciplinary findings against him.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "Having carefully considered the matters put before us, we have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to refuse the College's application and proceed with this case.
"We are satisfied that the undertakings offered by the Respondent protect the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession. [These undertakings also] go beyond any sanction that this Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing where any of the heads of charge were found proven.
"We do not consider that it would be proportionate for either party to incur the substantial costs of a contested hearing. We have also paid particular regard to the age of the Respondent and to his length of service without any adverse findings having been made against him."
In his first year of what would normally have been be a four-year term, Colin served on the College’s Education Committee, PIC/DC Liaison Committee, and on the Advancement of the Professions Committee as Council Deputy Lead for the ViVet innovation programme.
VetSurgeon.org caught up with Colin, who explained: "I've never had any problem with the idea of respecting Council decisions, even those I disagree with.
"However, I questioned the interpretation of collective responsibility when I first joined Council, and was told that in the event of disagreement, it was OK for councillors to say publicly that there was a 'split vote', or 'opinions varied'.
"This new statement would mean that if I disagree with a Council decision, I would now either have to lie in public and say I supported it, or run away and hide.
There were two other aspects of the new statement which Colin was not prepared to sign up to.
The first was a new requirement that councillors "support the College’s vision".
Colin said: "People who actively disagree with the College's vision should be free to stand to join Council, and if the profession disagrees with the College's vision, they'll get elected!"
The second was a requirement for councillors to "Live the College’s values"
Colin said: "Although perhaps inline with a corporate ethos, I think it represents quite a conflict.
"The values someone lives by are a deeply personal matter, and shouldn't be imposed by the majority vote of a committee they happen to sit on - however much they may or may not be likely to align."
Colin's resignation prompted VetSurgeon.org to carry out a quick analysis of the percentage of RCVS Council meeting agenda items marked as 'Confidential' from November 2015 to June 2022, to see whether the requirement to tow the party line reflected a broader lack of transparency at the College.
In the four Council meetings from November 2015-2016, 12% of the agenda items in the Council minutes were marked 'Confidential'.
By 2022, that figure had more than doubled to 36% (see graph right).
The new RCVS 'How we work' statement can be read in full in Annex One of the June 2022 Council Papers.
The BBC has broadcast an investigation in which the RSPCA is accused of various acts of inappropriate and uncharitable behaviour towards a veterinary surgeon, a barrister, an aged pet owner and the owners of an animal sanctuary.
The accusations were broadcast on BBC Radio 4's Face the Facts, and included:
Responding to the accusations, RSPCA's Chief Executive Gavin Grant sounded by turns arrogant and defiant, dismissing accusations of harassment of vets and barristers as 'a nonsense' and saying that the idea that the police/CPS should take over prosecutions (as happens in Scotland) is 'fanciful'. When the interviewer suggested that the charity was losing its reputation as a 'helpful' organisation and becoming known as 'heavy-handed', Mr Grant seemed unapologetic, deflecting the question by talking about the values of those that founded the charity.
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.
It is thought that the main reason for the cutbacks is a shortage of veterinary surgeons caused by Brexit, which is making it both harder and more expensive to recruit.
The company has given an undertaking that the joint venture partners of the practices it offers to buy back will not be expected to repay outstanding borrowings to any parties and Pets at Home will settle any liabilities for third party bank loans and leases on behalf of the JVP.
Chief Executive Peter Pritchard said: "Since becoming the Group CEO in May, I have had the opportunity to take stock of the wider group and shape my view of our future.
"What I have found fills me with confidence. Pets at Home is a healthy business and customers are loving what we do; responding to our price repositioning, investment in digital and the amazing service delivered by our vet partners. We have the ability to offer almost everything a pet owner needs, giving us opportunities our competitors simply don't have. Which is why my vision is to develop a complete pet care company, uniting our retail and vet businesses.
"Reviewing our Vet Group has been a priority. I recognise we have grown at pace and more recently, have seen the pressure that rising costs and our fees are placing on this young business. We will need to recalibrate the business to deliver more measured growth, whilst maintaining our plan to generate significant cash profits.
"We are focused on maximising our unique assets and delivering a plan for sustainable cashflow and profit growth. Given the success of the changes we have made in Retail, I'm confident we can do this."