Mr Meacock faced six charges relating to his website - naturalhealingsolutions.co.uk - which has claimed, amongst many other things, that:
VetSurgeon.org understands this is the first time that claims made on a practitioner's website have been the subject of a disciplinary hearing. However, before the case could be heard and the claims tested, counsel for the College and the defendant met in private, whereupon Mr Meacock voluntarily entered into undertakings with the RCVS to amend his website in order to make it compliant with his professional responsibilities.
As a result, the College applied to adjourn the hearing generally (ie indefinitely). This application was not opposed by Mr Meacock and was granted by the Committee.
Judith Webb, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, explained that the adjourned charges would be kept open indefinitely but the Committee encouraged the College not to extend the period beyond two years. However, if at any time in the future Mr Meacock failed to keep up his undertakings or made further claims which the College found unacceptable, then a fresh case could be brought.
Because Mr Meacock's undertakings were agreed in private, it is not yet known whether he has agreed to remove all of the content on his website alleged by the College to bring the profession into disrepute, although presumably time will tell.
In addition, it is not clear whether Mr Meacock also undertook not to practise those treatments which the College claimed bring the profession into disrepute (as opposed to just advertising them on his website).
Either way, the implications of the case could stretch beyond Marine Plasma, Russian Healing Blankets and Bio-Resonance Technology. In particular, it raises a serious question over the unsupported claims being made by other practitioners of alternative and complementary therapies, such as the claim by the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons that homeopathy is effective in resolving cancer: http://www.bahvs.com/cured-cases/.
The Committee's full findings and decision are available here.
According to the College, the increase in fees is needed primarily to develop its regulatory capacity for paraprofessionals. However it also says it needs to increase fees to pay for a new, Midlands-based headquarters designed by Foster and Partners, following the announcement last year about the sale of Horseferry Road.
Brexit is another significant factor in the decision to raise fees.
As has been widely reported, the College has already been on a number of fact-finding trips to India, with a view to making up the shortage of vets in the UK with graduates from Indian vet schools. But however forward-thinking these trips were, they have not borne fruit in time for Brexit.
For this reason, the College has announced that it has set aside an emergency contingency fund of £6M in order to fly as many as twenty veterinary surgeons from India and pay them to act as OVs on short term contracts in the event of a no deal Brexit.
An RCVS spokesperson said: "Brexit has dominated proceedings over the last two years, and we have been working collaboratively with our colleagues in Defra and the BVA to make appropriate plans to ensure that vital veterinary work will continue, whatever the outcome of Brexit. However, we have been unable to persuade the government to put veterinary surgeons on the Shortage Occupation List and our only alternative is to recruit from abroad."
Dr Frill Poao from the Indian Veterinary Association Kerala said: "We are standing by to help our British colleagues in their time of need".
Photo: Could the new RCVS headquarters look something like this? Foster and Partners also designed London City Hall. Gary Knight / Wikipedia CC BY-SA 2.0
This compared with 339 who were removed for non-payment last year.
A list of those who have not paid their fee has now been published and the College encourages practices to check the list (www.rcvs.org.uk/removals2018) to be sure that no employees are named.
Those who have been removed from the Register but have subsequently paid to be restored are not named on the list.
Anyone removed from the Register can no longer call themselves a veterinary surgeon, use the postnominals MRCVS or carry out acts of veterinary surgery – to do so would be in breach of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and therefore illegal.
The College says it would also like to remind veterinary surgeons that, although paying the fee is required to remain on the Register, to complete their registration in full they need to confirm they are compliant with the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement and complete the criminal disclosures form. Both of these are required by the Code of Professional Conduct and can be completed on the ‘My Account’ area.
Anyone with queries about completing the registration process should contact the College’s Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk.
The protesters, which VetSurgeon.org understands comprise six veterinary surgeons and 30-40 pet owners, started their march in Parliament Square and are now bearing down on the RCVS Headquarters in Horseferry Road.
The campaigners are, we are told, protesting against the RCVS position statement on complementary and homeopathic veterinary medicines.
No word yet on how the College proposes to defend itself from the hoard; certainly no sign of any cauldrons of boiling oil atop the battlements, nor any riot police yet in evidence.
More news as it happens. VetSurgeon.org has a photographer on the ground ...UPDATES
1:00pm: The protesters have arrived at Belgravia House. A couple of protesters are armed with umbrellas, presumably to guard against the ever-present risk of overdose. It's getting messy: we're hearing that they've blocked the pavement. Wait up. Someone has emerged from the College to speak with them. Well hello, Mr President.
1:01pm: We were hoping that some of the protesters might, I dunno, handcuff themselves to Belgravia House or something. But after a tense standoff lasting over 36 seconds, it looks like the protest is petering out already. Apparently they've started dispersing to the park opposite.
1:02pm: Yup, they've all gone off to the park now. This may go down as one of the shortest protests in history.
1:16pm: Word has it they've headed off to the White Horse and Bower.More photos of this momentous occasion to follow ...
1. The seasoned campaigner is always careful to choose any banner that appears over their head with great care.
2. It was a beautiful march. A big march. The bigliest. Haven't seen that many people on the street since Donald Trump's inauguration.
3. The RCVS headquarters under siege.
4. Millie the dog (perhaps better called 'Millie the anecdote') illustrates the flawed thinking behind homeopathy.
5. Nobody told this campaigner than homeopathy wasn't banned in the first place. You can get it from any tap.
6. RCVS President, Professor Stephen May, presumably wishing he'd taken the day off work.
7. It took some hours moments before the crowd dispersed fully and life in London was able to return to normal.
3.43pm: The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has issued a statement following the march, which says:
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons today met a delegation of around 40 animal owners and veterinary surgeons who wished to voice their concern about a recent position statement by RCVS Council on the use of complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathy.
President Stephen May and CEO Lizzie Lockett received a copy of an online petition that was set up following the statement, which has since received around 15,000 signatures, including around 11,000 from supporters in the UK.
Stephen and Lizzie also took time to hear accounts and stories from the supporters, and to listen to the points they wished to raise.
In view of the cold, wet weather, the College had laid on some hot drinks for all the visitors, and invited the delegation inside, but these were declined.
Stephen said: "We were pleased to be able to meet our visitors today and to receive their petition, although it was a little tricky trying to answer questions on a busy London pavement!
"We continue to recognise that homeopathy and other complementary therapies are popular amongst some animal owners and certain members of the veterinary profession, as indicated by today’s delegation, but it is worth reiterating that the RCVS Council statement does not ban their use.
"What it does state, is that in order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary, rather than alternative, to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based on sound scientific principles.
"This is similar to the position that we have held on complementary therapies for many years, but we will always be happy to receive and consider scientific evidence that demonstrates their efficacy."
I wouldn't hold your breath.
All photographs ©2017 Under licence to London News Pictures Ltd. +44 208 088 1155
The DC heard that Mr Hutton had attended to a horse called Angel at a livery yard in Sheffield.
As he examined the horse, it kicked Mr Hutton in the leg, whereupon he kicked it back in the abdomen.
Mr Hutton admitted the facts of the allegation against him.
The Committee noted that there was a dispute between the parties about the exact manner in which the kick had been administered and whether the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct.
Both the College and the defence obtained the opinion of experts, who were not in agreement as to whether the conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee heard evidence from Angel’s owner, Ms A, who was present when Mr Hutton kicked Angel and from Ms B, Mr Hutton’s life partner, who was also present.
