latest RCVS disciplinary

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Dinu Catilina — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:43:40 GMT

A vet may be removed from theRCVS register for an offence that might not be an offence in another european country. To me, being removed form one register shouldn't stop anyone from practicing in a different country as long as he/she obeys that particular country's rules. Comparing it with a driving license, driving with 80 mph in UK is an offence but surely is not on a motorway in Germany.

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Rob Loxley — Sat, 26 Oct 2013 16:17:01 GMT

[quote user="Luke Bishop"]In regards to Mrs Silke Lindridge, following the adjournment of the Disciplinary Committee’s hearing, the RCVS has informed the Bundestierarztekammer – our equivalent in Germany – of her undertakings to voluntarily remove herself from the Register and to never reapply, as well as the allegations against her. It is the decision of that organisation as to what further enquiries it makes and how it deals with the situation. If we were to receive a request for a letter of good professional standing from Mrs Lindridge we would include the information about her undertakings and the adjourned charges.[/quote]

Excellent, my query was whether there was sharing of information abroad and really where the responsibility for protecting animal welfare ended. Maybe this information would be a useful addendum to your press release?

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Luke Bishop — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:29:07 GMT

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

As a matter of course the RCVS will always inform the relevant authority about the Disciplinary Committee’s decision where someone has a connection with another jurisdiction, whether or not we know they are registered there or intend to register there in the future.

If the vet were to apply to register in another country they may be asked for a letter of good professional standing from the RCVS. Before we issue this letter we will check if there are any outstanding charges or complaints against the vet and, if there are, will refer it to our Professional Conduct Department to decide whether we can issue the letter at all or issue it with the details of the charges and complaints.

In regards to Mrs Silke Lindridge, following the adjournment of the Disciplinary Committee’s hearing, the RCVS has informed the Bundestierarztekammer – our equivalent in Germany – of her undertakings to voluntarily remove herself from the Register and to never reapply, as well as the allegations against her. It is the decision of that organisation as to what further enquiries it makes and how it deals with the situation. If we were to receive a request for a letter of good professional standing from Mrs Lindridge we would include the information about her undertakings and the adjourned charges.

It is worth reiterating that, in this particular instance, Mrs Lindridge’s voluntary undertakings were beyond anything which could be imposed by the Disciplinary Committee itself – by accepting these undertakings and not going to a full hearing it also saved on substantial costs. In addition, all the relevant animal owners agreed with this course of action.

As others have already pointed out, the purpose of the Disciplinary Committee is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, protect the public and uphold the reputation of the profession.

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Bob Russell — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:48:35 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]

[quote user="David Mills"] It's saved RPMs thousands[/quote]

Is that justification enough in all cases for not investigating matters that were felt sufficiently serious to make it to the DC?

[/quote]

The matter was investigated, deemed serious enough and the vet involved chose to remove himself from the register rather than face the full DC process. Simple, cheap, effective and efficient!

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:46:18 GMT

Normally I'm the first to want a strict interpretation of laws/regulations-but in this case-what's the point? The most DC can do is what's already been done-removal from the register.

Wynne

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Rob Loxley — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:39:34 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"] It's saved RPMs thousands[/quote]

Is that justification enough in all cases for not investigating matters that were felt sufficiently serious to make it to the DC?

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

David Mills — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:28:43 GMT

I'm really not sure what the problem is with this decision. It's saved RPMs thousands and the vet can't legally practice here again.

As Ms Mostyn said, the RCVS is designed to regulate and maintain public confidence, not punish. It is not a prosecuting body.

The drink driving offence is a categorical fallacy. Drink driving, like many driving offences, are strict liability offences, i.e. mens rea is immaterial - you did it, so you're guilty. Quite obviously DC hearings or 'offences' are not of the same type (and require different levels of evidence).

Sometimes the logic in this place is more at home in the Russell Brand interview with Paxman that had the masses misguidedly drooling...

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Bob Russell — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:51:37 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]

If I get stopped for drink-driving should I be able to escape prosecution by handing my driving licence back in and promising not to re-apply?

[/quote]

Not if there is absolute proof of an offence having been committed.

The DC is not there to prosecute an offence (that is for the courts). They are there to ensure animal welfare is not compromised or the profession brought into disrepute.

Removal (voluntary or involuntary) from the register is the ultimate sanction for the RCVS to impose on a vet. If Mr Cartmell choses to practice again he will need to face the DC before restoration to the register.

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:14:52 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]

If I get stopped for drink-driving should I be able to escape prosecution by handing my driving licence back in and promising not to re-apply?

[/quote] I've ended up with two driving licences as I had a replacement for a lost one and then found the original so I could do that and still drive - good idea Rob!! I should have sent it back but I have no real intent of using it inappropriately and the spare is useful to keep tucked in my passport in case I need a hire car while on holiday as I did forget my licence once.

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 21:47:25 GMT

I think you're forgetting that the RCVS DC and its sanctions are there to protect animal welfare, not to punish.

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Rob Loxley — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 21:24:36 GMT

If I get stopped for drink-driving should I be able to escape prosecution by handing my driving licence back in and promising not to re-apply?

