Open Letter to RCVS President

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Shams Mir — Mon, 24 Feb 2020 19:45:55 GMT

This approach will push the profession on to a slippery slope of standard of proof where the direction then will only be downwards. I think those pushing for lowering the standard of proof will love to see us there!

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 24 Feb 2020 19:32:39 GMT

[quote userid="4367" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219756"]Could we (the profession) be a bit enterprising here and create our own burden of proof? [/quote]

Indeed that is what we have done. The 'So as to be sure' definition of the Civil Standard is unique to the RCVS DC (as far as I know) and effectively bridges the gap between accepting that these are civil proceedings (i.e. not ones where the liberty of the citizen is at stake nor a crime has been committed) and the need to prove the allegations so that the DC is SURE (beyond reasonable doubt - the criminal standard). In many instances Serious Misconduct equates to an act of dishonesty by a veterinary surgeon which makes them unfit to practice (remember that the RCVS has NO negligence jurisdiction except where negligence amounts to SPMC) thus an adverse finding by the DC implies that the respondent vet has been dishonest (in a professional matter) or is so grossly incompetent as to be 'disgraceful' in practice. Both are pretty bad things to have placed on your shoulders if you happen to be innocent - that is why I think its best to be Sure about such matters!!!

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 24 Feb 2020 19:13:48 GMT

[quote userid="4367" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219756"]criminal - beyond reasonable doubt, vet - so as to be sure.[/quote]

Same thing!

[quote userid="4367" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219756"]As we have two duties - to animal, sentient but non communicative and to client, sentient, communicative but not directly affected by the vets actions, it makes sense to be a bit different[/quote]

Sorry, it makes no sense at all.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Iain Richards — Mon, 24 Feb 2020 17:35:57 GMT

Could we (the profession) be a bit enterprising here and create our own burden of proof? So:

civil - balance of probabilites, criminal - beyond reasonable doubt, vet - so as to be sure.

As we have two duties - to animal, sentient but non communicative and to client, sentient, communicative but not directly affected by the vets actions, it makes sense to be a bit different

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:34:17 GMT

[quote userid="4367" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219731"]SO could a vet in the future appeal on the ground that the DC could not be sure???[/quote]

At present they could and indeed that is what the appellant tried to do - however if you set a very high standard it is logical to assume that once the DC has decided it is sure their decision is robust. Deciding if something is 'more likely than not' is more open to pure 'opinion' and therefore the decision more open to debate and challenge. It is interesting to note that even trying to define what is mean by 'balance of probability' seems to utilise much judicial ink with some contradictory ruling even at the highest level.

Appeals against RCVS DC decisions have rarely hinged on the FACTS (as these have been proved to the criminal standard) most appeals hinge on the correct severity of the Sanction applied.

In my view the high standard of 'So as to be Sure' not only protects the veterinary surgeon against miscarriage of justice - it also protects the RCVS against the immense costs of having to defend itself in the Judicial Committee on the issue of disputed facts.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Iain Richards — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:04:04 GMT

SO could a vet in the future appeal on the ground that the DC could not be sure???

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Richard Stephenson — Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:51:01 GMT

Interesting to read the decision of the Supreme Court Judges in the latest Appeal from the RCVS DC. The appellant vet challenged both the findings of fact and the sanction. In a lengthy and detailed judgement their Lordships have UPHELD the decisions of the RCVS DC on both counts. Partly this was due to the high standard in the finding of facts that the RCVS applies - meaning that because they are SURE their decisions are much easier to defend on appeal. What is also noticeable is that the Judges make no adverse comment regarding the RCVS standard of proof - which one would have thought they might if it were the major problem we are being told it is. It is rare in an RCVS case before the Judicial Committee (or indeed any case) for the justices to be so emphatic and clear that the RCVS DC acted entirely properly. I see no evidence here of a broken system that requires major strengthening - rather a very robust one that can withstand challenge in the highest court in the land. What is needed is more efficiency time wise in dealing with the 98% of cases that do NOT require DC hearings!!

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Bob Russell — Wed, 19 Feb 2020 09:09:12 GMT

That really is the key issue! Are we going to get a say?

So many important issues are being discussed behind closed doors. The profession may be consulted but are Council taking any notice?

So called telemedicine is a prime example. Profession says a resounding 'NO! but Council still discuss it.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

David Hopper — Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:56:57 GMT

It seems strange that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal still uses the criminal standards of proof if it’s so ‘out of step’ with everyone else?

Solicitors are the first opinion representatives of the legal profession with their feet on the ground a bit like most of us in first opinion practice. Probably they can see something which the more rarified legal profession cant?

The RCVS will need a better argument other than ‘everyone else is doing it’ to sell it to it’s members if they have any say in the matter?