In his witness statement, Mr Hutton said that his kick “was an instinctive reaction to what had happened and an instinctive reprimand for what I felt in the aftermath of the kick from her was malicious behaviour”.
Mr Hutton also stated that the reprimand was an appropriate response which a horse would understand, in order to modify its future behaviour.
In the hearing, Mr Hutton apologised for the incident with Angel. He said it had happened in the heat of the moment. He wished that he had apologised straight away.
In his expert evidence before the Committee, Mr T Gliddon MRCVS, called by the College, agreed that attitudes to physical reprimands had changed over time.
In his expert report, he stated that a reprimand administered by a veterinary surgeon that may have been considered acceptable by a significant body of the veterinary profession some decades ago would no longer be regarded as such now, in his opinion.
In re-examination, he stated that in his opinion, there was not a reasonable body of veterinary opinion which would consider kicking a horse as an acceptable form of negative reinforcement of behaviour.
In his expert evidence to the Committee, Dr H Tremaine FRCVS, called by Mr Hutton, stated that in the case of the minority of veterinary surgeons who used physical reprimands as a means of modifying behaviour, he was not aware that such reprimands would include the use of a kick.
The Committee concluded from the evidence that, following the kick from Angel, Mr Hutton moved away from the horse, so that he was no longer in immediate danger and that his kick in response had come after a gap in time, albeit brief.
Ms Greaney, Counsel for the College, provided written submissions on serious professional misconduct, submitting that principles 1.1 (Veterinary surgeons must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals) and 6.5 (Veterinary surgeons must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession) of the Code of Professional Conduct had been breached.
It was submitted that, on the basis that there had been a deliberate decision by Mr Hutton to kick Angel in the abdomen, he had time to consider his actions.
The College submitted that deliberately kicking Angel, either as punishment or by way of teaching or training a horse, fell far below the standard expected of veterinary surgeons.
The Committee found Mr Hutton’s state of mind when kicking Angel was not an issue and that Mr Hutton had intentionally kicked the horse.
In reaching its decision in relation to whether Mr Hutton’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct the Committee took into account that:
Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee determined that taking all circumstances and its findings into account, this conduct was a single, but serious failure on the part of Mr Hutton and found the facts proved amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
“On deciding what, if any, sanction ought to be imposed, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, based on findings at the earlier stages of the hearing.
"The Committee found that there had been a risk of physical and/or mental injury to Angel from Mr Hutton’s conduct but accepted that there were a number of mitigating factors.
“It had been found that the incident had occurred over a very brief period and that Mr Hutton had not taken proper time to consider his response to Angel’s unexpected kick.
"This was found to be a single isolated incident and the character evidence indicated that otherwise, Mr Hutton was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon.
"Mr Hutton admitted the kick early on in the proceedings and had issued an early apology, albeit seeking initially to raise some justification for his actions.
“The Committee was persuaded, in light of Mr Hutton’s admissions, heartfelt apologies, developing insight and the testimonial evidence, that he is very unlikely to repeat his past misconduct.
"However, despite the low risk of repetition, the Committee considered that the nature of the kick, delivered without the consent of the owner, could undermine public confidence in the profession.
"Thus, the Committee considered that it was proportionate to issue a reprimand together with a warning as to Mr Hutton’s future conduct.
"It has determined that this would be proportionate and sufficient to provide adequate protection for animals and maintain public confidence in the profession.”
The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decision can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
With regard to all types of complementary and alternative medicine, the statement says that the College expects MsRCVS to offer treatments that "are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles."
The new position statement states very clearly that homeopathy falls below this benchmark: "Homeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles."
The full statement reads:
RCVS POSITION ON COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINES"We have recently been asked questions about complementary and alternative medicines and treatments in general and homeopathy in particular.
"We would like to highlight our commitment to promoting the advancement of veterinary medicine upon sound scientific principles and to re-iterate the fundamental obligation upon our members as practitioners within a science-based profession which is to make animal welfare their first consideration.
"In fulfilling this obligation, we expect that treatments offered by veterinary surgeons are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles. Veterinary surgeons should not make unproven claims about any treatments, including prophylactic treatments.
"Homeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles. In order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary rather than alternative to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based in sound scientific principles. It is vital to protect the welfare of animals committed to the care of the veterinary profession and the public’s confidence in the profession that any treatments not underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles do not delay or replace those that do."
RCVS President Professor Stephen May said: "It is fair to say that debates on either side of this issue have been passionate and this too has been reflected in the debates that we have had amongst Council members as to how to best articulate the College’s position on complementary and alternative medicines.
"What we have is a statement that reinforces the evidence-based and sound scientific foundations of our profession and our commitment to put animal health and welfare at the forefront of all we do.
"I am very pleased that the overwhelming majority of Council members agreed with this statement and that the College has a firm and clear position on this important topic."
In a statement issued this morning, the College explained that a review carried out after tea yesterday afternoon concluded that in the post pandemic world, most of its staff will continue to work from home. The need for office space is therefore limited to three meeting rooms and a kitchenette.
VetSurgeon.org understands that as a result, negotiations are already well advanced between the College and the owners of Ugland House in the Cayman Islands (pictured right) over the sale of one floor of the building, which is also home to 20,000 companies based on the tax-efficient island.
RCVS spokesperson Flora Olip said: “This move makes all sorts of sense. It represents a considerable cost-saving over our London premises and it puts the College at the very centre of the global veterinary community.
RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett was last seen browsing the beachwear section of www.harrods.com.
Following a trial at Newcastle Crown Court in April 2014, Mr Thompson - who according to the Guardian had at one point been tipped for the job of Chief Veterinary Officer - was convicted of the manslaughter of David Kochs at Mr Thompson’s flat during a crystal-meth-fuelled 'extreme' sadomasochistic gay sex session. He was also convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm (also on Mr Kochs) and possession of methylamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug, both offences occurring on the same night. Mr Thompson was subsequently sentenced to a total of fifteen years’ imprisonment.
Whilst the RCVS opened a case against Mr Thompson in February 2014, it only received confirmation from the Supreme Court of the final conclusion of his subsequent (and ultimately unsuccessful) appeals against his conviction and sentencing in October 2015. The Disciplinary Committee therefore served a Notice of Inquiry on Mr Thompson in November 2015.
Mr Thompson admitted the convictions but did not attend the hearing, due to his current imprisonment, nor was he represented at it; he also declined the opportunity to attend by video link. After due consideration, the Committee decided that the Notice of Inquiry had been properly served and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in Mr Thompson’s absence.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Thompson had been convicted of the three offences listed in the charges and concluded that he was not fit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, its chairman Professor Alistair Barr said: “[We are] satisfied that the type and nature of [Mr Thompson’s] criminal conduct falls seriously below the standard expected of a member of the profession. [We have] noted that Mr Thompson recognises the disrepute his actions have brought on the profession ... and consider that [his] conduct is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
“In the circumstances, [we have] concluded that, in the public interest, there is only one proportionate sanction that could be imposed, namely the removal of Mr Thompson’s name from the Register.”
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The RCVS has responded to the outcry sparked by the Disciplinary Committee striking off a veterinary surgeon that delayed an out-of-hours home visit to a dog that had been run over by its owner, a farmer.
The RCVS response addresses three main issues raised by the case:
However, the College has not yet responded to many of the other issues being debated, including:
For the full response, visit: http://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-events/news/response-to-feedback-on-recent-disciplinary-hearing/
The organisations say that the RCVS position is that it expects veterinary surgeons to offer treatments "underpinned by a recognised evidence base".
