mutilations

Re: mutilations

Rajat — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:08:52 GMT

I have a feeling that I saw these puppies at the RSPCA a month or so ag- same story only the mum was JRT-YT cross rather than pure JRT and dad was JRT.

Took some pics- pups all doing well as is the mum she is very friendly and wouldnt sit still for a pic!

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bx91qiJtLeKwTUJiaWRldU02MEU
https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0Bx91qiJtLeKwa0FiZjZidFJhU00/edit

Re: mutilations

plantagenet — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:02:29 GMT

[quote user="Rob Davis"]Sorry - forgot to say am using crovect too![/quote]

In which case sorry for sounding patronising! I don't think it matters what length the tails are then.

Re: mutilations

Rob Davis — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:02:38 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]

[quote user="Rob Davis"] fly strike - I'm hoping that vigilance and dagging will be sufficient,[/quote]

Please don't! Use Vetrazin, Clik etc etc etc you can get strike from urine soaked wool, wet fleece, a bit of faecal contamination. It is as near 100% avoidable as any disease is with use of the correct product and it is certainly worth avoiding!

[/quote]

Sorry - forgot to say am using crovect too!

Re: mutilations

plantagenet — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:22:00 GMT

[quote user="Rob Davis"] fly strike - I'm hoping that vigilance and dagging will be sufficient,[/quote]

Re: mutilations

Rob Davis — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:25:42 GMT

[quote user="mariette asselbergs"]PS I am also puzzled about the double standards on animal cruelty with tail docking in dogs condemned (except for everybody who declares that they are working dogs) and tail docking in lambs and pigs standard accepted "good practice". But that is a different issue,[/quote]

I agree. That's why I decided not to dock our lambs when we had our first batch this year. So far so good and no signs of fly strike - I'm hoping that vigilance and dagging will be sufficient, but it's our first time so I'm slightly nervous...

Re: mutilations

Anthony Todd — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:31:49 GMT

[quote user="Ian Holloway"]As the Code of Professional Conduct states, if there is suspicion of animal abuse, as a result of examining an animal, a veterinary surgeon should consider whether the circumstances are sufficiently serious to justify breaching the usual obligations of client confidentiality.[/quote]

What is the definition of "animal abuse" and what is the definition of, and difference from "animal cruelty"?

Re: mutilations

Bob Russell — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:59:08 GMT

[quote user="Ian Holloway"]

We can only offer advice to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses on breaching client confidentiality – we do not dictate whether they should. That decision must be made by the individual professional, with whom the duty of confidentiality rests, after consideration of all the facts.

As you have subsequently clarified, we would not have told your colleague not to report their client to the authorities. We do advise veterinary surgeons that they have no obligation to breach client confidentiality, but that they should always consider whether they have sufficient grounds to do so and to record their justification for doing so.

As the Code of Professional Conduct states, if there is suspicion of animal abuse, as a result of examining an animal, a veterinary surgeon should consider whether the circumstances are sufficiently serious to justify breaching the usual obligations of client confidentiality. Where the public interest in protecting an animal overrides the professional obligation to maintain client confidentiality, and where further discussion with the client would be inappropriate, veterinary surgeons/nurses should contact the relevant authorities.

The reason that the advice provided by my colleagues is similar to what is in the Code and supporting guidance is simple: we need to ensure our advice, in whatever format it’s given, is as consistent as possible. However, we always suggest people contact us before breaching client confidentiality in order to check whether there might be particular reasons in each case why they should/shouldn’t.

In this case, it appears from the situation you have outlined, your colleague telephoned us for advice after the decision had already been made to contact the RSPCA.

Our full guidance on client confidentiality is available on our website.

Ian

[/quote]

Then the RCVS guidance should be, 'in your opinion does the seriousness of the abuse justify breaching confidence?' If it does then the advice should be that confidence should be breached!

Guide, advise and support the veterinary surgeon to make the decision according to his or her professional opinion rather than leave them in limbo.

