A new poll carried out by YouGov on behalf of Dogs Trust has revealed that in 2022 vet bills were the biggest financial worry for pet owners when it came to looking after their dog. 

The second biggest financial worry was the cost of dog food (18%), followed by pet insurance (16%).

The news came as Dogs Trust announced that it has had 50,000 requests this year from owners asking the charity to take in their dog, a new record in the charity's history.

The outlook for 2023 doesn't look any more optimistic; the poll also found that 62% of people who don’t currently own a dog think the rising cost of living would prevent them from getting one in 2023, whilst 36% said it ‘definitely would’ and 25% said it ‘probably would’.

In the meantime 21% said they would give their dog fewer presents this year, whilst 13% said they won’t give their dogs a present at all this Christmas, despite giving presents in previous years.

Maybe that's a good thing. After all why were they wasting money in the first place: the dog doesn't know it's Christmas, or appreciate a present. 

Perhaps more significantly, fewer dog owners will be going away for a Christmas break this year: 9% said they’d be staying home because they can't afford a dog sitter.

Owen Sharp, Chief Executive of Dogs Trust, said: “Although it was inevitable that we would reach 50,000 calls from owners no longer able to care for their dogs, it’s still a shock and a stark signifier of the animal welfare crisis the UK now finds itself in.

“Through our December poll, dog owners have told us they’re going to struggle this Christmas, and many more are really worried about what 2023 is going to bring."

Tim Harrison, who with his father Craig built White Cross Vets into a 20-practice group across the North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Midlands, has announced plans to launch a new independent practice group. 

Harrison Family Vets opened its first practice earlier this month in Woodley, Reading, in a £350,000 investment that created eight jobs.

The plan is for the next practice to open later this summer in the Midlands, before the group expands north towards the end of the year. The group is now searching for further properties across the north and south of England, with plans to open 75 practices by the end of the decade.

Tim joined his dad's practice in 1995 as General Manager. He later co-founded Vets4Pets in 2001 before joining Mars Inc. to head the overseas growth of Banfield, then the world’s largest veterinary practice. He then rejoined the family business to grow it further, until it was acquired by IVC Evidensia in 2018.

Alongside Tim is operations director, Kristie Faulkner who also worked at White Cross Vets until it was acquired by IVC, whereupon she became regional operations manager, overseeing more than 200 of the IVC's practices across the South East of England.

Between 2012 and 2018, White Cross Vets was repeatedly named as one of the UK’s best employers and a truly extraordinary place to work. The company secured a place in the prestigious ‘Top 100 Sunday Times Best Small Companies to Work For’ league table for seven consecutive years, as well as being the inaugural SPVS Wellbeing Award Winners.  

Tim said: “The whole ethos at Harrison Family Vets is about fostering a culture within our team that sets us apart and differentiates our practice from all others. Every individual’s strengths and personality traits will contribute to what we do, in a family-orientated environment. Our culture is about looking after people. Focus on attracting the very best people and then look after them as much as possible. A successful practice with a fabulous reputation amongst the profession and amongst clients is what automatically follows.

“Our state-of-the-art clinics boast extensive facilities including on-site laboratories, full x-ray suites, operating theatres, ultrasonography and separate dog and cat wards that have been carefully designed with mood lighting, aromas and music to offer a calming atmosphere. 

We’ve also worked hard to create a customer experience that’s more akin to an Apple store, than a traditional veterinary practice. We don’t have a reception desk and instead, our front of house team have the autonomy to freely interact with our clients and their pets.

Our waiting areas feature bespoke pods, which give clients their own space and offer pets privacy, thus shielding them from the stresses of facing other pets in a traditional waiting room. Each pod also has its own tablet where clients can update their details, sign up to our Total Wellness Plan or even order fresh and healthy dog food from Butternut Box.

“Everyone wants to know why we want to start another veterinary group now. For Kristie and I the timing is perfect as there is a clear void to fill. The people-focused independent practice is becoming a thing of the past and is what the profession is yearning for.  This will attract the very best team members which in turn will provide a superior client and pet experience.  

"Creating a successful business and building a fantastic team is incredibly exciting and we genuinely believe Harrison Family Vets can become the most innovative, forward-looking and caring practice, as well as the employer of choice for vets and nurses, in the UK.”

VetSurgeon.org wishes Tim and Kristie all the very best luck in the world with their new venture, although one suspects that they won't need to rely on luck. White Cross under his direction was consistently doing extraordinary things to foster what seemed to be a remarkably good working environment. If they can come close to repeating the formula, or improving on it, they must be on to a winner.  

The RVN Disciplinary Committee of the RCVS has removed an Armagh-based nurse from the Register after finding that she'd entered the details of four injections into clinical records when she had no reasonable basis for doing so.

During the four-day hearing, the Committee considered two alternative charges against Ms Tracy Nicholl (nee Wilson) relating to her actions on 3 February 2011, whilst employed by O'Reilly & Fee veterinary surgery, Armagh.