However, what the RCVS position statement actually says is: "we expect that treatments offered by veterinary surgeons are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles".
As yet, neither the Faculty of Homeopathy nor the BAHVS have explained which sound scientific principles homeopathy may be based on.
The Faculty of Homeopathy and the BAHVS go on to say that misinformation concerning the efficacy of homeopathy has been promulgated by a small minority opposed to homeopathy.
However, a survey carried out by VetSurgeon.org and Alex Gough MRCVS, Head of Medicine Referrals at Bath Veterinary Group in 2013 found that 83% of veterinary surgeons opposed homeopathy, 78% to the degree that they felt it should not be practised under the the professional title of MRCVS.
The BAHVS response claims there is quality evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy, in direct contradiction to the many and various bodies and studies that have concluded the reverse, including the NHS, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and more recently, the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), an organisation representing the 29 national academies in Europe including the Royal Society, which recently declared in a statement that: "homeopathy is implausible" and "there is no rigorous evidence to substantiate the use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine."
The BAHVS claims there is growing interest in homeopathy from animal owners, "as they see conventional medicines regularly failing or producing adverse side-effects". It says: "this is especially true in livestock farming where there is a drive to reduce the dependence on antibiotics in light of concerns about antimicrobial resistance".
However, the recent EASAC statement specifically singled out the use of homeopathy in farm animals, saying that the lack of evidence is: "particularly worrying when such products are used in preference to evidence-based medicinal products to treat livestock infections."
The BAHVS response says that if the RCVS were to apply the same evidential criteria it is using for homeopathy to all treatments, there would be far fewer clinical options available to the profession; that the RCVS is limiting veterinary surgeons' clinical freedom. However, it doesn't substantiate this claim with examples of any clinical treatments used by veterinary surgeons which are not based on scientific principles and which would be limited if the same evidential standards applied.
VetSurgeon.org supports the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine.
Photo: Multicolored homeopathy tubes isolated on a white background. Lush. Shutterstock.
Dr Dyson was removed from the Register after she was found to have fabricated a letter from a fictitious Home Office Inspector in support of a paper she had submitted to a journal, explaining why conducting her research had not required a Home Office Licence.
The original Committee made its decision on the basis that her conduct was knowingly dishonest, was likely to bring the profession into disrepute and undermine public confidence in it, and, furthermore, risked undermining the Government’s system designed to promote animal welfare and research ethics.
In considering Dr Dyson’s application for restoration, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of factors: her acceptance of the findings of the Committee at the original hearing; the seriousness of the original findings; public protection; risks to animal welfare if she were to be allowed to practise again; the length of time off the Register; her conduct since being removed; her efforts to keep up to date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice; the impact of the sanction on her; and public support for her.
The Committee found that while Dr Dyson had demonstrated some insight into her misconduct, had expressed remorse and admitted dishonesty, it was undermined by her continuing denial that she had been knowingly dishonest in her conduct, having attributed her actions to being in a dissociative state at the time.
In terms of seriousness, the Committee considered that Dr Dyson’s misconduct was at the highest end of the spectrum, having involved being dishonest with multiple people on multiple occasions, and then inventing a fictitious Home Office Inspector to continue the deceit.
The Committee also considered that public confidence in the profession and the RCVS as the regulator would be undermined were Dr Dyson to be allowed to be restored to the Register without genuinely accepting full responsibility for her actions.
In her favour, the Committee considered that there was no risk to the health and welfare of animals and that she had provided ample evidence of her efforts to keep up to date in terms of knowledge, skills and developments in practice should she be allowed to practise again.
In addition, she had made some progress, for example she was able to show some insight by the steps she had taken to avoid finding herself in such a stressful environment in the future. The Committee also considered the many positive testimonials it received from professional colleagues and clients.
Ultimately, however, the Committee decided to refuse Dr Dyson’s application.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that public confidence in veterinary surgeons and the profession will not be maintained if a veterinary surgeon who has been found to have committed very serious acts of dishonesty refuses to genuinely accept that that is the case.
“Dr Dyson says that she accepts the original Disciplinary Committee’s finding that she acted dishonestly, but that acceptance carries little weight in light of what she said in her application and has said in her evidence to this Committee, because it involves a theoretical or objective concept of dishonesty which has no bearing upon her actual state of mind at the time of the actions in question.
“By not being truly accountable for her dishonest actions, Dr Dyson has thus far been unable to demonstrate anything other than limited insight into her disgraceful conduct.
“In such circumstances, the Committee considered there would be a real and continuing risk to the reputation of the profession and to public confidence in the profession if Dr Dyson were restored to the Register.
"Conduct of this kind is of a particularly egregious nature for a member of this profession and particularly so of one so eminent in her field and looked up to by so many.
"The Committee was of the view that if a veterinary surgeon, who has committed such serious offences and shown so little insight were nonetheless now allowed to practise, the public’s trust in the profession was liable to be seriously undermined.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The Disciplinary Committee has suspended a veterinary surgeon from the register for three months, for not carrying out or arranging the euthanasia of a cat, and for dishonesty in his subsequent account of events.
At the outset of the two-day hearing, Mr Bogdanowicz admitted all the parts of the charge, which related to events occurring around 24 June 2011, whilst he was working at Best Friends Veterinary Group, Thrapston.
The Committee was asked to decide if Mr Bogdanowicz's actions amounted to serious professional misconduct and to decide upon any sanction.
Mr Bogdanowicz had been requested by the owners of Jason, a 14-year old Maine Coon cat, to undertake euthanasia, rather than further treatment following abdominal surgery.
Unknown to Jason's owners, Mr Bogdanowicz instead allowed a registered veterinary nurse to take the cat home, from where it subsequently escaped.
Mr Bogdanowicz then colluded in an attempt made by the veterinary nurse to cover up what had occurred and only told the truth when discrepancies in the nurse's story were challenged by the practice.
In mitigation, the Committee was satisfied Mr Bogdanowicz's decision not to put the cat to sleep was taken without full reflection on the consequences of the decision.
It was also satisfied that there was no evidence of injury to Jason and no payment had been sought or made for putting the cat to sleep. He had apologised to the cat's owners and was truthful to the College after the complaint was made.
Mr Bogdanowicz had an otherwise unblemished career and produced impressive testimonials from his clients as evidence of the high regard in which he was held.
However, the Committee also found that despite having had several occasions to tell his employers the truth, Mr Bogdanowicz had done so only after inconsistencies were revealed in the account of the veterinary nurse.
By not asking for the cat to be brought back for a post-operative check, Mr Bogdanovicz had also abdicated his own professional responsibilities.
Judith Webb, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee considers that it is unlikely that Mr Bogdanowicz will put himself in a similar position again. Having heard his evidence, it has formed the view that he has learnt his lesson from these proceedings.
"The Committee considers that it would perform a disservice to the community at large to direct a lengthy suspension of Mr Bogdanowicz's name from the Register."
The Committee directed that Mr Bogdanowicz's name be suspended from the Register for three months.
Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “The overall aim of this event is to gather stakeholders' thoughts and insights on the need for GP specialty training, the potential impact and advantages to the profession as well as any potential risks.
"Those in attendance will also discuss what appropriate content for this training should be and explore potential learning environments, and prerequisites for how the training might be implemented”.
“After an introduction to the VCCP project, we will then be asking participants to consider some of the key questions around the development of this curriculum.
