A wild golden eagle, one of only 442 breeding pairs, has died after being confiscated from a falconry expert who was nursing the animal back to health, and placed in the care of the RSPCA instead.

Roy Lupton, a falconer from Kent, saved the eagle in November last year, after it sustained injuries fighting a friend's bird. According to newspaper reports, Mr Lupton was given permission by the Scottish Executive to take the bird back to his premises in Kent to nurse it back to health. He planned to release the bird in the spring and claims he told Defra of his plans. Nevertheless, on May 5th, his premises were raided by Kent police, a Defra official and an official from the RSPB.

Despite his protests, the bird was seized and taken to the  RSPCA's Mallydam wildlife centre in Sussex. Mr Lupton was questioned by police and the case passed to the Crown Prosecution Service. It was later dropped.

Meanwhile, Mr Lupton was allowed to visit the bird at the wildlife centre. He said: "I was horrified by what I saw. The RSPCA was keeping the bird on a concrete floor, which is bad for its talons, and there was leaf mould on the roof of the room, which can cause lung infections in golden eagles."

Mr Lupton was later allowed to take the animal home. However, its condition had deteriorated badly, and on June 17th he took the animal to see avian vet Neil Forbes. Sadly, nothing could be done, and the animal died hours later.

In his autopsy report, Neil said that the bird was kept in inappropriate conditions while in the care of the RSPCA and was "not provided with good practice in terms of husbandry". He added: "Whilst I cannot be certain the bird’s death was a direct result of the Defra seizure and the period of RSPCA care, certainly the stress effect (suppressing the immune system), the persistent systemic infection from the time of leaving the RSPCA care, does indicate a very high likelihood of a causative link between the period of care and the bird’s subsequent death."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct a veterinary surgeon who failed to make sufficient enquiries about the location or condition of a cat; unreasonably refused to provide it with first aid and pain relief; and failed to provide it with adequate 24-hour emergency care.

Following a three-day hearing, the Committee found Marcus Kutschera, of South London Emergency Veterinary Centre, Streatham, guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to events on 16 May 2011. Mr Kutschera was Clinical Director of the practice, which provided out-of-hours emergency services to several London veterinary practices. At about 1.45am, the practice received two telephone calls from a representative of a registered charity about a cat, which the caller considered should be seen by a veterinary surgeon as soon as possible. The charity was itself a client of one of the practices whose out-of-hours emergency services were provided by the South London Emergency Veterinary Centre. The cat was later euthanased by the RSPCA.

After listening to a recording of a telephone call between a representative of the charity and Mr Kutschera, during which Mr Kutschera failed to ask about either the condition or location of the cat, the Committee was in no doubt that the caller believed Mr Kutschera would not see the cat unless he was able to pay when it was presented. The Committee said that, once the telephone call had been received, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon was the welfare of the animal, and Mr Kutschera had no good reason not to see the cat or to follow the procedures set out in the Guide to Professional Conduct 2010. If he had made proper inquiries, he would have been able to make a provisional diagnosis that the cat was likely to be euthanased. Mr Kutschera was guilty of unreasonably refusing to provide first aid and/or pain relief to the animal, and of failing to provide adequate 24-hour emergency care.

The Committee concluded that Mr Kutschera's conduct fell far short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon. Although he did recommend that the cat should be taken to the RSPCA, his primary concern was the ability of the client to make a payment on presentation of the cat, and not the animal's welfare. He had a responsibility for ensuring that proper emergency cover was provided.

In mitigation, the Committee noted that the event was a single, short telephone call between Mr Kutschera and the client in the early hours of the morning, and there was no evidence to suggest similar behaviour on his part on other occasions. Mr Kutschera accepted that he made no inquiries into the cat's condition or location, and the Committee accepted that he had shown some insight into what went badly wrong. He said that he had subsequently changed his practice when speaking to clients on the telephone. The Committee also took account of the impact on Mr Kutschera of the case hanging over him since the complaint was made in August 2011 and, as the cost of the Disciplinary Committee inquiry was not covered by his professional indemnity insurance, he had taken on a substantial financial commitment to pay for legal representation.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. Whilst there are undoubted financial issues that can arise in the operation of an out-of-hours service, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon is for the welfare of the animal."