Re: mutilations

mariette asselbergs — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:12:23 GMT

Sorry, something in the story is puzzling me: Why did the owners bring the tail in a bag if they had chopped it of and wanted the JRT to be docked. Did they hope/ request for you to stitch it on again?

Mariette

PS I am also puzzled about the double standards on animal cruelty with tail docking in dogs condemned (except for everybody who declares that they are working dogs) and tail docking in lambs and pigs standard accepted "good practice". But that is a different issue,

Re: mutilations

David Mills — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:49:05 GMT

Mr Holloway,

Thanks for taking the time to reply and investigate.

However, I still remain of the opinion that if all your staff can do is repeat the advice on your website without any figures, stats or case studies to back it up - see the VDS for more examples - then you may as well have an automated message directing people to the website. What we want, as practising veterinary surgeons, is support in these circumstances - i.e. x did y in circumstance z and that was acceptable - all the website contains is, in short, fluffy, non-committal rhetoric.

Yes, we contacted you after it had been reported to the RSPCA as it happens - but the reporter was a non-VS/VN so therefore slips nicely away from any of this stuff.

Re: mutilations

Lorna McHardy — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:13:45 GMT

[quote user="Ian Holloway"]

David,

I’ve spoken to my colleagues in the Professional Conduct Department and thought it might help this discussion to clarify the facts.

In this case, it appears from the situation you have outlined, your colleague telephoned us for advice after the decision had already been made to contact the RSPCA.

Our full guidance on client confidentiality is available on our website.

Ian

[/quote]

So to summarize, your advice is "make your own decision".

Fair enough.

Only I'd suggest you don't claim to be offering advice!

Re: mutilations

Ian Holloway — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:24:19 GMT

David,

I’ve spoken to my colleagues in the Professional Conduct Department and thought it might help this discussion to clarify the facts.

In this case, it appears from the situation you have outlined, your colleague telephoned us for advice after the decision had already been made to contact the RSPCA.

Our full guidance on client confidentiality is available on our website.

Ian

Re: mutilations

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:11:46 GMT

Hear hear

Wynne

Re: mutilations

Rajat — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:05:21 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

I'm with Anthony

Wynne

[/quote]

Me too. I'm glad Bob retracted his statement.

why cant we just take a *** stand once and for all? why does it take a TV expose for us to say oh yeah, we noticed all these breed issues too, but didnt have the B**S to speak up before, but now that the public is with us, we are equally mortified? Why are we so scared?

Come on, lets grow a pair and say it like it is. Owners who are determined to be cruel will continue to be cruel. People like this are not likely to seek routine veterinary attention anyways (eg pre pregnancy checks, pregnancy and mating planning, vaccination and deworming of the bitch and pups) unless they realise there are consequences. The cruelty only comes to light when they cannot deal with it and bring it in, like in this case or when someone reports them to the RSPCA.

We would be complacent with animal cruelty if we didnt speak up, loud and clear in these situations and take the appropriate action as dictated to us by the oath we took.

Re: mutilations

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:08:03 GMT

I'm with Anthony

Wynne

Re: mutilations

Anthony Todd — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:50:54 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]Can't agree with that. They should know what they are doing is wrong, illegal even, and that they will be prosecuted if caught. People aren't absolved of their crime just for turning themselves in. I do agree however, that they shouldn't be berated or treated with contempt, we can inform people of wrongdoing without losing our professional approach.

[/quote]

This thread does make me shake my head. Here we are in 2012 having the same sort of wishy washy, mealy mouthed argument and "euhhhh, client confidentiality" "educate", "pups are better treated" "they won't come to the vet. etc. etc." in a case of obvious animal cruelty as we did with respiration monitoring, which is fair enough.

Cruelty is not arguable.

Client confidentiality is out the window when animal cruelty is involved, as far as I'm concerned, and I'd love to see the College take on a member who took this approach.

Back to basics please!

