Wrong! The disciplinary system at the RCVS is woefully limited - by its
own admission - and has sparked a 42-strong group of disgruntled pet owners to
form an action group calling for a complete overhaul to how complaints are
handled. Jan Mahoney and Felicity Norton founded the group in 2002. Frustrated at
how their own misconduct allegations were handled, they felt helpless, so decided
to campaign for a change to the system.
Jan, from Bristol, and Felicity,
from Cardiff, organised a demonstration of around a dozen disgruntled pet
owners outside the RCVS London office, and made history in doing so - it was
the first time that placards had been waved outside the College. The number of
supporters increased as the campaign grew. A 6,000-signature petition calling
for an overhaul to the veterinary disciplinary procedure was handed over to
Elliot Morley MP, the then Parliamentary Undersecretary for the Department for
the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in May 2003.
When Jan and Felicity realised it was just
sitting on a shelf at DEFRA, they asked for it back and arranged for the Queen's
secretary to receive it. Now, they are spearheading a new petition, which they
hope to present to the Prime Minister.
Setting up the action group has brought Felicity and Jan into contact with
many terrible cases - a vet who performed surgery in his kitchen, with inadequate
anesthesia and unqualified support; a vet who kept a dog with a life-threatening
pyometra (womb infection) in a cage for more than 18 hours (delegating the
surgery, for the next morning, to a junior vet, who didn't feel confident to
perform the spay, and who waited until the boss returned - the dog died soon
after); a vet who gave a cow wormer to a tiny Yorkie pup, causing it to hemorrhage
and die; the list goes on and on.
Animal Aid, the non-profit making national campaign group, has also been
approached by pet owners who do not feel supported by the RCVS. Director Andrew
Tyier says, 'The veterinary profession should not be
self-regulated by a body whose first concern is not to protect animals but to
protect the reputation of vets. It's a closed shop.Cases
that have been brought to our attention have been horrifying; stories of callousness
and incompetence have been convincing."
So what is wrong with the current system? Why have so many pet owners lost
faith in the RCVS? First, some background information to understand how a
complaint is currently managed... If you are not happy with how your complaint
has been handled by the vet or practice in question, you should contact the Professional
Conduct Department at the RCVS. You are sent a complaint form to fill in, which
is then forwarded to the vet in question for a response (you can later comment
on the vet's response). Both sides are then put before the Preliminary
Investigation Committee, which has the simple job of deciding whether to refer
the matter to the Disciplinary Committee.
The Preliminary Investigation Committee is required to give its reasons for
not pursuing a complaint, and these reasons can be subject to review by the
courts - however, this can be a potentially costly, time-consuming and emotionally
stressful venture. If the Preliminary Investigation Committee decides to refer
the case on to the Disciplinary Committee, then it is made public. Before this
point, everything is kept confidential, and is in line with the policy of the
Crown Prosecution Service, for instance, meaning unfounded accusations cannot
ruin a person's reputation or professional standing.
Once the complaint is in the hands of the Disciplinary Committee, it can
decide to strike off, or suspend, a vet. A third option is to postpone judgement, given certain undertakings, as in the case of Dr
Ronald Porter, discussed later. Postponement is not technically covered in the
current legislation, but the Disciplinary Committee sometimes uses it nevertheless,
where the vet concerned is in agreement.
Although there are exceptions, negligence generally falls outside the remit
of the Disciplinary Committee - a pet owner has to sue a vet personally in
court, but it is a costly procedure. People don't want the price of their dog,
or guinea pig, or cat reimbursed, they want to know that other people's pets
will be in safe, capable hands.
Sometimes judgment may be postponed subject to specified undertakings
given by the vet to the Committee. For example, in the case of a Dr Ronald
Porter in 2001, who performed major surgery on his kitchen table (as well as
failing to provide adequate anesthesia), judgment from the Disciplinary
Committee was postponed on the basis that, among other conditions, he didn't
perform surgical or anesthetic procedures unsupervised, but should refer them
to another veterinary surgeon, and that he take a course of continuing
professional development.
