The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has struck off the Register a veterinary surgeon who delayed attending a dog that had been run over at a farm, causing her to suffer unnecessarily.

Following a two-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee found Munhuwepasi Chikosi guilty of unreasonably delaying attending Mitzi, a fourteen-and-a-half-year-old Labrador cross, and of unnecessarily causing her to remain in pain and suffering for at least an hour.

On 9 September 2011, Mr Chikosi had been working as a locum veterinary surgeon at the Vets Now out-of-hours emergency service in Barton-le-Clay, Bedford, when Mitzi's owner telephoned him to say that his dog was severely injured and to request a home visit for the purpose of euthanasia.

At Mr Chikosi's request, the owner attempted to bring Mitzi into the practice using a blanket. However, it was not possible to get Mitzi into a Land Rover, and she uncharacteristically bit the owner's son, so her owner called the practice again.

Mr Chikosi repeated the request to bring the dog in, saying that he was unable to leave the practice because he was looking after other animals, but that he could possibly organise another veterinary surgeon to visit "probably within the next hour or two".

The Committee considered Mr Chikosi's actions in context of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2011, which listed a number of factors for veterinary surgeons to consider when deciding whether to attend an animal away from the practice premises.

These included the likely treatment needed, the possibility of the animal being safely conveyed to the veterinary surgery, the health status of the animal and ability of the owner to manage the animal's pain until veterinary attention could be sought during normal hours, and travelling time for the veterinary surgeon.

However, the Committee found Mr Chikosi had made no enquiries to determine whether Mitzi was in a fit condition to be moved, and offered no advice as to how her condition could be alleviated whilst waiting for the home visit. Further, his advice that Mitzi should be moved on a blanket was wrong, as she may have had an injured back.

The Committee concluded that, from the outset, Mr Chikosi took the stance that he was unable to leave the practice because he was the only veterinary surgeon present.

However, the Committee noted, from the information available, that there were only three in-patients, no critical cases and a qualified veterinary nurse was present. The Committee found there was no good reason why he should not have attended the farm, which was only 10 to 15 minutes' drive away.

The Committee said that, by the time Mitzi's owner called a second time, it was clear that the out-of-hours service was experiencing difficulty finding a second veterinary surgeon but, instead of going to the farm himself, Mr Chikosi waited another hour until the second veterinary surgeon arrived at the out-of-hours service.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee is satisfied that the delay caused Mitzi unnecessary suffering, which was evidenced by her uncharacteristically biting [her owner's] son. [Her owner] had recognised the severity of the injuries and the need for euthanasia as soon as was practicable. [Mr Chikosi's] failure to attend a seriously injured dog promptly in the circumstances described falls far short of the conduct to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon."

He directed that Mr Chikosi's name be struck off the Register.

Vets4Pets has announced that it is piloting a 'revolutionary' new 24/7 service at its practices in Rayleigh in Essex, Rustington in Sussex and Bournemouth in Dorset.

The company says that clients of the new 24/7 clinics will be able to have their pets seen and treated at any time by the same team, with the same level of service and at the same price as daytime treatment.

Research carried out by Vets4Pets showed that pet owners struggle to fit visits into their busy working lives, so the 24 hour practices will offer consultations up to 10:00pm and allow clients to drop pets off early in the morning, before traditional practices open. 

In addition, the 24/7 clinics will see emergency and routine cases around the clock at no extra cost and will provide care for pets that need to be hospitalised overnight. Vets4Pets says that the practices are equipped with in-house surgical facilities, lab, pharmacy, digital x-ray and ultrasound, and will have a veterinary surgeon and nurse on-site at all times, so its clients will get the highest standard of care.

Clients of other practices within the group will also be able to use these facilities if their own vet feels their pet would benefit from overnight care and is within driving distance of a 24/7 practice.

Kirsty Bridger MRCVS, Joint Venture Partner at Rayleigh Vets4Pets said: “We have been telling our clients about 24/7 for the last few weeks and we have only received positive responses. The perceived increase level of service has been so well received and customers are delighted that we will be offering out of hours services with no extra charge. This is about listening to what our clients need and providing them with more convenience and excellent service however and whenever we can.”