The Committee recommended that Mr Kutschera undertake, within 12 months, continuing professional development training, with a particular emphasis on animal welfare, ethics and client care, in the context of providing out-of-hours services. It imposed on Mr Kutschera the sanction of a severe reprimand and a warning as to his future conduct.

Virbac has announced that from the 1st February 2018, BackHome microchips will include free online transfer of keepership from breeders to new puppy owners.

The introduction of the compulsory microchipping law in April 2016 has meant that puppies have to be microchipped by 8 weeks of age and the breeder has to be recorded as the first keeper. This has, up to now, incurred further and often unexpected costs for new puppy owners or breeders who have had to pay an additional fee for the transfer of keepership.

From 1^st February practices using BackHome microchips will register their newly implanted microchips with the UK based reunification database, PETtrac, and the online transfer of keepership from breeders to new owners will be free. A postal transfer will cost 50p.

BackHome Product Manager Madeline Haynes said: "We have listened to feedback from the veterinary profession who have stressed the importance of not only providing a fast and reliable service from a pet reunification database, but also the need for free transfer of keepership from a breeder to a new owner.

"We are delighted to have been able to facilitate this through the move to PETtrac."

PETtrac is a UK based, DEFRA compliant reunification database that offers 24/7 customer service, 365 days of the year.  

The move to PETtrac will not affect pets already registered with BackHome Microchips, whose lifelong registration with previous database supplier PetLog remains unchanged. 

For more information, visit: www.virbac.co.uk    

*Postal transfer of keepership from breeder to new owner will cost 0.50p

TVM (previously Forum Animal Health) has announced that over the coming weeks, Apometic will be replaced by Emedog, a new, improved apomorphine injection with a new concentration and new dose.

TVM says Emedog provides less wastage, provides easier dosing and is a solution designed specifically for veterinary use.

Simon Boulton MRCVS, Marketing Manager at TVM said: "The use of apomorphine in practice is a vital first-line response when emesis is required due to the ingestion of unwanted substances.

However, 86% of vets questioned thought that wastage was an issue with Apometic and many thought that dosing was difficult in very small animals due to tiny volumes. The new solution is Emedog. Practitioners must be aware that the dose of Emedog is different to that of Apometic and use accordingly."

TVM have provided a dosing guide as part of a changeover pack to aid in the transition. For a copy, contact your local TVM territory manager, email them via help@tvm-uk.com, download from www.tvm-uk.com or ring 01737 781416.

Professor Edzard Ernst, the scientist, author and champion of evidence-based-medicine has today self-published an article about alternative medicine for animals which he was originally invited to write for the Veterinary Record, but withdrew after apparently being told that: "A good number of vets use these therapies and a more balanced view that still sets out their efficacy (or otherwise) would be more useful for the readership."

In part one of the article, Professor Ernst made the case that homeopathy has no place in veterinary (or human) evidence-based medicine. 

In part two, he considered a number of other types of so-called alternative medicine (or 'SCAM', as he called it in the self-published version) for animals, including acupuncture, chiropractic, energy healing and dietary supplements, concluding that most such SCAMS are unproven and that 'arguably it is unethical to use unproven medicines in routine veterinary care'.

Now is it just me, or does anyone else find the Veterinary Record position rather worrying? 

Surely a scientific journal should concern itself with one thing and one thing only: the search for scientific truth?

Surely, therefore, the question of how many veterinary surgeons use a therapy is completely irrelevant. Or am I being idealistic? 

I also struggle with the idea that Professor Ernst could be told to go away and provide more balance.

How exactly is anyone supposed to balance the argument that there's no evidence that a therapy works? The only counter or balancing argument would be that it does. Catch 22.

Most learned people know that homeopathy is not just a little bit implausible, but completely off-the-scale-bonkers-in-a-'world-is-not-flat-sort-of-a-way', along with energy healing and chiropractic.

But acupuncture? I'll bet Professor Ernst's words will make for uncomfortable reading for some. That's precisely what seems to have made the Veterinary Record balk. But surely that's the whole point of science. To challenge our beliefs, even (or especially) if it makes us uncomfortable.

You can read Professor Ernst's blog at: https://edzardernst.com/ 

An Oxford woman has launched Veterinary Thermal Imaging Ltd, a company which claims to be the first in the UK to use thermal imaging to help identify and monitor injury and illness in domestic pets.

