Ms Parody faced two charges, the first of which related to her treatment of a cat named Shadow and had multiple elements:
The second charge was that her conduct in relation to all parts of the first charge was dishonest.
At the outset of the hearing Ms Parody’s counsel admitted to the majority of the elements of the first charge, although denied she had removed the microchip in order to mislead others about Shadow’s identity.
Ms Parody also admitted that her failures to inform the owner that euthanasia had not been carried out, of the treatment plan, of the removal of the microchip and that she had taken Shadow home was dishonest.
However, she denied dishonesty in relation to failing to make adequate records.
The Committee went on to consider the facts of the remaining, contested charges.
After hearing evidence from a number of witnesses, the Committee concluded that it was not proven that Dr Parody removed the microchip in order to mislead others about his identity, and that, in this respect, she had therefore not acted dishonestly.
In relation to whether Ms Parody was acting dishonestly in relation to failure to make adequate clinical records, the Committee also found this not proven.
Having determined the facts of the case, the Committee went on to consider if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, it considered that there was actual injury to an animal – albeit small and while the cat was under sedation - and that Ms Parody had engaged in conduct that was in breach of a client’s trust.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the immense pressure that Ms Parody and her colleagues in the practice were under at that time due to the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that she had acted in a way which she thought was best for Shadow’s welfare and which clouded the rest of her decision making.
Furthermore, the Committee considered this was a single isolated incident, that she took the decision without the opportunity for full reflection and the length of time since the original incident.
However, it found Ms Parody guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “However well-intentioned, Dr Parody made some serious errors of judgment with regard to her approach to Shadow and embarked upon a course of dishonest conduct, which started with her failure to inform the owner about her decision not to euthanase Shadow, was followed by her treatment of Shadow, including his castration and microchip removal, all without the consent of the owner, and ended with her taking Shadow home over Christmas, again without the owner’s consent.
"In addition, she failed to make adequate clinical records with regards to Shadow.”
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction for Ms Parody.
It heard a large number of positive testimonials as to her character and professionalism from both clients and former and current work colleagues.
The Committee also considered further mitigating factors such as the fact she had no previous disciplinary issues, had a long and unblemished career both before and since this isolated incident, her open and frank admissions regarding some of the charges, the significant impact she displayed regarding her misconduct, and her genuine expressions of remorse and apology.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee recognises that there is a scale of seriousness of dishonesty and therefore gave careful consideration as to where Dr Parody’s dishonest conduct fell to be judged.
"The Committee was concerned with her conduct between 20 December and 31 December 2021, as found proved.
"What led to what she has admitted as dishonest behaviour, was her acting to protect the welfare of the cat.
“The Committee was confident that she most certainly did not set out to act dishonestly.
"She made an initial error of judgement and everything that followed flowed from that.
"What she went on to do was something of a panicky attempt to cover up what she had done initially, so that she could decide on how to rectify it but, the Committee was satisfied, all done with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the cat and its owner.
"She had not acted out of any personal or financial gain or malicious intent.
"She had created a mess and she was trying to sort that mess out.”
After deciding that a reprimand was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose, Paul Morris concluded: “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Parody was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
"The Committee was satisfied that Dr Parody does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.
"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would be served in this case by a reprimand.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.