Any respondent against whom an order has been made has a right of appeal
to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The appeal must be lodged
within 28 days after receiving notification of the Committee's order. The order
itself does not take effect until after the 28-day period or until any appeal
has been heard and determined. During the lengthy review that follows an
appeal, the vet can continue practicing.
When a vet's name is removed from the Register
(striking off), they may not practise veterinary
surgery. They may apply to have their name restored to the Register after 10
months have elapsed, in which case they must reappear before the Committee to
satisfy it that they are fit to return to practice. In the case of a suspension,
the vet is similarly debarred from any direct form of veterinary activity until
the period of suspension has expired, at which time their name will be
automatically restored and they may resume practice.
In 2002, the RCVS drew up a consultation document, disseminated to all
vets, which reviewed how the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 could be updated. It
addressed, among other points, how professional conduct can be supervised and
how complaints can be addressed. In the document, the RCVS admits the system
needs an overhaul: "Most of the powers and duties of the Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons are derived from the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. The Act
is out of date in many respects." It later goes on to say, 'The
Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees need greater independence
and more flexible powers to supervise professional conduct."
This need is great. At the moment, it can strike off, or suspend, a vet.
But, as Jeff Gill, from the RCVS external affairs department, points out,
"It's quite nuclear. There's nothing in between dropping a bomb or saying nothing
can be done. When we update our legislation, we would like a wider range of
possibilities, such as the Preliminary Investigation Committee sending someone
away with a formal warning or advice. Or conditions could be imposed, so a vet
could continue practicing, but subject to certain conditions, such as brushing
up on certain skills or having supervision for certain procedures."
With a broader arsenal at its disposal, the Disciplinary Committee could
be far more effective. Given that most disgruntled pet owners currently see no
redress for their complaints, a more varied spectrum of penalties would be welcomed.
Where, at the moment, a vet is likely to have no action taken against him (as
most cases do not reach the Disciplinary Committee stage), in the future he
could receive a fine, be ordered to make an apology, be formally admonished,
ordered to pay costs or compensation, or to waive, reduce or repay his
professional fees, as well as being required to retrain or be supervised for
certain procedures.
Another option under discussion is for there to be a tribunal
independent of the College, which would either include veterinary members
(necessary, as they have the specialist subject knowledge to investigate cases)
or non-veterinary members but with veterinary expert witnesses that can be
called for advice where appropriate. Other professions have made significant
changes to their ' complaints
departments in recent years. For example, the General Dentistry Council has
opened up its disciplinary committee to include more lay people.
In many cases, these proposals/in the consultation document would appease
the complainants and would prevent the anger that can swell when they feel that
nothing is being done, or that the vet has 'got away with it', without even a
rap over the knuckles. However, one crucial area will not be changed - in the
current proposals for the new Veterinary Surgeons Act,
the RCVS is unlikely to be given powers to adjudicate on allegations of
negligence. As is currently the case, the only recourse on these grounds would
be personally suing a vet in the courts system, which is prohibitively
expensive for most.
DEFRA consulted on its own proposals to modernise
the Act at the end of 2003 and is currently analysing
the response. A summary of the comments is available on its website (www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/
vetsurgeons/index.htm). It is too early to say what the new Act will contain, as
DEFRA is in continuous discussion with the RCVS still, as well as other key
stakeholders, but it is certainly reviewing the current disciplinary procedures,
the composition of the statutory committees and disciplinary powers, including
the need for greater lay representation on the committees.
Those waiting for change shouldn't hold their breath, though. DEFRA has
bid for a slot in the 2005/6 parliamentary legislative programme,
but it is more than likely that there will not be a slot until 2006/7.
"People make mistakes in every job - it's only human," says
Felicity. "But where a vet shows incompetence again and again and again,
there has to be action." •