Re: mutilations

James Laidlaw — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:19:49 GMT

Can't agree with that. They should know what they are doing is wrong, illegal even, and that they will be prosecuted if caught. People aren't absolved of their crime just for turning themselves in. I do agree however, that they shouldn't be berated or treated with contempt, we can inform people of wrongdoing without losing our professional approach.

Re: mutilations

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:24:57 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I would go for strict owner education, let them know that docking tails is a criminal offence BUT they need brownie points for bringing them in. The best you are going to rescue from this situation is to make sure they don't do it again. [/quote]

Bob, I am actually with you on this version, before you retract the statement.

If something has gone too far and they seek veterinary attention they should be able to do that without persecution. The suffering ends when it gets to see us. If people thought that they would get into trouble by seeking veterinary attention it will put people of coming to see us. Should the owner have left them to bleed to death? If they KNEW they'd get into bother they wouldn't have come. They don't sound like the sort of people to hand themselves into the authorities.........

You can imagine how it pans out, looking for a home for puppies. New owner wants it docked. Chops one tail off, seems simple enough. Might as well do the other puppies too. That wasn't so bad, mum would look better with no tail............oh dear.............

I am not saying that the act is forgiveable, it clearly isn't. But we ought to be careful what we wish for. You can only do your best for the animal in front of you.

Re: mutilations

Mark Holmes — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:56:16 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]In a black irony such a story will make the poor buggers easier to rehome.[/quote]

You should have amputated a limb and invented a chronic, mildly debilitating yet non fatal condition as well - then they would have deninately found a home.

Re: mutilations

David Mills — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:15:49 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Well, you are big boys now. You have to make our own minds up whether to breach confidentiality or not. The Belgravia House staff are only there to give their advice from the point of view of their own expertise and on the facts as presented (more or less accurately, on the phone) by us. You may or may not consider that advice to be of any help.

[/quote]

Agreed. It surprises me these people still have a job however. because they tell you nothing more than what's in the GtoPC, regardless of circumstances. It may as well be an automaton. What would be nice would be some stats or actaul case-led guidance. I think 'expertise' is stretching it beyond breaking. They are good listeners though. And to be clear they didn't say not to but wouldn't say it'd be OK to, either; classic fudge.

Case now in the hands of RSPCA and dog/pups officially seized by police so conviction should be in the pipeline. Small compensation, one supposes. In a black irony such a story will make the poor buggers easier to rehome.

Re: mutilations

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:33:57 GMT

It is however a myth that you must seek permission to breach confidentiality.

Re: mutilations

Bob Russell — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:18:53 GMT

[quote user="Nicola Lawlor"]

If their story is true then I trust they have informed the police about their break in and the police have been involved to investigate further and a crime number issued etc ?........Def an RSPCA case from the sounds of it, one way or the other.

[/quote]

Having mulled on this overnight I agree that it is appropriate to make sure the owners have involved the Police as a break-in had occurred. Demanding an incident number for your records would not be inappropriate as a criminal offence involving animal welfare has taken place.

Obviously there will not be an incident number!

The RCVS recommending that a criminal offense is not reported to the Police? Must check the definition of 'collusion'!

Re: mutilations

Bob Russell — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:08:06 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

Dog admitted with pups - our hospital's a secure place so it's essentially a seizure whilst the RSPCA and/or police are involved. Owner also has a docked YRT at home, so there is a definite preference here.

Out of a morbid interest we were wondering what was used to amputate the JRT's tail - this is a bone transection not a disarticulation. Garden shears?

[/quote]

Previous history of doing this! Forget my comment about giving them credit for bringing them in. An RSPCA/Police job IMO.

Re: mutilations

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:40:06 GMT

Lorna Suitable words don't exist

Wynne

Re: mutilations

Lorna McHardy — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:37:01 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

2yo now petrified of human contact having previously been outgoing, lovely JRT.

[/quote]

Was going to reply, but can't find suitable words. Bastards.

Re: mutilations

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:32:25 GMT

I'm100% with Rajat

Wynne