Ms Nicholl was alleged by the College to have administered Dolethal, a pink liquid containing pentabarbitone and used for euthanasia, to a dog called Butch without being directed to do so. It was also alleged that she had made dishonest entries into the dog's clinical records, or had administered drugs without a veterinary surgeon's prescription.

Ms Nicholl was alleged to have administered the Dolethal via a fluid bag and giving set on the morning of 3 February, which she denied. The Committee found that, although a veterinary surgeon believed that she saw pink fluid in the line, uncertainties in the surrounding circumstances made the Committee unable to be sure the line contained pink liquid. Expert and forensic evidence revealed Butch had received Dolethal, but not the route of administration or the timing. Therefore the Committee could not be sure Ms Nicholl administered the Dolethal and dismissed this charge.

However, the Committee found that Ms Nicholl did enter on Butch's clinical records that four drugs had been injected, when she had neither administered them nor been told that the drugs had been administered. Although she denied making the entries in evidence submitted to the hearing, in evidence from an interview with the College on 11 July 2011 she had admitted this and her initials were on the record entries.

The Committee noted these injections would be chargeable, and was satisfied the public would regard making these incorrect entries as dishonest. As Ms Nicholl was a highly experienced, senior nurse who also lectured to veterinary nursing students, the Committee was sure she knew she was acting dishonestly. Further, she had breached her responsibilities to clients by failing to maintain accurate case records, and the entries raised potential animal welfare issues. In mitigation, her actions affected no animal's actual welfare, and there was no evidence that Ms Nicholl had made any financial gain or repeated her conduct.

Ms Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "In addition to the fact that the charge involved dishonesty, there were a number of other aggravating features. The Respondent has not demonstrated any recognition of the seriousness of the record entry allegation, specifically the importance of keeping proper records ... It is in the wider public interest and to protect the reputation of the veterinary nursing profession that the Respondent's name should be removed from the Register."

Ms Nicholl is the first Registered Veterinary Nurse to be struck off since the introduction of the title.

Zoetis has added a dermatology application to its Vetscan Imagyst, which promises to reduce the time it takes GP veterinary surgeons to analyse skin samples by as much as half.

The new Vetscan Imagyst AI dermatology application analyses impression smears and ear and skin swabs to identify yeast, inflammatory cells and bacteria.

It provides results in about ten minutes, depending on your upload speeds, which VetSurgeon understands is probably how long a dermatologist would take to perform the task (compared to a GP, who might take twice as long, depending on skills, available equipment, volume of tests, etc). 

In terms of accuracy, Zoetis says the application is comparable to that of a clinical pathology expert.

In addition, it fires out a report, including images, which can be shared with the client, adding more value to the consultation. 

According to a 2006 study, something like 72% of vets' derm diagnosis and treatment recommendations are based on presenting clinical signs and physical examination alone¹.

Vetscan Imagyst list price is just shy of £18,000, but there are a variety of commercial deals that can be discussed with your Zoetis Account Manager. Each AI analysis costs in the order of a tenner.  

So the question is whether the new system is worth the investment - for the 72% in terms of a more accurate diagnosis over an educated guess, and for the 28% in terms of the time-savings over a manual analysis.

Sophie Duguid, Diagnostics National Veterinary Manager at Zoetis UK said: “The ability to accurately and reliably identify inflammatory cells, bacteria and yeast, at the time of visit can make a huge difference for busy clinics, ensuring better outcomes and happier patients and owners.

"Performing cytology is a critical component of the dermatology work-up, however this can often be challenging for veterinary healthcare teams to deliver given the considerable time pressures in clinical practice.

"Vetscan Imagyst AI dermatology allows clinicians to rapidly detect the presence or absence of skin infection in canine and feline dermatology cases which allows for clinically informed decision making."

Reference

1. Hill PB et al; Survey of the prevalence, diagnosis and treatment of dermatological conditions in small animals in general practice. Veterinary Record (2006) 158, 533-539

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded and warned Dr Natalia Anna Strokowska for dishonesty in communication and for failing to get permission to share photos on social media.

The Disciplinary Committee considered four charges against Dr Strokowska. The first was that, whilst registered in the 'Practising Outside the United Kingdom' category of the Register of Veterinary Surgeons maintained by the RCVS, she practised as a veterinary surgeon in the counties of Somerset, Shropshire, London, Lancashire and Norfolk between July 2016 and August 2017 when she was not registered as UK-practising. The charges were that her conduct in relation to this was dishonest and misleading to her employer and/or clients.

The second charge was that, between October 2016 and July 2017, Dr Strokowska made posts on social media which included photographs of and comments about animals being treated at the practices where she worked, without the consent of the owners or the practices. 

The third charge was that, between January 2017 and March 2017, Dr Strokowska made posts on social media which included photographs, videos and comments about animals being treated at Goddards Veterinary Hospital in Wanstead, without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon.