Sally Hopson, CEO of the Vet Group said: “All of us at Vets4Pets are focused on leading innovation in the veterinary sector, and as our clients live increasingly busy lives, these 24/7 pilot practices are our way of helping them manage their hectic schedules, while also ensuring that pets in need of urgent treatment can be seen at any time. We are very excited about the potential of our 24/7 practices and our ability to offer customers extended quality, service and convenience of veterinary care.”

VetSurgeon.org asked Vets4Pets some questions about the new 24/7 practices:

VetSurgeon: Is V4P going to offer an OOH referral service to other practices?
V4P: As this is a pilot, initially Rayleigh will only be offering this service to other practices within the VetGroup. However, once we understand more about how the model works, we may open the service to other practices, particularly in areas where there are few or no other options for them to outsource OOH cover.

VetSurgeon: How is V4P able to offer OOH consultations at the same price as daytime consults?
V4P: At Vets4Pets we care about offering our clients the best service we can. We believe that it's important that clients can access veterinary care at all times of the day or night without prohibitive surcharges. The 24/7 business model is built around this concept. This is clearly a significant change from the traditional way of thinking about out of hours care within the industry and we think clients and their pets will benefit.

VetSurgeon: How will it affect the quality of life of the vets & nurses working at the practices?
V4P: We have thought carefully about the rotas that the vets and nurses will be working. We've looked at best practice within the veterinary industry and in other industries which work around the clock and we have developed guidelines based on these benchmarks which will then be flexed depending on the requirements of each individual team.

VetSurgeon: Does V4P think others will follow?
V4P: We hope this is something that will expand across our own group once we've completed the initial pilot phase. We believe it's the right thing to do for our clients and for their pets. This is a new way of thinking about out of hours care and we're lucky to be able to work with forward thinking Joint Venture Partners who are putting their clients at the centre of their thinking. If others follow the model, that can only be a good thing for pet owners and for pets.

VetSurgeon: Does this threaten Vets Now?
V4P: We work with Vets Now in many of our practices and we hope to continue to have a positive working relationship in the future. VetsNow have a different and well established business model. Our objective is simply to offer our clients and their pets the best levels of care that we can by being able to provide them with the same level of service at the same price at any time of day or night.

Neil Hudson MRCVS, one of three veterinary surgeons to stand in the general election, has been elected to represent Penrith and the Border for the Conservatives with a majority of 18,519.

Danny Chambers MRCVS had a disappointing night after seeing the Liberal Democrat share of the vote in North Cornwall decrease by 5.8%, leaving him trailing 14,752 votes behind the Conservative candidate Scott Mann who scored 30,671.

Meanwhile Ian Fleming MRCVS, who stood as an independent candidate for the Halesowen and Rowley Regis constituency, got 190 votes. The winning Conservative candidate, James Morris, gained 25,607 votes.

Many people will no doubt feel that the overall Conservative majority of 80 seats is a disastrous result; people who simply cannot bear Boris and fear what he'll do with a majority; people who saw a land of milk and honey and free broadband and publicly-owned railways that run on time and an A&E waiting time of less than 30 seconds and guillotines for the rich, only to have their hopes dashed. They must be gutted.

Equally it can be argued that this is the best possible result for the country. A decisive vote. Now, finally, we can all move on from 3 years of interminable debate about whether we're staying or going or having another referendum or cancelling the whole thing and going down the pub instead. Now the government can concentrate on implementing brexit. Perhaps the country can at last unite around that purpose. 

Boris may not prove the disaster that some people think. He's not hard right. Quite the reverse. And having won all those safe Labour seats, he'll have to deliver for them. He has a good sense of humour ("Let's get breakfast done."), but that does not make him a fool or a charlatan. On the contrary, wit requires brainpower. And as for the accusations of being a liar, perhaps people will come to understand that flowery use of language does not itself make someone dishonest. Perhaps people will learn to stop interpreting his words so literally.

Time will tell, but there is cause for optimism this morning. Whichever side of the fence you sit, we must all be glad of one thing ... no more arguing about whether or not we're leaving.