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Iain Richards — Mon, 17 Feb 2020 12:04:57 GMT

Spot on Bob. This is the plank in the college's eye.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Bob Russell — Mon, 17 Feb 2020 11:41:00 GMT

It works but delays reduce its fairness because stress is prolonged.

I cannot particularly fault the decisions made in recent years but delays to the decision making is singularly unfair for the guilty as much as the not guilty.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Iain Richards — Sun, 16 Feb 2020 19:49:52 GMT

[quote userid="12375" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219570"]What the public need is a UK wide network of sufficiently capable veterinary practices to deal with their sick animals , and for this to be available these businesses need to be commercially viable. [/quote]

Absolutely (and I'm inclined to agree with most of your post). The existence of the college is to protect animal welfare (and thereby engender public trust) from rogues and charlatans. That is does so with remakably few complaints compared to intereactions with the public (something BOb Partridge calcualted a while ago) is good evidence of a profession with very little wrong with it. We may have a disiplinary system out of step with other health regulators, but it works and works well.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Alastair Welch — Sat, 15 Feb 2020 17:30:18 GMT

The whole system is really rather rotten.

We like to see ourselves as a self regulating profession but to me that means that those who sit on council would be like the make up of the profession, and they are not. That is to say council should be mostly made up of VS who derive their living from dealing with client owned animals (as the bulk of the profession does) instead we are governed by a collection of individuals very few of whom make their living in this way. Council is far too full of the great and good, those near the top of large corporates with vested interests, university types far removed from real practice topped off with a few lay members half of whom seem to be 'professional regulators'- not really what one can consider lay appointments.

In case anyone hadn't noticed we work in a profession with lots of problems. Inter alia there is what Ive heard described as a recruitment and retention crisis but we have no problem sucking in very bright, hardworking and ambitious 18 year olds. The fact that we chew many of them up and they leave broken and disillusioned after a few years is the issue.

Remarkably the college continues blithely on as if nothing was amiss. Virtually every plan/edict/review that emanates from Belgravia house makes being a veterinary surgeon harder and not easier. It is almost as if they sit around calculating how to make the situation worse. I suspect that most of it is just pure ignorance- plans and schemes dreamt up by those far removed from the coalface although I'm sure a few of them who were incapable of hacking it in the real world of practice delight in making life harder for their more talented counterparts.

The recent clanger of trying to shift the burden of proof is just the latest in a long line of ill conceived moronic schemes. The remarkable thing is that despite all the pressures the public think we are doing a really good job but the still the college can't help but stick their neb in.

The reality is that the RCVS has quite strong powers and is hardly accountable. The profession is small and relatively unimportant and there is no-one to watch their activity closely enough to recognise what a bad job they are doing. The set their own rules, decide to make anything controversial secret, have an agenda driven by a handful of individuals, policy is worked on in secret committees the appointment to which lies in the hands of too few people. Dissenting individuals are sent to Coventry.

Chris Barker's revelation that he received phone calls telling him to keep his mouth shut is just so damning. In truth that is the sort of intimidation that one expects from the Cammora not from inside a professional regulator. RCVS councillors should not be expected to take a vow of omertà as the price of sitting on committees. We should expect RCVS council to be a area where contested ideas are debated freely (and in public) and it sickens me to see lickspittles such as Niall Connell speaking with His Masters Voice.

The next hand grenade that the college will chuck at the profession is the whole telemedicine/remote prescribing/under your care disaster. There are far too many individuals who have links to companies with a vested interest in this issue sitting on council. In truth they should all recuse themselves from any of the discussions but instead they will carry on and shaft those who actually see sick animals. What the public need is a UK wide network of sufficiently capable veterinary practices to deal with their sick animals , and for this to be available these businesses need to be commercially viable. What the public does not need is the chance to buy some discounted medication after video consultation for minor ailments only to find that their local practice has closed because it couldn't compete with internet providers of 'care'.

I'm OK. Im far enough through that I can hopefully have a comfortable enough retirement but every school student I meet in the practice I try my best to dissuade, and that saddens me.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Richard Stephenson — Sat, 15 Feb 2020 12:39:37 GMT

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219554"]How about getting the present system right before looking to change to an even more time consuming one?[/quote]

Yes !