Helen Morrell, 34, uses an FLIR infrared camera to detect physiological changes in animals. She says the technique is traditionally only used in top competition and racing stables, and can highlight health problems, including tendon, joint and nerve damage, which would otherwise be undetectable without invasive and expensive procedures such as x-rays and MRI scans.

Helen said: "I became interested in thermal imaging after being made redundant from my job in financial services. I'd studied Animal Science at Newcastle University when I was younger and I viewed the redundancy as the perfect opportunity to return to the industry.

"I realised that there were only a few people in the country who offer thermal imaging, and then only to horses. It's a really emerging technique that has huge potential and is already widely used in the US across all animals, including domestic, livestock, zoo and wildlife. It seemed that there was a huge gap in the market in this country."

Helen contacted leading experts in the US and became the first British woman to be accepted onto the thermal imaging course at Florida University. She said: "I knew I wanted to use the technique on domestic pets and the experts in the field were all in America. It made sense to me to get the training there and make sure I was at the top of my game."

Helen says she is currently working with a three-year-old terrier called Jack who is suffering from muscular atrophy caused by a locking patella. Although the thermal imaging didn't diagnose the problem, she says it is allowing the monitoring of his treatment and providing an objective assessment of the muscles affected by the injury.

Davies Veterinary Specialists reports that it has performed two successful surgeries on dogs to cure cardiac arrhythmia, without support from the human medical field.

Davies says its Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory, headed by Pedro Oliveira (pictured right), is one of only four centres in the world to perform the procedure, and it has usually required human medical support. The fact that they've been able to operate independently means the procedure should now start to become more readily available.

The procedure involves introducing special catheters via peripheral veins into the heart, where they are used to record the electrical activity of the heart muscle, thereby allowing the identification of the source and mechanism of cardiac arrhythmias.

Once the abnormal tissue is found, it is destroyed using intense localised energy delivered by another specialised catheter: radiocatheter ablation.

This technique is common in human medicine but very rare in veterinary medicine because of the level of specialisation needed.

In the past, the cardiology team at Davies needed the support of a consultant and a cardiac physiologist from the human field to help carry out the surgery. Having now done it unaided, Pedro is confident that in time Davies will be able to help considerably more patients, promptly after diagnosis.

Pedro said: "In three years we have treated one cat and 19 dogs. Several cases did not survive long enough for surgery despite a waiting time of only a few days to up to two weeks from referral to the procedure. Most of these dogs were puppies. This is incredibly frustrating as if performed early these procedures are curative for most patients."

Davies says that to date it has had a procedural success rate of 100%, with recurrence of the arrhythmia in just one dog. The remaining dogs were cured from their arrhythmias and recovered fully except for two dogs that had sustained too much heart muscle damage and continued to suffer from congestive heart failure.

Pedro added: "Hopefully in the future severe muscle damage can be avoided by early referral when the arrhythmia is detected. If you diagnose a cardiac arrhythmia, especially supraventricular tachycardia, please consider this treatment option because it is very likely to be curative."

The Davies cardiology team can be contacted at cardiology@vetspecialists.co.uk.

Incidentally, Pedro has also co-authored (with Ruth Willis and Antonia Mavropoulou) a new book on electrocardiography. Guide to Canine and Feline Electrocardiography will be published in September 2018 and is available for pre-order on Amazon now, priced at £89.99.

Surrey vet Matthew Morgan has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted and imprisoned for four counts of pet insurance fraud.

Mr Morgan was convicted, upon his own confession, of dishonestly making false representations to make gain for himself/another or to cause loss to other/ expose other to risk on 22 July 2013 at the Central Criminal Court and, on 23 August 2013, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mr Morgan, who was not present at the hearing but represented by Mr Laurence Imrie, Solicitor Advocate, had, between 13 November 2009 and 21 December 2012, taken out 18 insurance policies for veterinary cover with four separate insurance providers - Direct Line, Pet Plan, Pet Protect and Sainsbury's - in relation to a number of pets. Of these pets, only one, namely his pet cat, actually existed - the rest were fictitious.