The fourth charge was that, between July 2017 and September 2017, Dr Strokowska made representations to the practice principal of Barn Lodge, in Lancashire, and/or a student vet working at the practice that she had gained consent for photographs and social media posts when she had not, and that her conduct was dishonest and misleading.

At the outset of the hearing, the Dr Strokowska admitted to having practised as a veterinary surgeon in the UK when she was registered as practising outside the UK, but disputed that she had been dishonest or misleading with regards to this.

She also admitted to the entirety of the second charge and part of the third, but, under the latter charge, denied that she had, without consent, taken a video of an animal being operated on by a veterinary colleague.

Finally, she admitted to dishonest and misleading conduct with regard to part of the fourth charge, but denied that, in July 2017, she informed the practice principal that she had been told that she would be allowed to take photographs at Barn Lodge and post these on social media, when she had not been so told.

The Disciplinary Committee went on to consider the facts of the case for each of the charges that remained in issue.

Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee accepted that she did not have her registration status with the RCVS in her mind while she was working in the UK during the period in question. Accordingly, the Committee did not find her to have been dishonest.

With regards to the third charge the Committee considered the issue of whether the video in question had been posted "without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon".  After examining the relevant evidence (which included the video in question) the Committee determined that the evidence did not support the facts charged and thus that charge three was not proved.

With regards to the fourth charge, Strokowska denied that her conduct in relation to informing the principal that she had been told that she would be allowed to take photographs and post these on social media was dishonest or misleading, on the basis that she believed she had permission to take and post photographs on social media. The Committee was not able to be sure as to how she sought this consent and the response provided and so the charge was found not proved.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges that were admitted amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

The Committee found that it was the respondent’s responsibility to ensure that her registration status was appropriate at the time she was doing locum work in the UK. However she had provided her RCVS registration number to all the practises she had worked for and in the view of the committee there was no intention to deceive anyone. In the judgement of the Committee, her conduct was not sufficiently grave so as to constitute serious professional misconduct.

The Committee, in its judgement, concluded that her conduct in relation to the second charge did fall far short of the behaviour to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession, and amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee considered that all members of the profession are obliged to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the Code of Professional Conduct, and the supporting guidance, in relation to the use of the internet and social media.

Unauthorised posting of photographs of animals being treated by a veterinary surgeon on social media may well cause distress to the owners, and damage to the reputation of the profession as a whole, and to the reputation of individual practices.

The aspect of the third charge admitted by the respondent involved posting a photograph with accompanying text of a dog without the consent of the treating and/or operating veterinary surgeon. The Committee considered that this was, indeed, a matter of professional discourtesy, but did not consider that it amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The respondent admitted the fourth charge and admitted that her conduct was dishonest and misleading. The Committee, in its judgement, considered that by choosing to lie in response to a genuine professional enquiry about her conduct, her behaviour fell far short of that to be expected from a member of the veterinary profession, and constituted serious professional misconduct.

The Committee next considered what, if any, sanction to impose.

In mitigation the Committee considered that the postings were an attempt to promote the health and welfare of animals; the lack of risk of harm or actual harm to an animal or human; no apparent financial gain from her actions; her youth and inexperience at the time of the misconduct; her open and frank admissions at an early stage; her subsequent efforts to avoid repetition; the lapse of time since the incident; and her demonstration of insight into the effects of her postings on some owners.

The Committee considered the available sanctions in order starting with no further action. The Committee did not consider that this was appropriate where the serious professional misconduct found in this case involved dishonesty, even given the mitigating factors relating to that as outlined above, nor in view of the repeated nature of the social media posts without owner consent.

The Committee determined that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the appropriate sanction in the circumstances of this case.

Dr Strokowska was reprimanded for her serious professional misconduct in relation to her admitted failure to obtain necessary consent for posts on social media and her dishonesty in communication.

She was warned that she should in future be fully aware of, and comply with, the provisions of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, in particular as it relates to the use of social media, including the need to ensure that she has obtained all the necessary consents from all relevant parties.

The Veterinary Record has published new research which shows that one in seven vets is likely to be burnt-out within 10 years of qualifying.

The study was conducted by a team of Dutch researchers led by Nicole Mastenbroek (pictured right) from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at Utrecht University.

They noted that veterinary surgeons' psychological wellbeing has been the subject of several studies in different countries in recent years, with some evidence suggesting that male vets are less prone to distress, anxiety, and depression. They wanted to gauge the level of burn-out and engagement with work among vets that had graduated within the past decade, and to assess whether gender or years since graduation are influential factors.

The researchers say they based their approach on the job demands-resources (JD-R) questionnaire, which balances out negative (burn-out) and positive (engagement) aspects of wellbeing associated with work. However, they tailored it specifically for veterinary surgeons, on the grounds that every profession has unique risk factors for burn-out.

