The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn
multiple charges against a Hampshire-based veterinary surgeon who first
registered in 1950, following his undertakings firstly to request removal from
the RCVS Register and secondly never apply to be restored to it.
At yesterday's hearing, William Bamber Cartmell of
Wickham, near Fareham, was due to face seven heads of charge containing
"serious allegations" relating to his provision of expert evidence in
a case involving the RSPCA; his certification, following clinical examination,
of the health of two horses for a prospective purchaser; and his clinical
competence during treatment of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel called Milly.
However, before the Committee considered any of the facts
behind these charges - all of which Mr Cartmell denied - the College submitted
an application suggesting that they should be adjourned, providing that Mr
Cartmell agreed to the three undertakings (the third being not to act as an
expert witness in litigation in future). The College also suggested that, should
Mr Cartmell subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Committee
should resume its consideration of the charges, along with his breach of the
The Committee was advised that none of the complainants
in the case - which could have exceeded four weeks and incurred considerable
costs - dissented from the proposed course of action. It also heard that Mr
Cartmell had recently retired from his practice, which was now closed and his
clients dispersed to other practices. In over 60 years of practising, there had
been no adverse disciplinary findings against him.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its
Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "Having carefully considered the
matters put before us, we have concluded that it would not be in the public
interest to refuse the College's application and proceed with this case.
"We are satisfied that the undertakings offered by
the Respondent protect the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the
profession. [These undertakings also] go beyond any sanction that this
Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing where any of
the heads of charge were found proven.
"We do not consider that it would be proportionate
for either party to incur the substantial costs of a contested hearing. We have
also paid particular regard to the age of the Respondent and to his length of
service without any adverse findings having been made against him."
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
Innocent till proved guilty.
A man already retired sees little purpose in spending lots of money fighting charges he denies.
It makes for alarming reading, certainly. But I'd point out that the colleague in question denies the charges, and has not at this point had any proven. It's therefore not reasonable for the rest of us to decide on his guilt - we all pay our subs for the privilege of being put before the DC after all, and who buys a horse, only to pull the cart themself?
Were he to be found guilty of certain of the charges, I'd be the first to throw stones - or rather, second after Wynne - but until that point is reached, speculation and gossip are unprofessional. Hence the suggestion to rephrase: a discussion of the charge sheet is one thing; assumption of guilt quite another.
Have you read the charge sheet JHL?
Once it gets to this stage it is unlikely that the charges are completely incorrect - they are very thoroughly investigated before this stage. It would be difficult to defend these actions really. He may feel he is not guilty of disgraceful conduct, but I think few would agree with him.
So a man at the end of his career decides that he no longer has the will to fight charges which he denies, and instead leaves a profession which he has served - with an unblemished record - for sixty years.
Presuming his guilt is unwarranted. We should have more respect both for our colleagues and for the abiding principle of 'innocent till proven guilty'. Suggesting guilt without knowledge of the case is pretty much the textbook definition of a disparaging remark - which is surely unprofessional according to the GtoPC.
Would it be too much to ask for a rephrasing and associated apology, Wynne?
In that case fine-though I think the risk of injury to working spaniels is exaggerated so would personally refuse to dock
Yep, I'm aware of that. She had actually left one of the litter undocked for me as she knew I didn't want it docked and would only be going so far as field trials.
Unless you work it, if it's docked then the breeder was breaking the law in selling it to you
William Cartmell is the vet the breeder of my Springer recommends on her website (he docks) :-(
I downloaded the charge sheet and it's horrendous, but I agree that Royal College were sensible in saving us the cost of a hearing estimated to last 4 weeks, and he's off the Register so the main objective was achieved
PS I didn't know you could get Immobilon now
Or more likely the RCVS made a sensible suggestion to which he agreed; a rather nicer way of putting it. The name rings a vague bell in my deteriorating memory; I think that at one time he was a very respected member of the profession.
Publishing Editor: Arlo Guthrie
Clinical Editor: Alasdair Hotston Moore MA VetMB CertSAC CertVR CertSAS FRCVS
Facebook | Linkedin | Instagram | Twitter
Learn more about advertising on VetSurgeon.org
VetSurgeon Jobs is the place to advertise and find permanent and locum jobs for veterinary surgeons in England | Scotland | Wales | Ireland and Worldwide. Follow VS Jobs on Facebook | Linkedin | Twitter
Veterinary Anaesthesia | Veterinary Cardiology | Veterinary Dentistry | Veterinary Dermatology | Diagnostic Imaging | Veterinary ECC | Equine Medicine & Surgery | Farm Animal Medicine & Surgery | Veterinary Medicine | Veterinary Neurology Veterinary Oncology | Veterinary Ophthalmology | Veterinary Orthopaedics | Pathology/Cytology | Veterinary Surgery