RCVS DC Watch

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:15:12 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"] If animal welfare was really an issue then the RCVS should not have allowed someone to 'escape' by 'withdrawing' from the game. [/quote]

Why not? DC is not a criminal court, it is only there to decide whether a veterinary surgeon is fit to be on the Register. If said veterinary surgeon voluntarily removes self permanently from Register, that's the end of the matter.

Oh, and who is paying for DC hearings? You are.

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Bob Russell — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:46:02 GMT

If the H&S breaches were that severe then HSE would have brought charges. If animal welfare was really an issue then the RCVS should not have allowed someone to 'escape' by 'withdrawing' from the game.

If the tuberculin testing was performed so badly that a reactor was likely to be missed then Animal & Plant Health should have pursued the matter.

Instead they have all decided that this lady should be allowed to gracefully slide into retirement.!

Sounds like a fair compromise!

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:48:25 GMT

Well, it looks like the other side of the story isn't going to be heard:

http://www.vetsurgeon.org/news/b/veterinary_news/archive/2015/08/18/139646.aspx#.VdMNNHiBeDQ

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:39:22 GMT

But the American would actually be accurate - unless his poor mother had fallen flat onto some newly-laid tarmac, and become embedded!

Wynne

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:49:20 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Should I choose the blushing emoticon or the laughing one?[/quote]

Emoticons are pictorial metonyms, illustrated synecdoches, rather lazy. I prefer write what you mean and mean what you write, which is an example of anastrophe of course.

[/quote]

My sympathy is entirely with what you write, but, you know, here we are upon this forum (metaphorically) (and strangely: surely a Roman citizen would be in a forum rather than on it) and we must do as the Romans, that is to say these young 'uns we find all around, do.

(In and on can be the subjects of such interesting discussions. One might see an American's mother in the street without objection, but what would be your course of action if he replied that he had seen your sister on the street?)

RE: RCVS DC Watch

J G Wray — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:55:32 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Dennison"]Is this a different Wynne to the one posting comments in the 'Suffering?' thread?[/quote]

Nope it's the same reed

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Anthony Dennison — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:44:53 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

The principle's the same. We shouldn't discuss any case prior to the formal hearing, in case DC members are influenced by our thinking - it doesn't matter if that influence is for or against the defendant it's still wrong - every bit as morally wrong as for a veterinary surgeon to attempt to influence magistrates/jury in favour of a guilty defendant.

Wynne

[/quote]

Is this a different Wynne to the one posting comments in the 'Suffering?' thread?

RE: RCVS DC Watch

grumpyoldman — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:05:06 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] We should'nt be discussing this beforehand [/quote]

True ,but its not the actual case that is interesting ,its their use of the PSS otherwise known as "the importance of wearing clean underwear in case of an accident", its the highway code being used to arrest someone before they have driven on a wet road with bald tyres and had an accident.

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:58:28 GMT

We should'nt be discussing this beforehand - end of. I'm in the Practice Standards Scheme, so I'm already scrutinised by Royal College - but anyway that is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that this is sub judice - end of.

Wynne

RE: RCVS DC Watch

CatherineThomas — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:56:02 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]

It will be worth watching ,initially just looks like someones been treading on the cracks in the pavement and possibly told the wrong sort of people where to stick their clip boards.

[/quote]

I suspect it is more than that. When I was working in the area last year I heard several comments from various people about the practice, very similar to some of those charges.

RE: RCVS DC Watch

CatherineThomas — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:45:14 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Exactly This is an inappropriate time to be discussing this. DC must decide, without fear or favour, on the basis of what is presented to them in formal evidence - and on nothing else.

Wynne

[/quote]

Well they'll certainly do that. The thing is DC has some form for coming up with daft conclusions. How would you feel if they decided strongly opinionated older female practice owners needed a bit of scrutiny of their practices, HSE and APHA style, based on this case?

You've rather missed the point about how they're setting about all this. For instance they're using practice issues rather issues of the individual. If they push this then it starts to make sense to move ownership of practices away from vets to mitigate possible regulation based on holding title, or to put it another way if they push this then selling to Corporates has an added attraction. A case of unforeseen consequences perhaps. On va voir.

[/quote]

This is a very small single vet practice, I'm not sure if she employs any auxiliary staff.

RE: RCVS DC Watch

J G Wray — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:23:18 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Should I choose the blushing emoticon or the laughing one?[/quote]

Emoticons are pictorial metonyms, illustrated synecdoches, rather lazy. I prefer write what you mean and mean what you write, which is an example of anastrophe of course.

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:32:49 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]There's nothing wrong with a bit of neolexia from time to time, don't ya finkso?[/quote]

Ah, the horrid power of the accidental. Should I choose the blushing emoticon or the laughing one?

Indeed, nothing wrong with it at all, but let us hope that euphony can be preserved.

RE: RCVS DC Watch

J G Wray — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:07:14 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="J G Wray"](Is there a word "settingly"?)[/quote]

No, I don't think so, but you could make your phrase more respectable by use of a hyphen, thus:

".... laudably and standard-settingly so".

However, while apt alliteration's artful aid must make a maxim more mellifluous, the alliteration there detracts from your phrase: it makes it look rather as if you are trying to tease with a tongue-twister.

I'd suggest just expanding your phrase a little and exploiting the power of repetition, for instance thus:

"... laudabso, and setting a laudable standard".

[/quote]

There's nothing wrong with a bit of neolexia from time to time, don't ya finkso?

RE: RCVS DC Watch

grumpyoldman — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:54:34 GMT

It will be worth watching ,initially just looks like someones been treading on the cracks in the pavement and possibly told the wrong sort of people where to stick their clip boards.