"This includes: establishing the overarching purpose of the training programme with reference to the needs of the workforce, the profession and veterinary care services; identifying appropriate areas of content for the training; identifying suitable learning environments; and establishing consideration of the required mechanisms of supervision and support.
“In terms of attendees, we are very keen to have a good mix of people including those working in independent veterinary practices as well as corporate environments, those working in general practice, Advanced Practitioners, Specialists and those who work in the education sector.
"The focus groups will be on interactivity, finding solutions and building engagement – we want all voices to be heard and all ideas to be shared.”
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/rcvs-veterinary-clinical-career-pathways-stakeholder-focus-group-tickets-873231397617?aff=ebdssbdestsearch
COMMENT
Given the above-inflation rise in the cost of veterinary care, leading to the Competition and Markets Review and the proposed Formal Market Investigation, is now really the moment to be adding yet another layer of training and qualification, with attendant costs which will ultimately be borne by the pet-owning public?
And where is the need for a Specialist status for general practitioners?
Isn't one of the biggest issues facing general practitioners today the referall (sic) culture which has developed in recent years, leading to the deskilling of GPs, reduced job satisfaction and increased costs for pet owners?
Isn't it now the time to call a halt to further specialisation and instead focus on cutting costs, reducing the regulatory burden, and encouraging all GPs to regain lost skills so they can all deliver first class, affordable, pragmatic care for the masses?
Just a thought.
Ms Wicksteed faced five charges.
The first charge concerned her conviction in May 2021, following a jury trial at Oxford Crown Court, for one count of theft and two counts of fraud for which she was sentenced to a two-year community order, including 150 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,800, £177.07 to Barclays Bank and £85 as a victims’ surcharge.
She admitted this charge at the outset of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee hearing.
The second charge concerned the allegation that, in October 2015, she was made subject to an ‘adult restorative disposal’ (‘ARD’) following thefts from Tesco Extra Stores.
This charge was found proven after Ms Wicksteed admitted in her evidence to the Committee that she had signed the ARD.
The third charge concerned the allegation that, in January 2018, she stole from a Debenhams department store and, in March that year, was given a formal police caution.
This charge was found proven by the Committee.
The fourth charge was that, in her annual renewal declarations made each year with the RCVS from 2016 through 2021, she had failed to declare the ARD and the caution.
However, under the Code of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are not required to declare ARDs as they are not convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
Ms Wicksteed was therefore cleared of failing to declare her ARD.
Nevertheless, the Committee found that she had failed to declare her police caution in her annual renewal declarations.
The fifth charge was that in failing to make declarations upon renewing her registration, she was dishonest, misleading and had failed to take adequate steps to inform the College of the caution and the ARD.
The Committee found this charge proven in respect of the caution only and not the ARD.
The Committee then considered whether the first charge, which Ms Wicksteed admitted, rendered her unfit to practise, and whether the remaining charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the conviction concerned three elements of dishonesty: theft and two counts of fraud.
"It involved stealing from a junior colleague at work, and the fraudulent activity – the use of the colleague’s card - was carefully planned in that, when it was used, it was in respect of items which did not cumulatively cost in excess of £30 and therefore did not require knowledge of the card holder’s PIN.
"It was used twice in the Tesco Store. Between those times, Ms Wicksteed changed her appearance by taking off her coat and waited some 20 minutes.”
She added: “The Committee accepted the College’s argument that members of the public would find it abhorrent for a member of the profession to have acted in this way – stealing from a junior colleague a card held under a Power of Attorney for her brother, and spending money using that card, deliberately keeping each transaction under the contactless limit to try to conceal the conduct.
"Honesty and integrity is one of the five key principles which must be maintained by members of the profession.”
The Committee found that this charge alone rendered Ms Wicksteed unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee also found that the proven elements of the remaining charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee then considered the sanction for Ms Wicksteed.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that there was actual harm to a vulnerable person in the case of the conviction for theft and fraud, the misconduct and dishonesty it entailed was repeated, there were elements of premeditation in the conduct, there was inadequate insight shown into her behaviour, and there was wilful disregard of the College and its processes.
In terms of mitigation, the Committee considered supportive statements and character references from professional colleagues and clients and accepted that there was no actual or potential harm to animals, that Ms Wicksteed had a hitherto unblemished career as demonstrated by the references, and that there had been a significant lapse of time since some of the elements of the charges, albeit she had not declared them.
The Committee also accepted that Ms Wicksteed had suffered from ill-health, although had not seen evidence that directly connected her health with the dishonest behaviour.
Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, referencing Ms Wicksteed’s breaches in relation to: serious departure from and reckless disregard for the professional behaviours set out in the Code of Professional Conduct; causing serious harm to the public and breach of trust; persistent and concealed dishonesty; and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her conduct.
The survey was conducted following the recent RCVS Council decision to redefine ‘Under Care’ to allow vets to prescribe remotely.
692 veterinary surgeons took part in the survey, 88.7% of which worked in practice, 8.7% worked elsewhere and 2.6% are retired.
42.4% worked in corporate practice, 42.4% at an independent practice (spooky), 9.6% locum and 2.6% at a charity.
94% worked in first opinion practice, 5.7% in referral practice.
When asked: “Do you agree with the RCVS Council decision to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe medication without having seen / examined the animal in person?”, 78.2% said no, 13.6% said yes and 8.2% said ‘ambivalent’.
This raises an interesting discussion about the role of RCVS Council, which the College has long said is ‘representative of’, but not there 'to represent’ the profession in self-regulating.
By any measure, this decision was not ‘representative of’ the wider body of opinion.
It could be argued that electorates vote for representatives to make more informed decisions than they themselves are able, and certainly MPs have voted in ways that are not representative of the wider body of public opinion.
But this is the veterinary profession. MPs have to represent a wide cross-section of society, some groups of which might struggle to field one working brain cell between them.
By contrast, veterinary surgeons are a highly intelligent, highly educated subset of the population, who you might assume are better qualified to make decisions on matters such as these.
So why this level of disagreement? We asked respondents to select any benefits and drawbacks they think remote prescribing will bring, from a list but with the option for them to write in any we hadn’t thought of.
When asked to select benefits of remote prescribing, the majority (70.9%) selected: “Reduced cost to the pet owner (driving/parking etc)’.
39.3% said it would bring an improvement to vets’ quality of life through more flexible working.
27.5% said animal welfare would be improved through increased access to veterinary services.
14.3% said it would bring an ‘Improved client/vet relationship’.
Of those people who selected a benefit, 49.9% said the biggest benefit of remote prescribing is a reduced cost to the pet owner (driving / parking etc).
Other benefits highlighted in the comments section were
Notably, in the comments section for the benefits of remote prescribing, out of the 104 comments, 33 actually commented 'no benefit' or negatively.
When asked to select the drawbacks of remote prescribing, 94.3% selected: ‘Harm to animals caused by misdiagnoses and missed diagnoses.
68% said: Worsened client / vet relationship
60.6% said: Threat to independent practice (corporates funnelling clients from online consults to their practices).
Other drawbacks identified by respondents were:
Amongst the written drawbacks, the biggest themes concerned abuse of drugs and antimicrobial resistance.
When those who had selected a drawback were then asked which was the biggest, 83.3% said ‘Harm to animals caused by misdiagnoses and missed diagnoses”
So in simple terms, in weighing up the pros and cons, it’s between the reduced cost to the owner on the one hand, cited by 70.9%, and harm to animal welfare on the other, cited by 94%. And the harm to animal welfare was selected by significantly more vets as the biggest concern, than reduced cost was selected as the biggest benefit.
