The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct a veterinary surgeon who failed to make sufficient enquiries about the location or condition of a cat; unreasonably refused to provide it with first aid and pain relief; and failed to provide it with adequate 24-hour emergency care.
Following a three-day hearing, the Committee found Marcus Kutschera, of South London Emergency Veterinary Centre, Streatham, guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to events on 16 May 2011. Mr Kutschera was Clinical Director of the practice, which provided out-of-hours emergency services to several London veterinary practices. At about 1.45am, the practice received two telephone calls from a representative of a registered charity about a cat, which the caller considered should be seen by a veterinary surgeon as soon as possible. The charity was itself a client of one of the practices whose out-of-hours emergency services were provided by the South London Emergency Veterinary Centre. The cat was later euthanased by the RSPCA.
After listening to a recording of a telephone call between a representative of the charity and Mr Kutschera, during which Mr Kutschera failed to ask about either the condition or location of the cat, the Committee was in no doubt that the caller believed Mr Kutschera would not see the cat unless he was able to pay when it was presented. The Committee said that, once the telephone call had been received, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon was the welfare of the animal, and Mr Kutschera had no good reason not to see the cat or to follow the procedures set out in the Guide to Professional Conduct 2010. If he had made proper inquiries, he would have been able to make a provisional diagnosis that the cat was likely to be euthanased. Mr Kutschera was guilty of unreasonably refusing to provide first aid and/or pain relief to the animal, and of failing to provide adequate 24-hour emergency care.
The Committee concluded that Mr Kutschera's conduct fell far short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon. Although he did recommend that the cat should be taken to the RSPCA, his primary concern was the ability of the client to make a payment on presentation of the cat, and not the animal's welfare. He had a responsibility for ensuring that proper emergency cover was provided.
In mitigation, the Committee noted that the event was a single, short telephone call between Mr Kutschera and the client in the early hours of the morning, and there was no evidence to suggest similar behaviour on his part on other occasions. Mr Kutschera accepted that he made no inquiries into the cat's condition or location, and the Committee accepted that he had shown some insight into what went badly wrong. He said that he had subsequently changed his practice when speaking to clients on the telephone. The Committee also took account of the impact on Mr Kutschera of the case hanging over him since the complaint was made in August 2011 and, as the cost of the Disciplinary Committee inquiry was not covered by his professional indemnity insurance, he had taken on a substantial financial commitment to pay for legal representation.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. Whilst there are undoubted financial issues that can arise in the operation of an out-of-hours service, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon is for the welfare of the animal."
The Committee recommended that Mr Kutschera undertake, within 12 months, continuing professional development training, with a particular emphasis on animal welfare, ethics and client care, in the context of providing out-of-hours services. It imposed on Mr Kutschera the sanction of a severe reprimand and a warning as to his future conduct.
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
This seems harsh in the circumstances described. It should be reasonable for private out of hours providers to divert callers to charitable concerns who receive funding for animal welfare where there is real concern about the ability of the client to pay. It is in no-one's interest for a client to run up an unaffordable bill, least of all the client.