During this period, the respondent made 50 claims on the insurance policies, seeking payment to reimburse him for the cost of veterinary treatment for the fictitious animals and also making false claims for treatment for his own pet cat, including for invented injuries 'sustained' during a non-existent car accident. As a result of the claims, the insurance companies made 54 payments to Mr Morgan to which he was not entitled, totalling £198,295.

At the time he began committing the offences Mr Morgan was working as a veterinary surgeon at a practice in Kent and, in order to support his fraudulent claims, used the practice's official stationery and stamps to fabricate invoices, clinical records and insurance claims. He continued to make fraudulent claims after leaving the practice, having taken the practice's headed paper and stamp with him.

Mr Morgan's actions came to light in December 2012 after submitting a claim to Direct Line for an operation on the spine of his own cat. The insurance company became suspicious and contacted the Kent practice which confirmed he had not treated the cat. An investigation by the insurers and, subsequently, the police began.

On 31 December 2012 Mr Morgan voluntarily attended a police station where he admitted fraudulently claiming £5,534.52 from Pet Plan and £7,610.03 from Direct Line, citing financial pressure caused by divorce, but failed to admit to the rest of his fraudulent activities. He was arrested on 25 January 2013 and, upon searching his home, police found the stamp and headed paper along with documents relating to the insurance claims.

The Disciplinary Committee, in considering the conduct of Mr Morgan, took into account a number of serious aggravating factors. This included the very high degree of financial gain from the fraudulent activities, the fact that there were 50 separate premeditated acts of dishonesty over a three-year period, the betrayal of trust of his former employer and the insurance companies, the potential reputational risk for his former employer, the abuse of his position as a veterinary surgeon and the fact that completion of insurance claims is an act of veterinary certification.

The Committee also considered, in mitigation, a letter from Mr Morgan to the Committee, three testimonials and representation from his legal representative. These cited the fact that Mr Morgan, when he committed the fraudulent activities, was heavily in debt, had serious domestic difficulties and was suffering from depression, although no medical evidence was submitted to the Committee.

However, it was the Committee's decision that the sanction of removing Mr Morgan from the Register had to be taken, in order to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession.

Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee its Vice-Chairman, Ms Judith Webb, said: "The Committee is of the view that the Respondent's conduct in this case was deplorable ... Such conduct can only undermine public confidence in the profession. The Respondent abused his position as a veterinary surgeon to perpetrate a deliberate long-term fraud on insurers for personal gain.

"The Committee is conscious that its role is not to punish but to protect animal welfare and maintain public confidence in the profession. Due to the serious nature of the matters before it...the Committee has no doubt that the only suitable sanction is to direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent's name from the Register."

The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has decided to suspend overseas-based James Hugh Alexander Crawford MRCVS for a period of 12 months, after he fabricated an email, purporting it to be from a veterinary officer at the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA), now known as the Animal and Plant Health Agency.

Dr Crawford sent the email to his client, Mrs X, on 15 July 2014, the day on which Mrs X’s horse was due for insemination using horse semen supplied from a horse in Germany. However, the semen had arrived without the Intra Trade Certificate, a requirement for intra-EU inseminations, and so Dr Crawford proceeded to contact the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for alternative authorisation.

Just after 4:30pm on that day, Mrs X received a text from Dr Crawford advising her that he had received authorisation from the AHVLA, and would forward to Mrs X the AHVLA authorisation email. It later transpired that that the email had in fact been fabricated by Dr Crawford using an email that he had previously received from the AHVLA regarding another matter.

Dr Crawford faced the following charges:

1. Fabricating an e-mail purporting to be from the veterinary officer at the AVHLA, authorising use of semen from a horse for insemination, when in fact he had not received such authorisation.

2. Dishonesty in relation to the e-mail described above.

3. His conduct gave rise to spread of infectious disease which had the potential to affect equine animal health and welfare in the region.

Dr Crawford admitted the first two charges, but denied that his actions had given rise to the risk of disease.

The Committee found the first two charges proved, and moved on to determine the facts of the third charge. They took into account that Dr Crawford had received verbal confirmation that the semen was safe, and that the health papers had been stamped accordingly. He had not, however, seen a copy of this certificate and so there was no guarantee that the semen was safe to use at the time he sent the fabricated email. On consideration of the facts, the Committee found this charge proved, as Mrs X’s mare could have been infected and subsequently could have adversely affected equine animal health and welfare in the region.