In other words, vets think remote prescribing will make veterinary care cheaper, but at the overall cost to animal welfare.
British Veterinary Association President Malcolm Morley said: “New technology presents many opportunities to enhance existing veterinary services, with potential benefits for vets, clients and patients.
"However, we recognise there are concerns within the profession, particularly around the potential unintended consequences of the RCVS’s revised guidance on ‘under care’ in relation to animal welfare and access to veterinary services.
"This survey echoes these concerns as well as supporting the British Veterinary Association’s call for the RCVS to commit to a post-implementation review.”
Surrey veterinary surgeon Kumaran Kanesh has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted in the Crown Court for wounding with intent and false imprisonment.
At the one-day hearing, the Committee heard how Kumaran Kanesh, who completed his veterinary studies in Sri Lanka before moving to the UK in 2003 to undertake further studies, had been sentenced to four restriction orders under the Mental Health Act at the Kingston Crown Court on 25 March 2013, following his attack on a woman and child in August 2012.
During the summer of 2012, following a period of worsening mental illness and increasing paranoia about people, Mr Kanesh had launched a pre-planned assault against Mrs A and Child B. In what the Crown Court Judge described as an extremely violent, deeply distressing and seemingly frenzied attack, Mr Kanesh bound and gagged Child B and Mrs A, before proceeding to cut Child B's eyelids with a knife. When Mrs A managed to free herself and tried to protect the child, Mr Kanesh then attacked her, stabbing her 17 times in the subsequent struggle. Both Child B and Mrs A ultimately managed to escape, where they were assisted by members of the public, before the police arrived to arrest Mr Kanesh. The Committee noted that both Mrs A and Child B had since made a good physical recovery from their injuries, although their psychological well being was still in question.
Following the attack, Mr Kanesh was remanded in custody before being transferred to Broadmoor Hospital, where he was retained under the Mental Health Act until sentencing. Consultant psychiatrist Dr Samrat Sengupta told the sentencing hearing that Mr Kanesh suffered from paranoid schizophrenia with symptoms characterised by "persecutory and self-reverential delusional ideations" about members of his family and the wider public. He added that the degree of Mr Kanesh's illness warranted his ongoing hospitalisation and treatment, and that the possibility of relapse from failing to take his medication was a real concern. Passing sentence, his Honour Judge Price QC told Mr Kanesh: "Because of your untreated illness, your mental illness overwhelmed you and you behaved in an extremely violent and deeply distressing way ... I am quite satisfied that you committed those acts while suffering from mental illness. The tragedy is that if you had taken the medication then perhaps none of this would have occurred."
At the outset of the Disciplinary Committee hearing, which Mr Kanesh attended escorted by a mental health nurse, he admitted the convictions and that they rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery. Mrs A had written to the College stating she was supportive of Mr Kanesh and that she understood his behaviour had resulted from his ill-health. Dr Sengupta also wrote to the College stating that Mr Kanesh had since responded well to medication with complete resolution of his symptoms and had been moved to a lesser secure environment for further rehabilitation.
In its submissions to the Committee, the College stated that Mr Kanesh's convictions represented some of the most serious offences that it could consider, which, had he been of sound mind, would have led to a significant period of imprisonment. His conduct was of such an exceptionally serious nature as to significantly damage the reputation of the veterinary profession and undermine the public's confidence in it, regardless of the underlying reasons. The Committee accepted the College's submissions and found Mr Kanesh unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In determining an appropriate sanction, the Committee acknowledged that Mr Kanesh was suffering from a severe, acute psychiatric disorder and was unknown to the UK mental health services at the time of the incident, but noted that he had caused serious physical and mental harm to two individuals, and that his actions had involved a breach of trust, a vulnerable victim, premeditation and a high level of violence.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The seriousness of these offences is self-evidently damaging to the reputation of the veterinary profession and the confidence of the public in the profession. [We] accept that if [Mr Kanesh] fails to maintain his regimen of medication, there is a real risk of a possible relapse ... The only possible sanction in this case is to direct the Registrar to remove [Mr Kanesh's] name from the Register."
The full detail of the Committee's decision is available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Mr Eccles had first appeared before the Disciplinary Committee in November 2018 where he admitted a number of clinical failings regarding his diagnosis of a cat, the keeping of accurate and detailed clinical records, giving the animal appropriate treatment, surgery and care, and failing to provide the cat’s owners with adequate information on the cat’s care upon discharge.
After Mr Eccles admitted the two charges against him, and the Committee found him guilty of serious professional misconduct, the Committee then postponed its decision on sanction on the condition that Mr Eccles agreed to abide by a set of undertakings in the interim. They included: the preparation of a personal development plan, the enrolment of his practice in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme, the appointment of a veterinary mentor, the completion of additional training and CPD, and his agreement to pay any costs of complying with the undertakings, including the appointment of and work undertaken by the appointed mentor.
At the resumed hearing last week, the Committee received evidence from Mr Eccles confirming that he had complied with all the original undertakings agreed to in 2018. It also considered some further undertakings that Mr Eccles had agreed to in October 2020 when his reconvened hearing was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. They included: confirming his compliance with the personal development plan he had drawn up in 2019, his practice achieving the Core Standards accreditation level within the Practice Standards Scheme, continuing to meet with his veterinary mentor, and undertaking additional CPD – all of which were found to be completed.
The Committee also heard evidence from both the veterinary mentor and Mr Eccles himself. In his evidence, Mr Eccles apologised to the owners of the cat for the care he had provided, admitting that he had let them and himself down by not having sufficient knowledge to recognise the cat’s needs and to provide him with a sufficient level of care. He also confirmed he was continuing to make improvements to his practice and that he had enjoyed the process of being mentored.
Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In November 2018, Mr Eccles practice had fallen significantly short of an acceptable and adequate standard. He was a sole practitioner who had drifted away from professional standards.”
“The Committee today considers that Mr Eccles has met the undertakings which he accepted in November 2018 and again in October 2020 when the resumed hearing was adjourned owing to Covid-19. It accepts the College’s analysis as to how those standards have been met. It notes that Mr Eccles’ practice has achieved accreditation in Core Standards under the Practice Standard Scheme, something which is voluntary in ordinary practice. That is an exacting scheme. He has engaged with his mentor and had indicated that he will continue to do so as the need arises in order to maintain his development.”
Dr Whiting added: “The Committee also recognises that this was a single incident in a long career. It accepts that he has shown insight into his shortcomings. He understands what went wrong and why. The Committee was impressed with Mr Eccles’ statement of apology in his oral evidence today.”
“The Committee found the language which he used in answering its questions, as to the effect compliance with the undertakings has had upon him professionally, reassuring. He said he had been rejuvenated and stimulated; he had renewed enthusiasm for the profession. The Committee commends him for exceeding the minimum requirement of the undertakings, despite the stressful context of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
In considering its sanction for the original admitted charges from November 2018, the Committee considered that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Locum David John Porter has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for rude and aggressive behaviour, deficient clinical standards and obstructing the Committee's investigation into the complaints against him.
Three charges were found against Mr Porter.
The first charge (charge A) concerned failure to communicate courteously and respectfully with colleagues. This charge related to four incidents as follows:
In finding him guilty of this charge the Committee referred to his “wholly unacceptable exchanges with other veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses and ancillary practice staff members with whom he was working on the dates in question.”