The questionnaire was emailed to 1,790 vets who had qualified in The Netherlands between 1999 and 2009, with the final analysis based on the responses of 860, almost three quarters (73%) of whom were women.

Levels of exhaustion and cynicism - both of which are associated with burn-out - were significantly lower than those in a random sample of the Dutch working population. But so too was the level of work engagement.

The responses showed that one in seven respondents (14%) was burnt-out within 10 years of qualifying.

The researchers say that if the criteria for burn-out that are normally used for the Dutch workforce are applied, then the responses would indicate that 27% of the survey respondents were burnt-out.

Women also seemed to reach burn-out faster. Almost one in five (18%) of the female respondents was burnt-out within five years of graduating.

Male vets tended to be less exhausted and more engaged with work than their female peers. Job demands associated with exhaustion were work/home life balance and workload, while job resources linked to engagement included opportunities for professional development and "skills discretion" - the ability to use and develop skills on the job.

Researchers says that behavioural traits explained more of the variance in levels of work engagement between male and female vets than in levels of exhaustion.

Self-belief in one's abilities (self-efficacy) and a proactive stance are linked to work engagement in the JD-R approach. But women vets rated themselves as less effective, optimistic, proactive and assertive than did their male peers.

British Veterinary Association President Robin Hargreaves said: "These findings are worrying but sadly not surprising. We know that a burn out and other manifestations of poor mental wellbeing in veterinary professionals of both sexes are a well-recognised problem in the UK and they are a constant concern to BVA.

"The suggestion of an increased susceptibility to burn out amongst female vets adds to that concern with the increasing proportion of women in the profession."

The PDSA has announced that it is to close its Pet Practice service (PPS) scheme, through which around 30,000 pet owners on low incomes have been able to access free veterinary treatment delivered through private practices.

Instead, eligible clients are being invited to join PDSA Pet Care, a new scheme costing £4.50 per month which entitles them to veterinary consultation, one primary vaccination course or booster each year (including a health check), a 20% discount on qualifying treatments in private practice, access to a nurse-led 24/7 triage service and preferential rates on PDSA pet insurance. 

The PDSA says that pet owners and practices registered to the current Pet Practice service have been informed directly about the changes, which are being introduced over the next 12 months, as the current service is gradually phased out.

PDSA Director of Veterinary Services, Richard Hooker, said: "Following the review it was clear that the PDSA Pet Practice model was no longer financially sustainable for the charity in its existing form. However, it was important to many practices and PDSA to identify how we can best continue to offer some help to pet owners who live outside the catchment area of our Pet Hospital network and who have a need for affordable veterinary care and advice. 

"We are grateful to all those in the profession who contributed to the development of the new scheme. It provides a more sustainable way in which to support households on low incomes across the UK. We are hopeful that practices will look to work with us to support pets and owners in their local communities by participating in the replacement scheme.

"We are mindful that any changes to our service can have an impact on some pet owners and our colleagues in the profession. This is why we have consulted on these moves and put measures in place to support those most affected."

Clients currently using the Pet Practice service who have a pet with a lifelong chronic condition will continue to receive some financial support towards the cost of their pet’s ongoing care and treatment via the PDSA Chronic Voucher scheme, which offers £25 per month towards the ongoing care of their pet for its lifetime.

The charity says it is also looking at a number of specific locations, where existing clients and their pets could supported by its Pet Hospital network when the current Pet Practice service closes.  

Richard Hooker added: "The changes to the Pet Practice service are part of a much wider review of PDSA charitable services carried out this year. We have also made changes to our Pet Hospital service: reducing the number of eligible pets that owners can register for free treatment, from three to one, and withdrawing our Pet Treatment Fund.

"These important steps ensure that our available funds are targeted as effectively as possible, achieving our charitable aims of preventing illness, educating pet owners and treating sick animals.

"As a charity we receive no Government funding and rely on the generosity of our supporters and clients to run our services, which cost more than £60 million each year to fund."

ITV's Tonight programme broadcast last night portrayed a veterinary profession in which overcharging is commonplace.

Researchers for the programme took three healthy animals (a cat, a dog and a rabbit) to a number of different vets, telling them that the animals were off their food. The advice they were given varied. In the case of the rabbit from no treatment necessary, to dental work under general anaesthetic.

TV vet Marc Abraham then looked at each animal and told viewers that the correct advice in each case would have been the least expensive.

The programme also highlighted the substantial savings that pet owners can make by buying drugs online, and questioned whether the penalty meted out to a vet that had committed malpractice was sufficient (the vet had been struck off for 14 months, where presenter Jonathan Maitland argued it should have been for life).

Veterinary business consultant Mark Moran said: "So often, vets rely to a large degree on what owners are telling them, and the degree to which they insist the animal is ill, or off its food, will affect the advice and treatment given. Marc Abraham had the luxury of being presented three animals that he knew to be perfectly fit and well."