They also found that his entire course of action had fallen far short of what is expected of a veterinary surgeon, and that it amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. 

When determining sanction, the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors, namely the risk of injury to animals, an element of pre-meditation, a disregard for the role of the AHVLA, impersonating a fellow veterinary surgeon, and intending to deceive a veterinary surgeon as well as a member of the public.

It did also, however, take into account the mitigating factors – that there was no injury to the animal, and that it was a single isolated incident from which Dr Crawford did not stand to make any financial gain.

The Committee therefore decided to order the Registrar to suspend Dr Crawford’s registration for 12 months.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee did consider whether to remove Dr Crawford from the Register. However, in light of the significant mitigation in this case, the fact that this was an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished career, together with his acceptance from the outset that he had been dishonest and his assurance that he would never behave in this way again, the Committee decided that in all the circumstances to remove him from the Register would be disproportionate."

Dr Crawford can lodge an appeal with the Privy Council within 28 days of being notified of the Disciplinary Committee's decision.

Merck has announced that its animal health division, formerly known as Intervet/Schering-Plough, has changed its name to MSD Animal Health in countries outside the United States and Canada from today.

Intervet/Schering Plough will now be known as Merck Animal Health in the United States and Canada.

Raul Kohan, President of Merck Animal Health said: "The name change reflects Merck's commitment to animal health and its complementary role to the overall business. We are unwavering in our commitment to veterinarians, producers, pet owners and society as a whole. We aim to generate additional value and sustained growth by continuing to provide integrated solutions with innovative animal health products and services to meet the evolving needs of our customers."

Mr. Kohan continued: "With the scientific and business backing of Merck, Merck Animal Health possesses the necessary mix of resources to enhance our position as an industry leader."

Merck says it values the diversification that Merck Animal Health brings to its portfolio, and sees growth opportunities in the business that can be leveraged across both animal and human health. The company intends to capitalize on Merck Animal Health's broad and innovative portfolio going forward, and to develop the unit into a best-in-class global animal health leader.

The name change follows the joint announcement on March 22, 2011 by Merck and sanofi-aventis that ended plans to form a new animal health joint venture. Both companies mutually decided to discontinue their agreement primarily because of the increasing complexity of implementing the proposed transaction.

Merck, part owner of Merial, has announced a merger with Intervet Schering-Plough.

However, rumours that Merck plans to sell its 50% stake in Merial and move forward with Intervet Schering Plough are incorrect, according to Merck spokespeople.

They'll have to start thinking about what to call themselves soon. Merial-Intervet-Schering-Plough is a bit of a mouthful.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a Southampton veterinary surgeon after finding him not guilty of serious professional misconduct, saying at all times that he acted in the best interests of a dog under his care.

At the start of the five-day hearing, the charges against Edward Gillams MRCVS were that, whilst in practice at Vets Now in Southampton in 2011, he discharged a dog that he knew or ought to have known was in no fit state to be discharged, and, at the same time, failed to provide adequate advice and information to the dog's owners, particularly with regard to an alternative plan to discharge and treatment options.

The dog, an Italian Spinone called Zola, had first been taken to the Vets4Pets veterinary clinic in Southampton at 4.30pm on 2 November 2011, where gastric torsion was diagnosed. During a subsequent gastrotomy, 3kg of sausages and plastic wrappings were removed. Zola was discharged three days later, with a guarded prognosis from the operating veterinary surgeon. Zola's condition deteriorated that same evening, so his owners called the Vets4Pets practice and were referred to their out-of-hours provider, Vets Now, where Mr Gillams was on duty. On admitting Zola, the only information available to Mr Gillams was what the dog's owners were able to tell him.

The Committee heard differing witness accounts from the dog's owners and from Mr Gillams regarding what tests and examinations were to be performed, and what advice and options were suggested. Ultimately, Zola was hospitalised overnight (despite some reluctance for this from one of his owners), given pain relief and antibiotics and placed on a drip; he was then to be collected by his owners first thing for transfer back to Vets4Pets. The next morning, Zola was described as 'sternally recumbent but responsive', holding his head up but not moving and not making any attempt to get up. Mr Gillams carried Zola to his owner's car for transport back to the Vets4Pets practice. He considered that he had discharged his duty to provide advice, as this was given the night before and in the circumstances prevailing in the morning there was no obligation to repeat this. Zola died on the journey between the two practices.