At its January meeting today, RCVS Council agreed a series of proposals for the future reform of the College's governance structure which will now go to consultation with the profession and the public before being integrated into the overall recommendations for legislative reform. 

Amongst the proposals agreed by Council was to move towards an independent appointment system for Council membership to replace the current election system.

In addition, Council voted:

• for the composition of Council to be a matter for more flexible secondary legislation rather than it being fixed via primary legislation;
• to an increase in the proportion of lay members, with a decision about whether Council should adopt parity of veterinary professionals and lay members to follow the consultation,
• to reform its composition to remove the Veterinary Schools Council (VSC) appointees. Currently the VSC has three appointed Council members
• to consult with the profession and public on two options for the future composition of a 24-person RCVS Council, which would ensure this was as balanced as possible. The first option is a Council that has a slim majority of members drawn from the veterinary professions (of whom a majority would be veterinary surgeons) compared to lay members. The second option is a Council with exact parity between veterinary professionals (of whom a majority would be veterinary surgeons) and lay members. 

Council was tied on whether to separate the position of RCVS President and the Chair of RCVS Council, meaning that this will come back for decision at a later date following the consultation.

RCVS President susan paterson, said: “The unique way that RCVS Council is currently constituted with annual elections to Council is an old model of self-regulation which is no longer found in other professions including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, solicitors and social workers, among others.

“As a responsible regulator we have a duty to operate in a way that recognises modern principles of regulation, and best meets our objectives to enhance society through improved animal health and welfare by setting, upholding and advancing the educational, ethical and clinical standards for the veterinary professions.

"The College’s recommendations would see us retain self-regulation in the sense of independence from government, and maintain registrants within our governance framework, while better assuring the public that we are acting on their behalf.

“It is our firm belief that, among other things, moving to an all-appointed Council member system, whereby those who serve on Council are selected via an independent process based on their knowledge and experience to ensure input from all parts of the veterinary sector, will better serve our aims, as will having a better balance of professional and lay members.

"Of course, veterinary expertise, knowledge and experience will also remain a vital part of any future arrangements throughout our committee structure, so the veterinary voice will be as important as ever in our policy and decision-making processes.

rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council/council-meetings/18-january-2024/

Further details about the consultation process will be published in due course.

Discuss here: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/f/non-clinical-questions/30878/what-do-you-think-about-the-rcvs-proposals-to-stop-council-elections-and-move-to-appointed-members-with-equal-or-almost-equal-number-of-lay-members/243481

A team of veterinary surgeons based outside Birmingham has performed the world’s first body transplant in a dog. 

The procedure was performed on a 13-year-old Siberian Husky called Marigold, which was diagnosed with a malignant mammary tumour last year.

Unfortunately, despite £20,000 worth of radiotherapy, Marigold failed to respond to treatment, and the tumour spread. 

Marigold’s owner, Mrs Norma Pophosherti from Derby said: “We couldn’t bear to part with Marigold, she’s one of the family, so when we heard about the groundbreaking work being done at the University of Bromsgrove Veterinary School, we had to give it a go." 

Unfortunately there was no realistic prospect of a donor from a matching breed of dog.

Thankfully, though, a local man with a 4-year-old Labrador stepped forward to help. 

Hit by the cost of living crisis, he’d been unable to afford to keep his dog and was about to have it put to sleep when he heard about the Phophosherti family’s search for a donor.

Although he wished to remain anonymous, he said: “It gives me great comfort to think that Buddy will be able to live on, and spare the Phophoshertis from the pain of losing their beloved Marigold”

Professor Flora Olip MRCVS led a team of 6 veterinary surgeons who undertook the 28 hour procedure, which is estimated to have cost over £100,000. 

She said: “This was a very tricky procedure which probably only had a 30% chance of success.

"But I’m delighted to say that Marigold’s new body has taken well, and she can now look forward to perhaps a whole more year with Phophosherti family, albeit as less of a Siberian Husky, and more of what you might call a Huskador"

Flora added: “More importantly, this heralds the way for similar procedures in humans, which I think are probably just a few years away now.”

Photo: Marigold, now one-third Siberian Husky, two-thirds Labrador.