However he agreed wholeheartedly with the response from RCVS President Jill Nute this morning, that the thing both vets and pet owners need to learn from the programme is "the importance of communicating with each other".

Mark said: "It's a question of managing people's expectations. There'll always be a variance in the advice being given, but being up-front and open will help mitigate the risk of being accused of overcharging".

Click here to watch the programme.
Click here to read the reactions to Marc Abrahams' blog

Veterinary Woman and VetYou are to host a series of free, one-hour online discussions to help women in the profession with their finances, the first at 7:30pm on 30th July.

Each 'Facing Up To Finances' discussion will include tips from a financial professional and live Q&A from the community.

Hosted by a member of VetYou, the panel will include a financial professional, a guest sharing their experience, and a member of the Veterinary Woman team.

Registrants can pre-submit questions or ask them live, including anonymously.

Editor of Veterinary Woman, Jenny Langridge, said: “Readers of Veterinary Woman ranked ‘finances’ as the top subject they needed to know more about to make the most of future opportunities.

"It’s vital that women in the veterinary professions are able to access trusted resources such as the Facing Up To Finances discussions to help achieve their financial goals.”

Further sessions in October 2024 and January and May 2025 will cover subjects including preparing for the unexpected, financial planning and negotiation around life moves such as family, moves and career shifts, and financial strategies for wellness and insurance.

https://www.subscribepage.com/veterinary_woman_finance_series

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has found Cheshire-based Paul Stuart Thomason MRCVS not guilty of disgraceful conduct after hearing charges that he undertook a pre-purchase examination of a horse called Reba which caused him to have a potential or actual conflict of interest with the seller, about which he failed to inform the prospective buyer.

Dr Thomason initially denied both heads of charge, but on the third day of the hearing he changed his plea and admitted the charge in its entirety.

The first part of the charge related to the fact that the seller of the horse was a both a client of Dr Thomason’s practice and a personal friend of his, and he therefore had a potential and/or actual conflict of interest.

Dr Thomason did not disclose this professional and personal relationship to the prospective purchaser before the pre-purchase exam.

The prospective purchaser only discovered Dr Thomason’s relationship with the seller when reading the vetting certificate at home, and stated that, in the past, she had had a similar experience in which the horse was then found to be lame. She later found out the extent of the personal relationship, when invited to join the seller on a social media site.

The Committee found that, in this set of circumstances, Dr Thomason should not have undertaken the pre-purchase exam at all, and, at the very least, disclosed his personal and professional relationship with the vendor.

The Committee also found that although Dr Thomason did have a system in place to inform any prospective purchasers if the vendor was a client of his practice, this failed to work on this occasion and neither the practice nor Dr Thomason told the prospective buyer that the seller was a client before booking the pre-purchase exam. Dr Thomason had no similar system in place to disclose any close friendships with sellers.

Dr Thomason did not consider there was a conflict of interest as he felt confident he could carry out the pre-purchase exam impartially. In addition, it was his belief that the seller had been alerted to the conflict through a system in place at his practice, implemented to safeguard against this type of error. He stated that he in no way attempted to hide his relationship with the seller to the prospective purchaser. 

It was not alleged that Dr Thomason had acted dishonestly.

Ultimately, the Committee found Dr Thomason not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Whilst the Committee concluded that the respondent’s view of his obligations to disclose both the professional and personal relationships he had with the vendor was mistaken, it did not find any improper motivation on his part. It has already noted that he sought to disclose to the prospective purchaser through his system the fact that the vendor was a professional client of his.

"The Committee has weighed all these matters very carefully. It is for the client to determine whether or not to proceed with a PPE when in possession of all relevant facts in relation to any potential conflict of interest, and not for the veterinary surgeon to decide. The autonomy of the client must be respected. The Committee was firmly of the opinion that a failure to comply with the Code is very serious. However, taking into account the particulars of this case, the Committee does not consider that the actions of the respondent amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a veterinary surgeon formerly practising in Southampton for failing to make animal welfare his primary concern.

At a hearing this week, adjourned from September 2010, the Disciplinary Committee heard charges against Michael Albring, formerly of VetCall practice, Bitterne, Southampton. Mr Albring was said to have failed to make a home visit to attend Bear, a Newfoundland dog belonging to Mrs Thacker, when he knew, or ought to have known, that there were clinical or welfare grounds making a home visit necessary.

The hearing was held in Mr Albring's absence; the Committee considered that, having postponed the case last year at his request, Mr Albring had had ample time to prepare his case and submit any mitigations, and sufficient opportunity to attend. Additional adjournment would further delay the matter's resolution and not be in the wider interests of justice, or public confidence in either the RCVS disciplinary system or the veterinary profession.