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Sammy82 — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:57:34 GMT

Well that's what I had to supply in 2008. Here is the link to the current requirements for eu graduates: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/registration/how-to-register/eu-eaa-nationals/

I don't see anything about the police report in there anymore, but I remember having to get it translated by an offical translater for lots of pennies ( for a document of about 10 words, saying that I have no convictions).

There is an "Initial Enquiry Form" now which has to be signed by the applicant, containing a decleration of any cautions or criminal convictions anywhere in the world, with a note that the RCVS might double check.

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

mariette asselbergs — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:59:22 GMT

Maybe that is so now, but when I registered in 2007 I only had to bring the original certificate of my Veterinary qualification (from Utrecht), Since the original had got lost at some point in the past 30 years, I had a letter from the Dutch vet school saying that I had indeed qualified there in 1975. The lady at the RCVS was very suspicious of this letter and requested another one. I phoned the Dutch veterinary School and they then wrote another letter saying that they did not supply duplicates of lost certificates but repeated that I had indeed qualified in 1975. The RCVS then accepted my application. No letter of good standing or police report was involved. Don't know if that has now changed?

Mariette

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Sammy82 — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:21:30 GMT

When applying to become MRCVs coming from another european country the RCVS asks for a letter of good standing from the regulating body of that country and a police report, I don't know how well they communicate though if you are already registered in both countries.

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:20:33 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]allowing someone to continue to work in another European country where they are already be registered?[/quote]

That's up to the "other European country" to worry about.

[quote user="robloxley"]What controls are there, say, to prevent a vet struck off in France from working in the UK?[/quote]

I believe there are such. Belgravia House, I know you're watching us. Perhaps you could tell us?

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Bob Russell — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:59:49 GMT

An individual has chosen to 'retire' permanently as a vet. I suspect the DC has allowed this to save a potentially long and expensive battle. Until this battle is finally resolved a vet in this situation would be able to continue to practice and may pose an ongoing risk. Sometimes a better outcome for everybody.

I suspect a number of elderly drivers have elected to stop driving and give up their driving licence rather than face a court case. Not so different and removes the risk to the general public!

I don't know the fine details of this particular case!

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Rob Loxley — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:54:44 GMT

I'm sure if she was found to be practising in the UK the CPS might take an interest.

My point is that the RCVS exists in an environment where people are able to move round Europe to work; how have they safeguarded animal welfare by shelving investigations (that were clearly felt serious enough to make it to the DC stage), allowing someone to continue to work in another European country where they are already be registered? What controls are there, say, to prevent a vet struck off in France from working in the UK? Or should there not be?

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Anthony Todd — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:20:24 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]There's a red rag to a bull Anthony![/quote]

Pablov had a point....;-)

And I'd love to turn this lovely put-down in Wikipedia, from an obviously jealous reviewer, round on you, Martin, if I had the wit, although I have the will.

"It is gratifying to be assured that Professor Pavlov is raising potatoes only as a pastime and still gives the best of his genius to scientific investigation"

- apparently he grew them for fun in his lab.......

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Thomas Johnson — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:26:53 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

Is there a difference, in law and penalty, between someone who has no veterinary qualifications, ie no degree from a recognised university, and a person with a degree from a recognised university who just fails to register with the RCVS?

[/quote]

The RCVS has no disciplinary power over someone who isn't registered. Practicing as a vet when not qualified to do so is a matter for the courts, but the article says that the CPS weren't interested in taking the case forward. So I'm not sure what other options were available to the RCVS.

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 11:22:09 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

What about myself? I've retired as a full MRCVS.

Am I still a vet?

No rude comments please, and you know who you are, it's a serious point.

[/quote] There's a red rag to a bull Anthony!

I guess a qualified vet with a degree recognised by the RCVS, practicing but not registered, is a slap on the wrist/fine/don't do it again offence although it may be considered a deliberate attempt to avoid due fees which is effectively fraud, whereas practicing when not qualified or when struck off with the intention to deceive would be much more serious and warrant a custodial sentence.

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Anthony Todd — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:36:44 GMT

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]

She wasn't registered, but she could have been. Is this not purely an administrative item? How was animal welfare compromised?

Colin

[/quote]

What about myself? I've retired as a full MRCVS.

Am I still a vet?

No rude comments please, and you know who you are, it's a serious point.

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:19:55 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]Am I missing something awry in accepting an undertaking not to practice veterinary surgery in the UK from a woman who in 2009 "was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect for practising when she should have known that her name had been removed from the RCVS Register"![/quote] I think I can see where you are coming from: a bit like there's nothing to stop a banned driver still driving unless he's inside with the keys thrown away, she's done it once so she can do it again. Surely vets practicing knowing that they are not registered to do so is a criminal offence.

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:45:50 GMT

I think the recent disciplinary meeting was about the care of specific animals.

I'm not sure what other sanction the RCVS could have used? The maximum they can do is remove someone from the register in the UK - which is what she has done to herself. What would spending our hard-earned money on a full hearing have achieved?

Re: latest RCVS disciplinary

Colin Thomson — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:56:40 GMT

She wasn't registered, but she could have been. Is this not purely an administrative item? How was animal welfare compromised?

Colin