RE: RCVS DC Watch

J G Wray — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:35:54 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Exactly This is an inappropriate time to be discussing this. DC must decide, without fear or favour, on the basis of what is presented to them in formal evidence - and on nothing else.

Wynne

[/quote]

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Rob Loxley — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 20:06:39 GMT

Wonder whether the RCVS bumped this to the HSE for enforcement or vice versa

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:18:02 GMT

Exactly This is an inappropriate time to be discussing this. DC must decide, without fear or favour, on the basis of what is presented to them in formal evidence - and on nothing else.

Wynne

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Bob Russell — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:12:22 GMT

Lots of niggly charges, apparent failure to deal with them after advice given.

Some not so niggly charges mixed in which also appear not to have been dealt with adequately following advice.

Some potentially more serious issues there as well.

Overall this is what the DC is all about. Their job is to judge! Not for us to second guess at this stage IMO.

Not a bad idea to wait for this to run its course. Then we can judge the judges!!

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Nhombokisheni — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:04:19 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]every bit as morally wrong as for a veterinary surgeon to attempt to influence magistrates/jury in favour of a guilty defendant.[/quote]

Haven't we already proven (categorically and irrefutably) that it is not morally wrong for a VS to attempt to influence in favour of a guilty defendant, because

a) Nobody is guilty until they have been found guilty, therefore at the time a VS is called to give evidence, it is impossible for them to be influencing in favour of a guilty defendant, because they have not been found guilty.

b) In any event, just because a VS argues in favour of someone you think is guilty, or is found guilty, doesn't mean they are acting in any sense immorally. They could simply disagree with you / the judge.

c) Everyone is entitled to a defence.

Or have I missed something?

[/quote] I take it that you are referring to a morally upright VS with professional intergrity. I have come across some very big farmers who would bring me game meat, preserved trophies that were claimed to be no longer wanted, free accommodation at their holiday lodges etc. The problem was, they expected me to look the other side when they broke the laws. They expected favours like getting a permit singed in the absence of the animals and would request "favourable" supporting letters for their ventures. NoI did not play along!!!!!! It was not just me but they targeted all influential figures........and some of them got away with criminal practices because civil servants tasked to implement the law "vouched for them, knowingly aware they were lying" We have corrupt vets in this world: http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/05/03/animal-ethics-now-this-is-an-unethical-veterinarian/ So there is truth in saying one can defend a "GUILTY" person.....

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:48:35 GMT

Nhombokishe - Thanks

Wynne

RE: RCVS DC Watch

J G Wray — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:43:00 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

CHARGES
That, being registered in the register of veterinary surgeons, and whilst in practice:

1. Between 22 September 2011 and 10 October 2013, in relation to your veterinary practice
at Weatherbury Veterinary Clinic Puddletown, Dorset, you failed to ensure that your practice
standards were adequate,

[/quote]...

A set of charges relating to the practice

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]2. In relation to the matters set out in 1(a) to 1(m) above:
(a) your conduct set out in 1(a) to 1 (j) above was such that you failed to have
sufficient regard to animal welfare; and/or
(b) your conduct set out in 1(a) to 1(f) above was such that you failed to take
sufficient steps to minimise the risk of infection; and/or
(c) Between 1 January 2012 and 10 October 2013, your conduct set out in 1 above
was despite previous advice and/or warnings given to you by representatives of the
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ("RCVS") during visits to your practice on 22
September 2011, 19 January 2012 and/or 28 September 2012; and/or
(d) Between 1 March 2012 and 10 October 2013, your conduct set out in 1 above
was such that you failed to comply with the mandatory core standards set out in the
RCVS Practice Standards Manual[/quote]

2. A charge of "wilfulness" in respect of stuff but relating again to the practice.

There don't appear to be any charges in 1&2 relating to the compromise of a specific animal's welfare, which is interesting. They also seem to relate to the practice , the business, which is not in the remit of RCVS which is also interesting. Perhaps the key there is ownership.

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]3. On or about 16 January 2014, you signed a TB52 certificate in relation to nine animals on
Muston Farm, Druce, to the effect that you had subjected those animals to the Intradermal
Comparative Tuberculin test when:
(i) you had a conflict of interest or possible conflict of interest in relation to those
animals and so should not have undertaken the said test or signed the said
certificate; and/or
(ii) you failed to note on the said certificate that there were deficiencies in animal
identification, namely missing ear tags[/quote]

Hmmm.

Well, you can be a vet and your contribution to society can be recognised as few others have been (MBE), but fall foul of Practice Standards and bureaucracy and your life is exposed to public examination.

A lesson to us all

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:41:31 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"](Is there a word "settingly"?)[/quote]

No, I don't think so, but you could make your phrase more respectable by use of a hyphen, thus:

".... laudably and standard-settingly so".

I'd suggest just expanding your phrase a little and exploiting the power of repetition, for instance thus:

"... laudably so, and setting a laudable standard".

RE: RCVS DC Watch

Nhombokisheni — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:35:08 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Wynne

[/quote] Firstly I really don't see how this issue can be discussed given that a charge sheet is just one side of the story. Any attempt to do so would be either "jumping the gun" or mere speculation. Of course we can have sentiments to express regarding the RCVS findings as listed, and why RCVS allowed operations to continue despite failings, choosing only to issue several warnings, But I doubt we have a complete understanding of the case to comment either for/against. As for the last sentence on morallity, I believe Hannah is simply referring to situations where a VS KNOWINGLY stands to defend someone guilty. This has happened and continues to happen......and is morally wrong. I dont think this statement in any way suggests otherwise.

RE: RCVS DC Watch

J G Wray — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 12:24:50 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]You haven't proven to my satisfaction[/quote]

Are you a Stones fan?