I had a look back in my Council notes to RCVS Council June 2011 regarding the classification of papers as 'confidential' I note that even then I was the only member to vote against the classification system - my notes (which were published at the time) seem very relevant to today

A paper clarifying the Council’s policy on the classification of documents was adopted with (I think) only myself voting against. Generally all documents are to be marked ‘unclassified’ unless they meet certain criteria such as containing personal details, commercially sensitive information, or information pertaining to an outside body. My problem with this paper was that I did not feel it dealt adequately with the situation that occurred in the last committee round with papers being submitted from WPs and sub committees marked ‘confidential’ which contained substantive matters for decision (specifically that designated Cert AVP qualifications should be withdrawn) and also requesting ‘urgent action’ – effectively preventing any open discussion. The reason for the classification appeared to me to be little more than that the proposals were likely to be controversial. Fortunately in the event the papers were rejected by the Education Committee. The classification of the two papers concerned did not in my opinion fit any of the criteria which Council had set and thus either the policy is inadequate or was not being followed. However most members of Council seemed happy with the document and I would concede that in theory at least in the future if a paper is classified ‘confidential’ an explanation and time limit will have to be displayed on the front page (which itself would of course be confidential!), I’m just pessimistic that it will be followed. The paper was adopted by an overwhelming majority so I’ll have to accept that I may be wrong.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Bob Russell — Sat, 15 Feb 2020 09:32:25 GMT

Yet there is plenty of criticism that the present system is taking too long and causing damaging (and potentially fatal? stress for vets accused.

How about getting the present system right before looking to change to an even more time consuming one?

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Richard Stephenson — Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:40:11 GMT

https://mrcvs.co.uk/en/news/19130/Call-for-transparency-in-policy-making-decisions

Some good reporting of this story on MRCVSonline

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219499"]Have there been any external pressures on the RCVS to change the existing system?[/quote]

Bob - I genuinely believe this is self imposed pressure for a change - to fall in line with other regulators. I have never seen or heard any criticism of the RCVS Standard of Proof from outside the RCVS itself (but since the discussion is confidential there could have been and we just haven't been told).

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Bob Russell — Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:55:37 GMT

I cannot see any justification for any of this to be discussed behind closed doors. It is secrecy that breeds paranoia.

Have there been any external pressures on the RCVS to change the existing system?

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Richard Stephenson — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 22:46:41 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219461"]this has all blown up before the issue has been discussed openly in Council. [/quote]

One of the many advantage of discussing policy openly is that 'counter arguments' are KNOWN to have been put - that way decisions are more readily accepted.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:38:08 GMT

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219457"]

Arlo Guthrie said:

Proposal to make it easier for vets to get struck off

[/quote]

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219457"]

Arlo Guthrie said:

Insinuations that the RCVS is changing the standard of proof in order to strike off more vets are hugely irresponsible, causing wholly unnecessary distress among colleagues, and should stop.

I did not say that. Nor have I insinuated it. Indeed, I object to any insinuation that I have insinuated that the College is changing the standard of proof IN ORDER to strike off more vets.

[/quote]

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219457"]Exactly. You're not sloppy enough with the English language to accidentally mean something you didn't mean to say.[/quote]

For absolute clarity, what I meant was that the proposal will make it easier for vets to get struck off, but not that the RCVS is potentially doing this IN ORDER to strike off more vets. It really is a very important distinction. I am not 100% sure why the College is looking at this, other than 'other regulators are doing it'. But I know Lizzie Lockett reasonably well, I know how important mental health in the profession is to her. Equally Niall is widely liked, and people who are widely liked are usually good people! So I do not think this is being done IN ORDER to strike off more vets, rather that it is a potential, I think inevitable consequence.

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219457"]Just own it.[/quote]

I am, in the above sense!

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219457"]arguing over who insinuated what distracts from the central point, doesn't it?[/quote]

Well, I thought if the College was referring to my handling of the story in that last letter, it was being disingenuous, because I never said what it claimed.

[quote userid="5091" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219459"]It's disappointing that there's no acknowledgement of the counter arguments, just rebuttals and more accusations. There's no demonstration of a balanced argument.[/quote]

To be fair, I think that is because this has all blown up before the issue has been discussed openly in Council. Hopefully there will be a proper debate, but I think quite important that until that happens, people try to avoid being too accusatory / aggressive etc., as that will just put those in the College on the defensive, which is not helpful.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Edward Jones — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 09:14:43 GMT

How on earth can it be suggested that such a change in standard of proof won't end up in more vets being struck off? It's hardly going to do the opposite, and if those in ivory towers are saying it won't have any effect then what's the point?! Is there any evidence that not enough vets are being disciplined? If not, what's the counter-balance to the proposal to avoid the unnecessary increase in vets being found guilty?

It's a stupid knee-jerk herd-following reaction trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist in the profession, using the conclusions of a government report that wasn't written considering the veterinary profession at all as a main justification.

Why is our regulator trying to tag itself along with the human-health care professions? It should demonstrate more self-confidence in the fact we have very few similarities with them, that we inhabit a completely different political environment, and that it can function in its own niche.

It's disappointing that there's no acknowledgement of the counter arguments, just rebuttals and more accusations. There's no demonstration of a balanced argument.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Mark Hedberg — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 08:38:15 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219350"]Proposal to make it easier for vets to get struck off[/quote]

...