The second charge for which he was found guilty (charge C) concerned what the Committee called “his seriously deficient clinical standards when treating animals under his care”, in particular that:
Within charge C he was cleared of two further parts of the charge – first, that he failed to discuss euthanasia with a client in relation to a kitten and failed to provide the client with sufficient advice and instructions regarding after-care; and, second, that he prescribed steroids to treat a kitten for muscle strain at a time when it was recovering from surgery.
The third charge for which he was found guilty (charge D) relates to Mr Porter’s failure, between 7 February 2013 and 31 October 2014, to respond adequately to communications from the RCVS. In particular that:
As to the conduct found proved in relation to charge D, the Committee set out its findings of fact and declared: “What Mr Porter chose to do was to attempt to obstruct the College in its attempts to investigate the complaints laid against him and, thereafter, its attempts to bring him before the Committee to answer the charges preferred against him. In short, he has directly questioned, and then disregarded and thwarted, the legitimate role of his professional regulatory body.”
The Committee’s reasons for taking a serious view of such conduct were expressed in the following words: “Both the public and other members of the profession must be entitled to rely on the expectation that all veterinary surgeons, as responsible professional persons, will co-operate fully and promptly to all proper enquiries made of them by the College. This is the wider public interest factor which means that deliberate attempts to thwart the College’s enquiries into complaints must, in our judgment, come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
During the course of the hearing, which began in June 2015 and was adjourned three times, Mr Porter was cleared of charge B against him which concerned alleged refusal to undertake out-of-hours work for the Clent Hills Veterinary Group having previously indicated he would undertake such work.
In making the decision on the sanction in this case, Judith Webb, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In reaching our conclusion as to the sanction which is merited in this case we have taken into account the totality of Mr Porter’s conduct and failings. We consider that the conduct pertaining to Charges D(i) and (ii), even when viewed separately, demand the imposition of a direction for the removal of Mr Porter’s name from the Register.
“When that conduct is considered in conjunction with the other misconduct found proved in relation to Charges C1 to C4, which identify his clinical failings, and Charges A1 to A4, which demonstrate unprofessional behaviour in the workplace, we unhesitatingly conclude that there is no other sanction that could be considered sufficient, other than that of erasure.”
The proposal seems to have its roots in the First Rate Regulator initiative announced by Nick Stace in November 2012. As part of the initiative, the College commissioned Sally Williams and Associates to conduct research amongst stakeholders and report back with recommendations for being a first rate regulator.
One of those recommendations was to move to the civil standard of proof (page 33/34 here). There is no stated rationale for this recommendation, other than: "The majority of other professional regulators have moved to the civil standard of proof".
Nevertheless, the recommendation then found its way into the RCVS 2017-2019 Strategic Plan.
The proposal was then mentioned in the published summary of the Legislation Working Party's meeting in December 2017:
"In considering reform to the disciplinary process, the Registrar noted that the RCVS is one of the only regulators (and the only healthcare-based regulator) still using the criminal standard of proof (‘beyond all reasonable doubt’) when determining the facts of a case. Most other regulators used the civil standard of proof (‘on the balance of probabilities’) when making their determinations. Consideration of moving to the civil standard has also been carried over from the College’s previous Strategic Plan and the Registrar agreed to review the last six months’ cases to assess what the likely outcome of those cases would have been under the civil standard, and the cost of change. The Working Party also decided to contact other regulators about their disciplinary processes, in order to gather information about their experiences of what does and does not work, both for long-standing issues and new reforms."
The proposal then resurfaced last week in the Veterinary Record, which reported that the College is in 'advanced discussions' about adopting the lower standard (Standard of Proof for disciplinaries could change).
The College has now issued a statement to VetSurgeon.org as follows:
"The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) is currently very much in the minority of regulators still using the criminal standard of proof ('beyond all reasonable doubt') in its disciplinary proceedings, rather than the civil standard of proof ('on the balance of probabilities').
"By comparison, all nine of the healthcare regulators in the human field (as overseen by the Professional Standards Authority) have moved to the civil standard, as have other regulators such as the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
"In our last two strategic plans we have committed to considering whether or not the RCVS should change the standard of proof in line with other regulators and these discussions have been taking place as part of the ongoing deliberations around legislative reform.
"A change to the standard of proof would require an amendment of our 2004 Procedure and Evidence Rules via the Privy Council rather than new primary legislation, but we would consult with the profession before any such changes were made and, at present, this matter has not been put before RCVS Council for a decision."
So, as it stands now, no evidence has yet been presented to the profession which supports the need for - or benefits of - a change to the standard of proof required in disciplinaries. The idea that it should be done simply because 'that's what the other regulators are doing' does not hold water. The veterinary profession is unique. According to the College's own research, it enjoys a remarkably high level of trust amongst the public. But at the same time, it also suffers one of the highest suicide rates.
Clearly Council will need to reflect extremely carefully on whether the members of such a widely trusted profession should face an even greater threat of losing their career, particularly when they seem to be at such a risk of vexatious complaints, fear of a disciplinary is already so high, and the consequences of this change on mental health in the profession could be so profound.
It may even be true to say that lives could depend on this decision.
Mr Doherty was convicted, with others (who were also convicted), in a conspiracy to deceive members of the public by passing off puppies that had been bred in puppy farms as being the home-bred offspring of domestic pets living in family homes.
Mr Doherty’s role was that he provided vaccinations and vaccination/health check cards which, the court found, materially contributed to the impression that the puppies had been home-bred locally and were in good health.
Mr Doherty was initially convicted of this offence, resulting in eight months’ imprisonment in April 2018.
However, he subsequently appealed the conviction, which was quashed and resulted in a retrial.
On retrial, Mr Doherty was convicted and sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, 150 hours community service and a £100 victim surcharge.
When deciding on the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee considered that a period of suspension would be sufficient to meet the public interest.
In reaching this conclusion, the Committee took into account that Mr Doherty had, as part of his original conviction, already served eight months in prison before the original conviction was quashed and replaced, on retrial, with a suspended sentence.
He had therefore already, in effect, had a period of suspension from practice, which meant that the deterrent factor in a sanction of suspension had been partially met.
In reaching its decision, the Committee also took into account the circumstances of this case and, in particular, the view of the court that Mr Doherty had been motivated solely by animal welfare concerns and not financial gain, and that it was this overriding concern that had allowed others to exploit his willingness to continue to vaccinate puppies despite their source.
There were no concerns as to Mr Doherty’s skill or dedication as a veterinary surgeon and with regard to the single issue of the appropriate vaccination of puppies and their onward sale, the Committee noted the changes that Mr Doherty had made to his practice procedures to avoid any similar problems occurring in the future.
The full decision and findings from the hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Andreea Maria Bacaintan was convicted by the Bucharest Court of Law in October 2017 of bribing a professor during her final year at university in order to pass an examination, a charge to which she had pleaded guilty.
Miss Bacaintan was fined and sentenced to a period of one year and four months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with requirements for supervision and unpaid community service work. The case against Miss Bacaintan was that this conviction renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
However, the Committee also heard and accepted that Miss Bacaintan had been the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by members of staff at the University to extort money from students before they would let them pass the exam.
At the outset of the hearing the respondent admitted the facts as contained in the charge and that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery. However, notwithstanding Miss Bacaintan’s acceptance that she was unfit, the issue of whether or not she was fit to practice remained one for the Committee’s judgement.
The Committee considered whether or not Miss Bacaintan’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. In coming to its decision, the Committee took into account the submissions it had heard from Nicole Curtis, acting for the College, and from Miss Bacaintan, who represented herself.