Urging vets to 'get off their backsides and respond to a VMD consultation' on the introduction of a new POM-EA category (Vet Times, 19^th October) is premature.

Contrary to the report, the VMD has not yet launched a formal consultation.

Jo Cawthorne from the VMD said: "In fact, we've only launched an informal consultation on a concept note amongst a small group of key stakeholders from the RCVS, BVA,  RPSGB, AMTRA, AHDA  and NOAH, in order to decide whether  this is a viable idea and merits a formal consultation."

She added: "There is no need for vets to respond to a consultation which doesn't yet exist. If there is a formal consultation, it will be announced formally on our website and everyone will be given the opportunity to respond."

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week directed that the name of a man who had been illegally practising as a veterinary surgeon in the North West of England be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of fraudulent registration.

In March 2008, Russell Lewis Oakes had been charged with fraudulent entry onto the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, on the basis that he had (either (A) knowingly, or (B) unknowingly) submitted a fake degree certificate and letter of 'good standing' from Murdoch University, Australia. Mr Oakes agreed that the hearing could proceed in his absence provided the Committee confined itself to consideration of charge B alone.

The hearing commenced on 18 April 2008, but the Committee decided to adjourn, as Mr Oakes was also subject to a police investigation which required that the hearing be held in private. The Committee felt that it was in the public interest for an open hearing to take place in respect of both charges at a later date. Mr Oakes' bail conditions prevented him from practising as a veterinary surgeon at this time.

On 16 October 2009, Mr Oakes was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court, on a guilty plea, of a substantial number of offences, including those under consideration by the Committee: he was sentenced on 11 January 2010 to two years in prison.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee's hearing resumed and concluded on 5 February 2010. Mr Oakes was not present.

The Committee was provided with evidence from RCVS staff regarding the registration process, and received statutory declarations from representatives at Murdoch University. The latter confirmed that signatures on the certificate submitted by Mr Oakes were fake and that there had never been a student with his name at the University. Furthermore, a letter purporting to be one of support from Professor Edwards of Murdoch University contained text he would not have written and was signed with a false signature.

The Committee was also provided with evidence from equine veterinary surgeon Seamus Miller, who had become suspicious of Mr Oakes' qualifications and membership of the College. He outlined incidents which had cast doubt on Mr Oakes' competence. Mr Miller's complaint had initiated enquires which led to the charges against Mr Oakes by the College, and the Committee recorded its commendation of Mr Miller, and his colleagues.

Having found that Mr Oakes knowingly submitted fraudulent registration documents, the Committee was bound, under Sections 14 and 16 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, and paragraph 17 of the 2004 Rules, to direct that his name be removed from the Register.

Alison Bruce, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "Even if it retained any discretion by virtue of Section 16 of the Act in respect of sanction, the Committee would have had no hesitation in directing Mr Oakes' name to be removed from the Register in this case. This was a deliberate and dishonest offence by a man without the necessary qualifications to practise as a veterinary surgeon, and it had the effect of exposing members of the public to his fraud, and their animals to harm."

The College has revised its registration procedures in the light of this case, and now requests that all registrants produce original copies of certificates and letters of 'good standing' at the registration ceremony.

The Apple iPad made its UK debut last week. I queued outside the Apple shop for over 15 minutes (well, it was Salisbury, not Regent Street) on launch day to get my hands on one of the first and review it for VetSurgeon members.

For those that don't have the time for long-winded reviews, I'll come straight to the point: buy one, you won't regret it. Even if you get home and decide you have no use for a tablet computer, you could probably put it on ebay and turn a small profit. But you won't. You'll just keep finding more reasons why the iPad is an indispensable piece of kit.

I won't dwell on the technical specifications of the thing. All you really need to know is that it's a touchscreen tablet computer about the size of a small hardback, though it weighs a little more. I don't know (or care) what sort of chip it contains. Whatever it is, it's more than capable of handling the tasks the iPad is designed to do, effortlessly.