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219350"]

Insinuations that the RCVS is changing the standard of proof in order to strike off more vets are hugely irresponsible, causing wholly unnecessary distress among colleagues, and should stop.

I did not say that. Nor have I insinuated it. Indeed, I object to any insinuation that I have insinuated that the College is changing the standard of proof IN ORDER to strike off more vets.

[/quote]

Um...Arlo, I'm not trying to start anything, but the title of the email totally did make it sound like that. The difference between "in order' or "happens to have an effect" is probably not immediately apparent to the casual reader. But you're a skilled media writer, and I don't mean to teach you to suck eggs or anything.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219350"]I used that headline calculatingly. I wanted people to sit up and pay attention.[/quote]

Exactly. You're not sloppy enough with the English language to accidentally mean something you didn't mean to say.

Just own it. It did what was intended. People opened the email. We're having a robust discussion on the disciplinary process, which is excellent. I mean that, genuinely. Seriously, mission accomplished, arguing over who insinuated what distracts from the central point, doesn't it?

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:55:10 GMT

Good 'un.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Richard Stephenson — Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:49:04 GMT

The following response will be issued to the Presidents reply to our 'open' letter. The authors feel that the criticisms levelled at ourselves are inaccurate and unfair and are therefore seeking a right of reply. The objective is not to prolong the correspondence but merely to set the record straight as follows

Open Letter.

Dear Niall,

Thank you for replying to our open letter (Vet Record Vol 186 No 5) – whilst not wishing to draw out the correspondence in a tedious fashion we are surprised by some of the comments particularly those not relating to our text. We reiterate that we are relieved that no final decision has been taken and further evidence is being gathered. If we could be allowed to make a few brief observations: -

You say that we ‘seek to impose (our) views on the wider profession’, our message is clearly a call for greater openness and transparency as the editor of the Veterinary Record correctly identified (Vet Record Vol 186 No 5, 138). In the past our profession has always encouraged vibrant debate and discussion of issues and in our view the ‘open letter’ continues that fine and important tradition. We are more than happy to be contradicted by fact – but it is disappointing in a liberal profession to be told that we are not well enough informed to have an opinion or in any event should not share it!

You dismiss the judgement of Lady Hale (President of the Supreme Court) as ‘unhelpful in this regard’. The passage quoted is from a ruling specifically concerned with the correct application of ‘standard of proof’ in civil hearings – the reference is given and it is surely for the reader to determine how ‘helpful’ her ruling is.

Finally, we are concerned that you imply that we are ‘hugely irresponsible’ and that we have insinuated ‘that the RCVS is changing the standard of proof in order to strike off more vets’. We have not made any such statement, although we do believe that it will certainly result in an increased case load for the disciplinary committee. We are not unique in that opinion as the RCVS Registrar Mrs Ferguson has been quoted as saying, ‘One effect of changing the standard of proof is that there would likely be an increase in the volume of cases being referred to the DC. This is because there may be some cases where although the evidence is insufficient to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt, it may be sufficient to prove them on balance of probabilities.’ We therefore struggle to see any difference between our position on this and that of the RCVS Registrar.

Unfortunately, ‘blue sky thinking in a safe place’ can result in ivory tower decisions divorced from reality. Unless an institution is prepared to listen and warmly welcomes challenge it is likely to lose the confidence of its membership. We welcome your categorical statement that all further discussions on this vex issue will be in ‘open’ session and repeat our support for reforms that will speed up the investigatory process.

We wish Council well in its deliberations.

Richard Stephenson, Jacqui Molyneaux, Mark Elliott, Beverley Cottrell, Christine O’Rouke, Clare Tapsfield Wright, Tim Greet.

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Iain Richards — Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:23:09 GMT

Oh that is a sorry mess. Well Richard gets my vote, and I may well not vote for anyone else.

In the questions to candidates, I'd be asking if they will vote against measures that allow remote prescribing. If I can't get a clear "yes" then they don't get the 'X"!

RE: Open Letter to RCVS President

Chris Barker — Mon, 10 Feb 2020 20:26:22 GMT

[quote userid="4367" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28872/open-letter-to-rcvs-president/219383"]the representation is poor compared to the make up of the profession as very few are practising vets.[/quote]

And unlikely to get much better.... The candidates for this year's Council election have just been announced. The gulf between the RCVS and the Profession seems to be all too evident, for If one discounts the two 'protest' candidates, the remaining six are either current or previous members of Council. Not one new candidate. After eight years on Council I am not standing again, and I am delighted to see Richard Stephenson has decided to stand again, for as the size of Council shrinks it is desperately important that practicing veterinary surgeons put themselves forward for election. Virtually everyone can claim experience of practice, but it is only those currently active who can truly understand the pressures experienced by those in first opinion practice nowadays. Please use your votes carefully - only three seats on Council are up for grabs this time round