On the evening of 19 December 2009, Mr Albring had been the veterinary surgeon on duty at VetCall, a practice that provides the out of-hours emergency cover for several local veterinary practices, including the one where Bear was registered. When Mrs Thacker's daughter, Ms Davidson, telephoned VetCall to request a home visit as the dog had collapsed, she was told that it was against practice policy for the practice to be left unmanned so this would not be possible. This was despite a written policy which accepted and made provision for the rare occasions when a home visit would be necessary. Phoning again later, the information about practice policy was repeated and Ms Davidson directed to a local animal ambulance service, which attended.

The ambulance driver found that the dog could not be transported in the ambulance and telephoned VetCall to say a home visit was needed. This was refused by Mr Albring even, the Committee noted, when the ambulance driver offered to collect Mr Albring, drive him to Ms Davidson's home 10-15 minutes away, assist with the euthanasia, and return him to the clinic. In the interim, Ms Davidson had also sought help from a separate practice and, subsequent to Mr Albring's refusal to visit, their on-duty veterinary surgeon attended and euthanased Bear. 

The Committee found that Mr Albring's refusal to visit, once it was clear Bear could not be transported, and he knew that a home visit was necessary on welfare grounds, resulted in Bear spending longer than necessary in pain and distress. This was not a case where the pressure of work or the welfare needs of other animals prevented Mr Albring from attending, and it was also relevant that Mr Albring was specifically employed to work out of hours in an emergency clinic. Serious, too, was his failure to reply promptly to communications from the RCVS, or show insight into the seriousness of his conduct.

In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated case, and there were no previous findings against Mr Albring.  He was in sole charge of an emergency clinic covering 15-20 practices across Southampton and Portsmouth, which would make, in some circumstances, home visits difficult.

Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee is concerned that the actual policy pursued by the clinic regarding domiciliary visits was different to the written one.

"In effect, a no-visits policy existed at the VetCall clinic and this must have added to the pressure under which the Respondent [Mr Albring] was working.

"The Committee is mindful that the object of sanctions is not to be punitive, but to protect animal welfare, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to maintain appropriate standards," she continued, noting that as animal welfare had knowingly been neglected and Mr Albring had demonstrated no insight, a warning or reprimand would not be enough.  "A period of suspension would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold standards," she said.

The Committee directed that Mr Albring's name be suspended from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons for ten months.

Earlier this month, veterinary surgeon Matthew Wilkinson caused a storm after giving a controversial interview to the Daily Mail to promote his book: On The Destiny Of Species. VetSurgeon member Martin Jones has read the book to find out whether the book supports the allegations. Here is his review ... 

I can't deal with hypocrisy (and if I do it I want it pointed out), especially when it leads to more suffering.
Matthew Watkinson, on his own fishsnorkel blog

Being subjective isn't about evidence, it's about feelings, and the most fundamental part of being subjective is the projection of extrinsic values...... i.e. X means Y to me so I will assume X means Y to X as well
On the Destiny of Species, p.17

...it should be perfectly obvious that feelings can corrupt perspective and warp reality.
On the Destiny of Species, p.18

I can only say that you make me ashamed to be human.
On the Destiny of Species, p.112

On the Destiny of Species is the Book of Matthew Watkinson. It's a piece of Matthew himself: his theories, his feelings, his world view. It's the document at the centre of the storm, the cause (and topic) of much argument recently, here and on a wider stage. Matthew has attacked the veterinary profession, if not quite by going through the front door, then at least by coming in the windows. He's put his name to the accusations, has been robust in defending them and has inarguably stood by his principles. The response has not, I think, surprised him; but it may have surprised some of us. Despite not having actually read the book, many people have felt qualified to comment - often with some force.

So, in the interests of objectivity I volunteered to read the thing, and to apply some scrutiny to what the man is actually saying; we're all agreed - including Matthew - that the Daily Mail did a poor job on his behalf, reducing his argument in the minds of its readers to an attack on veterinary ethics and profits. Matthew clearly wishes to say more, so why not listen?

Before we start, I'd like to point out that I'm not here to perform a hatchet job on behalf of the veterinary profession. When I asked Matthew for a copy, I was quite open that I might hate it, and that I would say so, but that if I didn't then equally I would say so. So here goes.

Matthew kicks off by defining objectivity and subjectivity; former good, latter bad. Science and reasoning right, emotion and hypocrisy wrong. As with what is to come, he doesn't hold back on this score. However, if this was to be an objective review, in which prose, style and accessibility of content were examined, then it would be fairly short and not particularly complimentary. The typographical errors start on line two and batter the more sensitively tuned reader pretty much continuously to the end. It's rambling, poorly edited, and repetitive for much of its length (the work would decently fit into a book half its current size). It fails to engage the reader on any level that isn't centred on shared anger.

But to concentrate on the book's failing as a work of literature would be to ignore the message, and that's surely what we're here for. The theories and arguments therein are what should concern us, and I'll attempt to review them below.

