Should vets be allowed unlimited attempts at restoration?

RE: Should vets be allowed unlimited attempts at restoration?

Bob Russell — Tue, 14 Jul 2020 09:13:04 GMT

Replied to this but poss pressed tangent button!!

The original case was clearly one of mental health and a vet not coping. In the 90's there was little awareness and even less support.

He was a clear danger to the general public and their pets at the time and I see little option but to suspend or otherwise prevent this person practicing.

The covid stuff is a red herring and irrelevant without a criminal charge.

There are shades of Chikosi. The DC straying into territory outside their remit. A defendant that has failed to interact at times and has shown total disregard for the law when he operated on the cats. This does nothing for the trustworthiness of the person involved..

No, there should not be a limit on the number of times someone reapplies but a time interval could apply..

In this situation clear medical fitness assessment and a suitable programme of retraining and compliance could make it ok for this person to resume as a VS. I don't know anyone involved in the case so it could be even more complicated than it appears to us!

Edit: seems he was arrested for breaking lockdown!

Edit edit! He seems clueless, thinks Shigella is frequently fatal and seems happy to ride roughshod over commonsense - please feel free to ignore much of the above except the bit about mental health. I would hope things would have been tackled a bit differently in the first place.

RE: Should vets be allowed unlimited attempts at restoration?

Michael Woodhouse — Mon, 13 Jul 2020 18:59:16 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29221/should-vets-be-allowed-unlimited-attempts-at-restoration"]I also wonder whether you think there should be a limitation on the number of times a VS can reapply in a given time frame (using up not inconsiderable amounts of M's fees for each hearing). [/quote]

No. Not if you are willing to change and improve. Been struck off strips you of your livelihood, income, status etc. I don't think there should be a limit, but would like some kind of PIC system where applications for restoration could be quickly thrown out in circumstances such as these. No need for a big and expensive hearing.

RE: Should vets be allowed unlimited attempts at restoration?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:55:51 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29221/should-vets-be-allowed-unlimited-attempts-at-restoration/224190#224190"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
I did wonder if it is a bit dangerous of it to express an opinion on the reprehensibleness of breaking lockdown.

He did just just breach lockdown rules. He (Allegedly) deliberately tried re-infecting himself with coronavirus and exposed a vulnerable person to that risk.

[/quote]

My point exactly ... who needs to get into the slightly controversial aspect of breaking lockdown when there was all that other incontrovertibly stupid stuff he was accused of!

RE: Should vets be allowed unlimited attempts at restoration?

Clive Ansell — Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:52:47 GMT

I don't think there can be a black and white, yes or no, answer. It depends very much on the case, the individual, what they have or haven't done, extenuating circumstances such as suffering from an illness, and whether they have changed their ways and show some remorse - we all get things wrong sometimes, but most of us do what we can to learn from it and better ourselves.

This idiot needs a good kick up the arse goodbye.

"In considering his conduct since leaving the Register, the Committee found that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had admitted to a number of instances of conduct which it found ‘reprehensible’. This included carrying out spays; not self-isolating after testing positively for coronavirus and, in fact, travelling through France and Spain in breach of the lockdown put in place due to the pandemic; deliberately trying to re-infect himself with coronavirus and then visiting a vulnerable person without maintaining social distancing; treating his own animals with untested herbal remedies; and using his own remedies to treat people, which, in one case, included a nine-year-old boy in Greece."

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/29221/should-vets-be-allowed-unlimited-attempts-at-restoration"]I did wonder if it is a bit dangerous of it to express an opinion on the reprehensibleness of breaking lockdown.[/quote]

He did just just breach lockdown rules. He (Allegedly) deliberately tried re-infecting himself with coronavirus and exposed a vulnerable person to that risk. Not to mention still practising whilst struck off and the other quackery. Reckless and irresponsible.