Before reaching a decision, the Committee considered, in detail, the expert evidence of witnesses for both the College and Mr Gillams, which provided some conflicting views on Mr Gillams' actions. It also referred to the RCVS guidance available to Mr Gillams at the time through the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2010.

The Committee noted that both experts agreed that Mr Gillams could not have known Zola was about to die when he discharged him and that it was a difficult decision for Mr Gillams to make, but expressed differing views about the fitness of the dog to be discharged and whether it was in its best interests to be discharged. The Committee rejected the contention that Mr Gillams ought to have known that Zola was not fit to be discharged, and instead considered appropriate his decision to discharge him into the care of his original veterinary surgeon. It felt that continuity of care would actually be better maintained in this manner, rather than a third veterinary surgeon taking over the case.

Regarding provision of adequate advice, the Committee accepted Mr Gillams' evidence that he was frustrated that the owners refused him permission to undertake the diagnostic work necessary to treat Zola effectively, and that he had no other clinical information to work with.

Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Vice-Chairman, Ms Judith Webb, said: "The Committee expresses its sincere condolences to [the owners] for the loss of their much loved family pet Zola and recognises that this loss caused the family great distress."

Ms Webb added: "The Committee accepts that [Mr Gillams] discharged his obligations to Zola and to [his owners] in a manner wholly consistent with the standards of a competent veterinary surgeon in difficult circumstances. He leaves with no stain on his character or professional ability."

The full detail of the Committee's decision is available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).

Isaco De Armas Jimenez has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for eight months after finding he'd failed to take adequate steps when emergency attention was required, acted dishonestly and had no professional indemnity insurance in place.

Dr De Armas Jimenez faced four charges against him, that:

1. On or around 22 April 2022 or 23 April 2022, in relation to a cat, he a) failed to obtain informed consent to sedate/anaesthetise the cat and/or did so without the owner’s consent (admitted), b) failed to take adequate steps when the cat required emergency attention (admitted), and c) failed to provide adequate details to the owner following the cat’s death (admitted).

2. On or around 22 April 2022 or 23 April 2022, he a) failed to record adequate clinical record details of the cat’s sedation/anaesthetic (admitted), b) recorded when the cat became cyanotic, that i) a tube had been passed in order to intubate (proved not to have occured) and ii) chest compressions had been given when this was not the case (not proved that it did not happen), and c) failed to make adequate clinical records in relation to differential diagnoses and proposed treatment plan (not proved).

3. That his conduct in relation to charge 2(a) and/or 2(b) was a) dishonest and/or b) misleading. (Admitted his conduct was both dishonest and misleading in relation to 2(a), and the Committee found proved that his conduct was dishonest and/or misleading in relation to 2(b)(i)).

4. Between 22 April 2022 and 23 April 2022, he failed to have any professional indemnity insurance in place (admitted).

Dr De Armas Jimenez admitted most of the charges again him.

The Committee found that his actions had breached a number of sections of the RCVS Code of Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account the aggravating factor that Dr De Armas Jimenez had caused actual harm to the animal.

Mitigating factors included that he had no previous disciplinary history, that he had been working for eight years as a veterinary surgeon in the UK without complaint, that he admitted most of the charges, that he'd made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition by no longer working night shifts or locuming, and finally that the incident related to one animal.

The Committee also noted that he'd shown appreciable insight and remorse, and took into account positive character references.

Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Whilst the misconduct in this case involved breaches of the RCVS Code, caused serious harm to both the cat and the client, and involved dishonesty which was concealed, the Committee decided that a lengthy suspension could take account of the seriousness of these matters and meet the wider public interest.”

He added: “In deciding on this period of suspension, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors and the mitigation Dr De Armas Jimenez had put before it.

"It was not persuaded that a shorter period of suspension would properly reflect the seriousness of the proven misconduct.

"It concluded that this period of suspension had a deterrent effect and sent a signal as to how serious the Committee had found the misconduct to be.

"It also took into account Dr De Armas Jimenez’s remorse and insight.

“However, in order that the wider public interest was upheld and to reflect the Committee’s view regarding the seriousness of the proven misconduct, the Committee determined that the proportionate sanction and period of suspension should be a suspension order of eight months.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/