‘Justice For Ted’ Campaign Gets Meeting With RCVS

A few months ago we told our readers about a campaign that aimed to reform regulation of the veterinary profession, formerly know as Justice For Ted. Since that time, they have changed their name to Rights 4 Pets @ Vets and have enlisted the support of Peter Purves. We have recently heard from Sarah Deadman, who called for a change to the existing complaints procedures and to make the veterinary profession more accountable for its actions. Click here to read the initial news piece.

Here’s how they got on:-

We promised to give more details regarding last week’s meeting with the RCVS. The meeting comprised Professor Sandy Tees (President), the Registrar and Gordon Hockey of the Professional Conduct department.

In essence, there were very many areas of common ground between Rights 4 Pets @ Vets and the College. Both parties acknowledged the deficiencies in the current Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 and the need for it to be amended to reflect the concerns of the modern-day pet owner.

The RCVS were keen to point out that since the EFRA committee’s review of the VSA in 2008, there have been some areas of progress insofar as there are a number of autonomous committees charged with identifying changes to the law not limited to the current disciplinary procedure. Nevertheless, the major stumbling block to reform remains EFRA and the apparent lack of government funding to make the changes a reality. The RCVS are doing all they can do at present which puts the metaphorical ball firmly in our court. Essentially, if we are able to bring our concerns as pet owners to the attention of our elected Members of Parliament then we can force EFRA to take this seriously. At the moment, EFRA are not unduly seized of this issue, because as far as they are concerned, pet owners are quite content with the status quo. If we can show in sufficient numbers that we are far from happy with the current legislation then we can force EFRA to re-engage with the RCVS to drive forward the necessary reform.

In the meantime, the RCVS are taking advice from specialist counsel to see whether certain key reforms can be made to the VSA without having to enact a new piece of legislation. The early signs are encouraging although this is very much second best to wholesale reform of the nature that we are proposing.

We raised the issue of the current complaints procedure and the perception that it is biased in favour of veterinary surgeons. The RCVS strongly rebutted this assertion and pointed out that a significant number of complaints were from vets complaining at the RCVS’ apparent bias in favour of pet owners. Nevertheless, they accepted that the current guidance was difficult to understand and would benefit from redrafting where appropriate in order to render it more user-friendly.

We also expressed our concern at the inability of the RCVS to deal with matters of clinical negligence. Professor Tees indicated that the RCVS does consider negligence, but only those cases which fall within the upper register of seriousness and have the potential to constitute gross professional misconduct. Furthermore, the RCVS stressed that the General Medical Council adopts a similar approach in that minor cases of clinical negligence are not normally progressed beyond the preliminary stage. Whilst we accept the parallel example, we remain unclear regarding the objective tests that the RCVS apply to cases in order determine whether a complaint constitutes negligence which has the potential to constitute gross professional misconduct. It was therefore agreed that the RCVS will supply us with a summary in plain English of the tests that they apply to each case.

We raised the issue of the initial assessment and case examination stages of the complaint process. The RCVS stressed that these are wholly independent stages in the overall process and do in fact take due cognisance of the views of an independent lay observer. Due to restrictions in Human Rights legislation, it is not possible for the Preliminary Investigation Committee to sit in public. Nevertheless, we stressed that the public perception of the complaints process was of a secretive protocol whose primary aim was to reject complaints in the first instance. We agreed that the RCVS should provide us with a clear summary of the respective remits of each stage in the process in order that pet owners contemplating lodging a complaint can be fully apprised of the process prior to embarking on completion of the forms.

We highlighted in general terms our knowledge of instances where veterinary surgeons have refused to treat or delayed treating an animal where the owner does not have immediate access to funds in order to pay for treatment. The RCVS pointed out that vets must act in the interests of the animal at all times and such behaviour was unacceptable. They agreed to provide clear details of where in their guidance such behaviour is specifically proscribed in order that pet owners can refer veterinary surgeons to this prohibition on occasions where treatment is incorrectly withheld.

We stressed that the majority of our cases concerned emergency veterinary practices where the standards of care were variable. Although we acknowledged that mortality rates in these practices will inevitably be higher than their daytime colleagues due to the nature of their work, the RCVS were concerned to hear that we were generally unhappy with both the attitude and standard of care. In particular, we raised cases of where pets were discharged from the care of overnight practices into their daytime counterparts where delays were experienced and instances where owners were asked to pay fees immediately after the death of their pet, sometimes being asked for payment over the dead body of an animal. The RCVS regard both of these as wholly unacceptable and agreed to provide us with a written summary of where in their guidance this type of behaviour is proscribed. Furthermore, if we are able to identify particular practices where there are significant instances of this type of incident, the RCVS would consider instigating an inquiry into that specific practice.

We expressed dismay that serving veterinary surgeons, including those in the public eye, felt unwilling to lend their support to this campaign for fear of reprisals from the RCVS. Professor Tees firmly rejected this perception and unequivocally stated that vets who lend their support to our campaign for reform should have no such concerns. The RCVS are fully content that our overall objectives are both reasonable and indeed desirable and the concerns of vets are unfounded.

In summary, we agreed to provide the RCVS with a list of 10 of our most frequently asked questions. In return, the RCVS will provide us with clear answers in plain English. If we are content, even though we may not necessarily agree with their answers, we agreed to place a link to these answers on our website and Facebook pages for the benefit of all pet owners. It is entirely incumbent on us to ask the questions to which we most require answers, so would everyone please get their thinking caps on and email your thoughts to us at justice4ted@googlemail.com as soon as possible.

The RCVS felt that we presented the most credible case for reform that they had ever seen, so a big thank you to all of our supporters for the work undertaken so far. Indeed, such is the regard in which we are held by the RCVS, they will be consulting us on an ongoing basis on various aspects of RCVS policy in order to obtain the views of the UK’s pet owners of whom we appear to represent. This summary will also appear in our monthly newsletter. If you haven’t yet registered for a copy, please do so by emailing rights4petsatvets@googlemail.com

www.rights4petsatvets.co.uk

Highly Recommended: This could be the most important link you EVER click as far as your dog’s life is concerned – see why….!

Tags:  Animal Charities, Animal Welfare