Ms Curtis submitted that the nature and circumstances of the offence, which involved an element of dishonesty and which led to the conviction, were such as to render Miss Bacaintan unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK. Miss Bacaintan’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession, as it undermined the examination system.
The Committee also considered the mitigating factors associated with the conviction, namely that this was a single, isolated incident and that Miss Bacaintan was clearly the victim of a dishonest scheme perpetrated by staff at the University.
Considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Surgeon.
The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Miss Bacaintan. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials submitted on her behalf. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Bacaintan understood the magnitude of what she had done and was highly unlikely to repeat her dishonest behaviour.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Ian Green said: "This was a truly exceptional case where, whilst she had been dishonest, which the Committee in no way condoned, she had felt compelled to act in this way. The Committee was persuaded that Miss Bacaintan had herself been the victim of a corrupt system and had acted out of desperation in the final stages of her degree and with the genuine fear that if she did not “play the game” she would not graduate, thereby throwing away six years of hard work.
"It was notable that she did not succumb to the corrupt scheme until the third time of trying to pass this exam. It was clear from the evidence that she was not alone in paying up to try and pass this exam and that at least 30 and possibly many more students had done the same thing."
In such circumstances and with the significant mitigation, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to reprimand Miss Bacaintan and to warn her about her future conduct.
Based on the reported facts, what I'd like to know is why the DC even reprimanded a veterinary surgeon who was clearly being extorted herself, and what action was taken against the University staff?
Discuss here.
The Committee’s full facts and findings can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
At the start of the hearing the RCVS applied for it to take place in the absence of Mr Dobson, who had failed to respond when informed about the hearing. The application was granted by the DC on the basis that Mr Dobson, by refusing to respond to communications from the College – including by letter, telephone and email – had voluntarily waived his right to attend.
There were three sets of charges against Mr Dobson. The first charge was in June 2018, while he was not on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, Mr Dobson had carried out an equine pre-purchase examination (PPE) and used the postnominals MRCVS to sign the associated PPE certificate and covering letter.
The Committee found this charge proven after it was presented with evidence of the certificate and covering letter alongside the fact that Mr Dobson had been removed from the Register on 1 June 2018 for non-payment of the annual renewal fee needed to remain on the RCVS Register. He was only restored to the Register upon paying his outstanding fee in late November 2018.
The second charge was that Mr Dobson did not have any professional indemnity insurance (or PII) or other equivalent arrangements in between June 2018 and August 2020. He also failed to provide adequate details of his PII when requested by the RCVS.
The Committee was presented with evidence that Mr Dobson had failed to confirm that he had PII arrangements or other equivalent arrangements in place prior to August 2020 and that he had failed to respond to numerous requests for evidence from the College. On this basis the Committee found the charges proven.
The third and final charge was that Mr Dobson had failed to respond to numerous requests from the RCVS, including: failing to provide written comments on concerns relating to the equine PPE; failing to provide written comments on the concern that he had carried out the PPE and used the postnominals MRCVS while not on the Register; failing to provide details of his continuing professional development (CPD) for the previous three years; and failing to provide copies of his Day Book and/or Controlled Drugs Register. All elements of this charge were found proven when the Committee was presented with evidence of numerous attempts to contact him that went unacknowledged and unanswered.
Regarding the first charge, the Committee recognised that Mr Dobson had not intentionally allowed his registration with the College to expire and that it was down to administrative error. However, it also considered that he had not responded to or taken action upon receiving numerous reminders to pay his fees. It considered that Mr Dobson had therefore acted recklessly in not only allowing his registration to expire but in continuing to practise veterinary surgery while not registered, a criminal act in contravention of the Veterinary Surgeons Act. The Committee therefore found that the first charge amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee also found that the remaining charges constituted serious professional misconduct.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: "The respondent demonstrated a pattern of behaviour in not responding, which was sustained and persistent. He asked for extensions of time but did not make good on his assurances that he would provide information. Due to the length of time during which the respondent failed to comply with the requests, as well as the proliferation of issues in respect of which he did not comply, the Committee was of the view that he demonstrated a wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the regulatory processes. This was particularly serious in light of the reliance which the RCVS places upon its members to cooperate with providing it with information relating to their professional practice which is relevant to the RCVS’s regulation of the profession.
"There was no harm caused to animals or the public, and the Committee acknowledged that practice circumstances have been made more difficult in general by the Covid-19 pandemic. However… the respondent’s failures to comply were serious and undermined the functions of the RCVS. The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s failures fell so far below what was expected as to amount to serious professional misconduct."
Having found that all the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct the Committee then considered the most appropriate sanction for Mr Dobson. In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered Mr Dobson’s recklessness in failing to renew his registration and practising while it was lapsed, his pattern of not responding to the RCVS, the fact that financial gain was obtained as a result of misconduct, a wilful disregard to the RCVS and regulation, and limited evidence of insight. In mitigation the Committee considered Mr Dobson’s previous good character, a long and otherwise unblemished career, the fact that no animals were harmed and increased demands on time and processes due to Covid-19.
However, taking all of the information into account, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction due to the sustained and prolonged nature of the misconduct.
Cerys Jones said: “The respondent demonstrated a wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the regulatory processes by way of his disgraceful conduct. In addition, his lack of engagement with the hearing process indicates to the Committee that he is not engaging with his regulator and, along with the limited insight and lack of remediation with respect to the disgraceful conduct, this demonstrates a lack of insight into the seriousness of his actions or their consequences.”
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has struck off Suffolk vet Oliver Fraser Lown after finding him guilty of five separate charges relating to the possession of extreme animal pornography and sexual activity with animals.
Mr Lown, who graduated from Szent Istvan University in Hungary and has stated that he has never practised in the UK, did not attend the Disciplinary Committee hearing but was represented by Mr Jo Cooper, a solicitor-advocate. He was accused of five charges of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect:
On the first day of the hearing, the respondent made an application to the Disciplinary Committee that the hearing should be held in private on the basis that any publicity about the case 'would offend public morality' due to the nature of the allegations and because the respondent's father suffers from ill-health, which could be adversely affected by any publicity. The Committee rejected the application on the grounds that the nature of the allegations was already in the public domain and that public justice in the context of professional regulation outweighed the private concerns of the respondent regarding his father.
On the second day of the hearing, the respondent made an application to adjourn charges 2 - 5 on the basis that he had already admitted, and received a conditional discharge, for the first charge and would, therefore, not oppose removal from the Register and an undertaking never to re-apply. The respondent also argued that the original decision of the College to register him in July 2013 was flawed because it was unfair to admit him, in awareness of his conditional discharge, apparently for the purpose of taking disciplinary proceedings against him. He also referred to the Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to prosecute him in respect of charge 4.
This application was dismissed by the Disciplinary Committee on the grounds of the gravity of charges 2 - 5 and the fact that the respondent chose to apply to join the Register and had been advised to seek legal advice regarding his conditional discharge beforehand. Furthermore, the Disciplinary Committee heard that there was no error at the time of his registration because the conditional discharge was not a conviction and therefore, under the Veterinary Surgeons Act, there was no option to refuse registration.
The respondent then made a final application to have the case adjourned on the grounds that new documentation he had received the previous day regarding his registration had led his lawyers to conclude that the decision to register him may have been unlawful. However, the Disciplinary Committee said that, in its understanding, the RCVS Registrar had no option but to register Mr Lown. The Disciplinary Committee then dismissed the application on the grounds that any challenge of the validity of registration could and should have been made within the three month time limit for judicial review and that no significant new documentation about Mr Lown's registration had come to light that could reasonably be said to have triggered a judicial review and warrant an adjournment. It also again highlighted the gravity of the charges.