First, the surprises, in particular that vets feature hardly at all. Our complicity in propagating recessive genes is tackled early on, and whether or not we feel responsible as individuals, it can't be denied that this section is one of the book's successes. The vitriol that Matthew pours into modern farming, and at the breeders behind some of our more extreme patients, is genuine and heartfelt, and he might quite validly have expanded here. Admittedly some of his conclusions are rather worrying, if only for their undeniable plausibility to the layman:

Similarly, in dogs, the congenital heart defect patent ductus arteriosus could not have become a heritable risk without veterinary surgeons

The statement shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the way that recessive genes flow through populations, with a clear implication that we fix 'em up (although I suspect almost none of us could ever attempt the feat) so that they can get back to breeding.

The book is actually about lack of objectivity in conservation, and the inconsistency in preserving a species because of its attractiveness, often at the expense of less amiable species. Matthew espouses the view that we are essentially puny humans, and that nothing we do really matters. I know now that he is Darwin's biggest fan, doesn't believe in God and is dismissive of creationists, doesn't believe that any animals reliant on conservation actually appreciate the fact, and does believe that all animals should be viewed in terms of their ability to adapt and exploit, rather than their usefulness to us:

.... conservation has nothing to do with extinct animals and everything to do with the way some people feel about extinct animals

Matthew sets himself up as the crusader and lone voice of reason, as an unequivocal judge of those who stand in the way of his theories. Among these are pretty much all conservationists, quite a number of biological and global warming scientists and anybody who indulges in post-rationalisation (those who use new evidence to retrospectively confirm their beliefs). And then he goes and says:

My decision to study veterinary medicine was based on the naïve assumption that it would involve the pragmatic application of objective selection principles

Really? At sixteen, I remember liking animals and wanting to impress girls. Those who live by the sword, Matthew. His approach to people who might seek a different view is robust, to say the least:

peace-promising Harp Seal fanatic Rebecca Aldworth.... the chief scientist of the IUCN has completely forgotten, or never actually known, that species don't evolve themselves in the right direction..... despite their own quite ludicrous beliefs...... but to anyone with half a brain...... Honestly, what the hell is wrong with these people...... is obviously controlled by idiots...... thus it should be face-punchingly obvious.....

All of which contrasts nicely with the statement made at the start of the book:

I believe that ethical diversity is as natural as biological diversity, but either way, I'm not preaching

The book makes huge promises to "conclusively destroy the empirical basis for almost everything the conservation community has ever said." It fails to do so, quite spectacularly. Matthew's interpretation of both the science and the motivation of conservation (and remember, in being objective, we should be seeking evidence) is deeply flawed and he resorts to the kind of mudslinging that ends in rubbish fights behind the bike sheds. On the more recent efforts to conserve cod stocks by harvesting other species in preference, he comes to an embarrassingly asinine conclusion:

'Atlantic Pollock...can be distinguished from cod by their greenish hue.' 119

Is that it? Are the 'stewards' really telling us to kill Pollack instead of Cod because Pollack have a 'greenish hue'?

Yes. They are.

Really, Matthew? You're actually claiming that fishermen catch Pollack because they're colour-biased, rather than because this population may currently be harvested without threat to its viability? Yes, you are. In fact, you do: it's right there on page 72.

Similarly, Matthew isn't above misappropriating the views of others to prove his point. Here, on the conservation groups which appeal to the public for funds:

Surely they don't mean the end of climate change, and rampant habitat destruction, and rapid population growth, and extreme poverty in many areas of the world, and global food shortages, and extinction threats etc. etc.

If they're promising salvation, I guess they do, and I'm sure they really believe it too. In the words of Richard Dawkins:

'...these people actually believe what they say they believe.' 376

OK, so Professor Dawkins was talking about religious fundamentalists, rather than wildly optimistic nature 'managers', but faith is faith regardless of what it's making up on the spot.

I wonder what Richard Dawkins would think about having his thoughts hijacked to somebody else's agenda? Post-rationalisation, Matthew.

Conclusions that Matthew draws from the statistics he presents are prone to error:

2 million dairy cows will suffer at least 3.1 million cases of disease every year, and if you share the incidence risk equally, each individual has a 155% chance of getting sick every year.

Perhaps I should repeat that, for all those who think life should be preserved at all costs:

If you share the incidence risk equally, each individual dairy cow has a 155% chance of getting [sic] each year.

Another stick which Matthew uses to beat the reader: the phrase 'perhaps I should repeat that'. It can be a nice conceit, a device to use sparingly when one has a show-stopping point to make; by the fourth or fifth instance, it had me clenching my teeth. The valid point here, that lameness in cattle is one of the greater scandals of modern farming (and that the RSPCA isn't entirely objective in its approach to animal welfare), is lost in the bungling of the message.