So why is the iPad a 'must have'? Because it transforms the experience of browsing the Internet, reading email etc. from being a bit of a hassle, to being as simple and quick as, er, picking up and opening a book. I think the best way to illustrate my point is to describe the uses I've found for it in the first 4 days of ownership:

Browsing
I wanted to know what's on locally for children this weekend. Normally I'd have to go and power up the computer upstairs. Not anymore. Now I just pick the iPad up off the kitchen table. It wakes instantaneously, and the browser opens at the press of a button. Incidentally, once I'd found the Sherborne Fair, it was only another couple of clicks before it was displayed on the built-in map, along with an estimated time to get there. In my case, it also makes my job easier - I can dip into the VetSurgeon and VetNurse forums much more easily when away from my desk (something I intend to be more of, from now on).    

Email
Not much to say, except that once again, it's a pleasure to be able to check my email at the press of a button, rather than having to go upstairs and power up my desktop, or wait whilst my wife's interminably slow laptop gets its act together. No, the touch screen keyboard is not quite as well suited to the task as a normal keyboard. Having said that, I typed half this article on my iPad last night at very nearly the same two-handed speed as I would have on my desktop.

Read the newspaper
The Times is now available on the iPad for £9.99 per month. You just press the download button any time after 7:00am, and a few minutes later it appears on the screen. If you fall into the camp that says: 'it'll-never-catch-on-....-nothing'll-replace-the-feel-of-a-book-or-a-newspaper', I wouldn't have argued with you a week ago. Now I would. The iPad version is beautifully intuitive, and a pleasure to read. Despite a few grumbles (where is The Sunday Times?), I'll be cancelling my print subscription.

Photographs
This is really the first viable alternative to the traditional print photograph album. And it's not just an alternative, it's a far superior way of storing and retrieving photographs. The iPad's high quality display means your pictures really leap off the screen. Its portability and ease of access mean that you might actually look at your photos and share them with others from time-to-time, rather than leaving them to gather dust in a box, or sit in an unvisited folder on your computer. I'm digitising 20 year's worth of photographs for this reason.  

Other uses and apps
The list of software applications for the iPad is growing every day. Meantime, any app designed for the iPhone will also run on the iPad, though they don't make full use of the big screen. There are thousands of rather pointless apps, seemingly designed not to meet a need nobody knew they had. But amongst the rubbish, there are some genuinely useful apps out there:

• BBC iPlayer (currently through browser, an app is rumoured). Now I can watch last night's 'Question Time' in bed, without disturbing my wife.
• Amazon Kindle (iPad - free). Download books cheaper than you'll find at Apple's store. I haven't downloaded one yet, but if my experience of reading The Times is anything to go by, I'll be delighted to consign yards of trash thrillers to the dustbin, and instead keep them all on the iPad. If you like to read in bed, it is I believe the only backlit ereader on the market. If you like to read in the bath, you'll be taking a bit of a risk.
• BigOven Lite (iPad / iPhone - free). 170,000 recipes. American, so measurements in cups. Recently added metric, annoyingly abbreviated to 'mils'. If you want something directed more at the British palate, doubtless Jamie Oliver will release an iPad version of his bestselling iPhone cooking app soon enough. Incidentally, with it's wipe-clean surface, the iPad seems singularly well-suited to the kitchen.
• The Cat in The Hat (iPad / iPhone £1.79) - my children love this electronic version of the classic book by Dr. Seuss - not that I want to leave my children alone with my iPad for any length of time. The range of children's apps is a little limited for the moment, but doubtless the choice will grow exponentially over the coming months.
• tvguide (iPhone - free). Saves the need to find the TV listings in the newspaper.
• Sonos (iPhone - free). Controls music in every room of your house (*requires installation of Sonos music system)
• Met office (iPhone - free). Local weather info at the press of a button.
• iCurrencyPad (iPad - 0.59p). Latest exchange rates, historical graphs etc.
• Games. I find Fieldrunners (iPad - £1.79) - strangely addictive.
• Primelocation / Rightmove. (iPad / iPhone - free) I'm looking for a house at the moment, and both these websites offer apps to help the search.

A couple of minor irritations about the iPad. Currently it doesn't support the rich editing feature used by default when you post to the VetSurgeon forums, or elsewhere on the site. Fortunately, there's a quick workaround, which is to visit your VetSurgeon profile (My Account > Edit My Profile > Display Options tab) and set the Content Editor to 'Plain text'. Also, very occasionally the iPad freezes, at which point you have to press the On/Off and Home buttons together for six seconds to reset. Doubtless both these will be fixed in the next software update, due in the next month or two, I think.