The Disciplinary Committee then heard evidence in relation to charges 2 -5, including that of two officers from North Yorkshire Police who took part in the original investigation, who the Committee found to be credible and reliable witnesses, and, after reviewing the evidence, found that all four charges were proven.
The Committee then considered the appropriate sanction for Mr Lown, and took into account a number of aggravating factors including the risk of injury to animals, premeditated misconduct, sexual misconduct, misconduct sustained or repeated over a period of time and his lack of insight into the offences or his overall conduct.
Professor Noreen Burrows, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In these circumstances, the Committee has no doubt that the respondent's conduct was of the utmost seriousness. The material found in possession of the respondent and his own conduct in charge 4 involved the abuse of animals and a total lack of respect for their welfare. In the judgement of the Committee each of the charges individually amounts to disgraceful conduct and the charges certainly amount to disgraceful conduct when taken cumulatively."
In order to safeguard animal welfare, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct, the Disciplinary Committee directed the Registrar to remove Mr Lown's name from the Register.
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
More on this story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-28524348
In a letter to Danny, RCVS President Christopher Tufnell wrote:
"As the regulator of the veterinary profession, we place an emphasis on the importance of evidence-based veterinary medicine. We therefore recommend that there should be a cautious approach to homeopathy for animals and that normal evidential standards should be applied to complementary treatments."
Danny said: "A cautious approach? What, like this claim by the BAHVS that homeopathy cures cancer?. Or would you say that this claim on national TV represents a cautious approach?
"Talking about homeopathy and normal evidential standards in the same breath is oxymoronic. If you apply normal evidential standards to homeopathy, it is completely ineffective and should not therefore be used in animals."
Mr Tufnell wrote: "We believe it is also essential that such treatments, until they can be proved, are complementary rather than 'alternative' and that they are therefore used alongside conventional treatment."
Danny said: "This argument makes sense whilst evidence-gathering for new treatment modalities. Homeopathy, however, has been with us since 1796. In that time, there has been no good evidence that homeopathy is effective for any condition. Against that, we now have the benefit of an increasing body of meta analyses that show it isn’t. How much more evidence does the RCVS require?"
Mr Tufnell wrote: "Whatever views there may be within the veterinary profession, it is clear that there is a demand from some clients for complementary therapies for their animals."
Danny said: "That may be true, but client demand is not an argument for prescribing medicines shown not to work. Nor should ill-informed client demand trump animal welfare"
Mr Tufnell added: "It is better that they [clients] should seek advice from a veterinary surgeon - who is qualified to make a diagnosis, and can be held to account for the treatment given - rather than turning to a practitioner who does not have veterinary training."
Danny said: "It makes no difference to the animal's suffering whether effective treatment is withheld by a layperson or a qualified vet. At what point do we trust the clinical judgement of vets who subscribe to this magical thinking? In the case of hyperthyroidism in a cat, at what point do we trust them to start giving proper treatment? Maybe when the T4 levels reach a certain number? Or when renal failure kicks in? Or when the cat loses a certain percentage of its body weight?"
Finally, Mr Tufnell wrote: "homeopathy is currently accepted by society and recognised by UK medicines legislation and does not, in itself, cause harm to animals."
Danny said: "I'm not sure how it is possible to claim homeopathy is 'accepted by society'. What constitutes 'societal acceptance'? The NHS says that: 'The ideas that underpin homeopathy are not accepted by mainstream science, and are not consistent with long-accepted principles on the way that the physical world works'; the Australian Government says: 'Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious.' Clearly homeopathy is far from being accepted by society.
"Even if it was, the argument that we should prescribe medicines because they are 'societally accepted' is no different to the argument that we should do so because there is 'consumer demand.' Both are plainly wrong. Presumably the RCVS wouldn't approve of veterinary surgeons prescribing antibiotics just because there is 'consumer demand', or because they are 'societally accepted'.
As to the veterinary medicines regulations, homeopathic remedies were ‘grandfathered’ and have not had to prove efficacy to become authorised. So their recognition by UK medicines legislation is meaningless.
"Lastly, homeopathy does, in itself, cause harm to animals when given ahead of, or in place of proven treatments."
At the same time as Danny was running his petition for banning homeopathy, the Campaign For Rational Veterinary Medicine has been running a petition which instead asks that the RCVS takes steps to allow animal owners to make a more informed decision, thereby limiting the harm that homeopathy causes animals.
This petition, which is for the veterinary profession only, has so far gathered over 400 signatures, and the campaign organisers are now inviting anyone who signed the petition to ban homeopathy to consider signing this one as a pragmatic alternative.
The proposals put to Council by the Education Committee included six key recommendations for changes to CPD policy:
To change the CPD requirement – as stated in the Codes of Professional Conduct – to 35 hours per calendar year for veterinary surgeons and 15 hours in the same period for veterinary nurses, from the start of 2020. This replaces the previous requirement of 105 hours and 45 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses respectively.
Making the use of the new CPD platform (currently in development) for recording learning and development mandatory from 2022.
Giving veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who, upon renewing their registration, have confirmed their compliance with the requirement, the opportunity to download a certificate demonstrating this.
The introduction of an administration fee (which is currently yet to- be determined) that will be charged to any veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses who continually (defined as two or more years in a row) fail to confirm their compliance with the requirement and/or fail to respond to requests from the College for their CPD records.
Changing the words of the Codes of Professional Conduct to include the fact that CPD should be ‘regular’ and ‘relevant’.
The continuation of the RCVS CPD Referral Group, which meets to consider what further steps should be taken in cases of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who continually fail to comply with CPD requirements and/or respond to requests.
RCVS Council agreed, by a majority vote, to approve the above recommendations.
RCVS Council member Dr Sue Paterson (pictured right), who introduced the paper and is the incoming Chair of the Education Committee, said: "While the majority of both veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses do recognise the importance of continuous learning and development for their professional practice, their clients and, ultimately, animal health and welfare, it’s clear that there has been a cohort of people in both professions who take a more lax view of undertaking CPD.
"The changes to our CPD policy are intended to tighten up our processes and are targeted at those who, when challenged about why they have not undertaken sufficient CPD, say that they will meet the requirement one or two years down the line as part of the rolling three-year system. The administration fee also recognises the amount of time and effort spent by staff in the College in contacting and chasing up those people who aren’t compliant.
"However, we also recognise the fact that some members of the profession may have personal circumstances that means they are unable to meet their CPD requirement in a given year – whether that’s because of parental leave or other caring responsibilities, or long-term sick leave. So we will be retaining flexibility within the system and will be considerate and compassionate when taking into account individual circumstances when considering non-compliance.
"Furthermore, in light of the fact that the majority of vets and vet nurses do meet the requirement but also often go above-and-beyond it, we also thought it would be a good idea to introduce a downloadable compliance certificate in recognition of their achievement. This could be displayed, for example, in the practice and would be particularly useful for Practice Standard Scheme assessments.
"Over the coming months we will be fine-tuning the details of these policies and will be making further decisions about how they will work in practice in due course."
Veterinary surgeons and nurses who feel they will struggle to complete their CPD requirement within a 12-month period due to personal circumstances can contact RCVS confidentially at any time to discuss their difficulties on cpd@rcvs.org.uk
For full details about the decision, you can download the RCVS Council paper at: www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/rcvs-council-papers-13-june-2019/