Possibly the least successful portion of the book is where Matthew attempts to take on climate change and the science behind it. Now, I'm not sure that either Matthew or I are equipped to take this on, and there is a fair amount of confusion evident as a result, not to mention some self-contradiction about the importance of the role of carbon dioxide. He also clings to the quaint notion that because the earth hasn't died yet, it won't. It brings to mind the apocryphal story of the Bronx housewife, on being arrested for murdering her husband, "Whaddya mean - I stabbed him loadsa times before and he never died".  It's pretty likely that when the human race kills itself off, plenty of other lifeforms will flourish - but the simple facts are that we don't know how and when we're going to do it, or how much we'll destroy on the way out. I was particularly tickled by Matthew's assertion that dumping nuclear waste into the rainforests is

.....a good plan that will inevitably fall on deaf ears

In asserting that all lives must end, but Life will continue indefinitely (neatly ignoring the principle that entropy will eventually win, but not for a little while yet), Matthew aims to apply objective scrutiny to the abiding principles of conservation - and thereby expose it for the pointless sham that he believes it to be. However, such an approach to our relationship with our ecosystem and to individuals' rights to life may help to reduce sentimentality, but it's also distinctly joyless and seeks to take from humans their capacity to find pleasure in activities that don't necessarily influence their own survival. Like it or not, we've evolved to enjoy stuff, we're the dominant species and Darwinism dictates that we strive to maintain this status. If we want to save a bunch of polar bears, we can. It might help, it might not. If we want to cull jellyfish so that our marine food stocks are safeguarded, then we're following simple Darwinian principles. But as the species that made it through to master abstract thought, to at least understand the principle of altruism and to be able to seamlessly construct shields against our own hypocrisy, we can save what we like, when we like. Matthew seems to be angry about this, and that's not entirely healthy.

There are points to be made here: Matthew wants to take on the indiscriminate dog breeders; he rightly pulls up some of the eco-babble that promises total world destruction - and the unwarranted guilt that it engenders; he makes a nice point about the parallels between ecological proselytising and religion - but then ruins it by repeating it over and over again, page after page. Simply, if rather brutally, the book doesn't work for me on any level. I wasn't convinced by a single argument that I hadn't already considered and I found it an absolute chore to read.

I apologise to Matthew. I wanted to be positive and to be able to demonstrate that his actions were at least well-motivated, and had allowed him to bring something to the table with his book. But I fear that he'll be remembered simply as the man who tried to fight overcharging in the profession, and it's clear that that's the one point he hasn't actually tried to make.

One last thing. Matthew contends that we must strive for objectivity, and that we should fight hypocrisy. He makes the clear point that dead animals do not have feelings, and that to give them significance is subjective. In his words elsewhere though, he has described how in dealing with his agent, he became frustrated by the lack of pace; Darwin's great work was nearing its 150^th anniversary, and in order to tie in properly with this it was imperative that the book be published without delay.

To this, I have to say: the anniversary wasn't aware of the book's arrival. The anniversary has no thoughts on the matter; it isn't animate or sentient or in any way aware. The anniversary didn't care whether or not it was celebrated. In fact, the:

.... [celebration of the anniversary] has nothing to do with [the anniversary itself] and everything to do with the way some people feel about [anniversaries]

The subjective course of action was to sack the agent and self-publish in a hurry. The objective course of action would have been to retain the agent, forget about an arbitrary date and get a good editor in. There was the basis of a decent book here: Matthew has some things to say; unfortunately, he seems to have gone out of his way to make sure that few people want to listen, both in the writing of the book and in its promotion. What a shame.

To Matthew, I apologise again. I wish you the best of luck, I respect and defend your right to air your beliefs and if I'd liked the book, I would have said so. To others, who might accuse me of kicking a man when he's down, I say that I cannot hurt the man financially: Matthew has now started to give the book away as a pdf download. You can find it, along with debate and biography, on his blog:

http://fishsnorkel.wordpress.com/

Dechra Veterinary Products has announced the launch of a smaller size vial of Anesketin, its rapid acting dissociative anaesthetic licensed for cats, dogs and horses.

Anesketin solution for injection, containing Ketamine 100 mg/ml, is indicated for induction of anaesthesia. It can also be used as a sole agent for restraint and minor surgical procedures where muscle relaxation is not required in cats. 

Anesketin was previously available in 10ml or 50ml bottles. Dechra says it has added the new 5ml vial in response to feedback from veterinary practices.

Dechra Brand Manager Craig Sankey said: "Anesketin is one of our most popular products in our range due to its versatility. It can be used in combination with appropriate sedatives and analgesics in cats, dogs and horses for induction of anaesthesia.

"5ml Anesketin will help practices comply with controlled drug legislation, saving time and effort in denaturing out of date stock and reducing wastage."

He added: "The introduction of the smaller bottle demonstrates our commitment to responding to the requirements of veterinary professionals and providing a range of high quality products that provide the most effective solution within day-to-day practice."

Support tools are available for customers to order online at www.dechra.co.uk, including an Anesketin controlled drug register.