The 'twitterati' has bemoaned the iPad's lack of hardware features and flexibility. There's nowhere to insert a DVD. No camera. No USB port. No card reader. But that rather misses the point. The iPad isn't a replacement for a desktop or laptop unless the only things you use a computer for are browsing and email. Anyone who wants to store and edit video, edit photographs, or create anything other than fairly basic documents or spreadsheets, still needs a bigger machine with USB ports and DVD drives galore. What the iPad does is free you from having to browse electronic media at a desk. And it does so in such user-friendly way that I'll be ordering one for my Mum (aged 62) and my grandmother (aged 92).

There are six models available. Three memory sizes: 16GB, 32GB and 64GB with either wi-fi Internet access, or wi-fi plus 3G mobile phone access. Prices from £429 to about £700 (to which you'll need to add the cost of a protective wallet). I plumped for the 64GB memory (probably overkill), wi-fi only model, on the basis that there are enough BT Openzone wi-fi hotspots now to mean I'll never be far from one.

I'm not normally one for hyperbole. But in this case, I'll forgive Mr. Jobs calling the iPad 'a magical and revolutionary product'.

It is.

RCVS President Neil Smith has issued a statement in response to the petition by Devon vet Jo Dyer which called for the removal of mandatory house visits from the Code of Professional Conduct and received just shy of 1300 signatures over the past 48 hours.

The statement reads:

"I am delighted to see that so many veterinary surgeons are taking seriously our call for views and evidence on all aspects of the provision of 24-hour emergency cover, including those who have signed up to veterinary surgeon Jo Dyer's petition calling for the removal of 'mandatory house visits' from the Code of Professional Conduct.

"However, I am concerned that the petition is working on a misunderstanding. Veterinary surgeons are not mandated to attend away from the practice just because an owner has requested a visit. It is a professional decision based on a range of factors.

"In fact, paragraph 3.13 of the Supporting Guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct states 'Clients may request attendance on a sick or injured animal away from the practice premises and, in some circumstances, it may be desirable to do so. On rare occasions, it may be necessary on clinical or welfare grounds. The decision to attend away from the practice is for the veterinary surgeon, having carefully balanced the needs of the animal against the safety implications of making the visit; a veterinary surgeon is not expected to risk 'life or limb', or that of anyone else, to provide the service.'

"I appreciate that recent disciplinary hearings, especially that of Mr Chikosi, have increased concerns in the profession that vets will be disciplined for not turning out to every single request for a home visit. This is not the case. In order for someone to be taken to a disciplinary hearing for refusing to attend away from the practice, first there needs to be a complaint, and second, the Preliminary Investigation Committee needs to be convinced that the veterinary surgeon could not justify their decision. Such cases are rare. In fact, last year, only 3% of the complaints we received were about 24-hour cover, and not all of those related to home visits.

"Having said this, the number of signatures received on Jo Dyer's petition, and the comments of the signatories, will be fed into the material reviewed by the Standards Committee, alongside formal responses to our call for evidence, and views gathered from animal-owner research.  Clearly if so many veterinary surgeons believe that house visits are mandatory in all circumstances, the wording of our guidance needs to be reviewed, at the very least.

"It is likely that any recommendations for change in our 24/7 policy would go to the June meeting of Council, although this timetable is subject to change, depending on the nature of the report from the Standards Committee."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has struck off Suffolk vet Oliver Fraser Lown after finding him guilty of five separate charges relating to the possession of extreme animal pornography and sexual activity with animals.

Mr Lown, who graduated from Szent Istvan University in Hungary and has stated that he has never practised in the UK, did not attend the Disciplinary Committee hearing but was represented by Mr Jo Cooper, a solicitor-advocate. He was accused of five charges of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect:

1. On 1 September 2011 he was in possession of extreme pornographic video images which portrayed people performing acts of intercourse with animals and, in relation to which, on 13 April 2012 at the Northallerton and Richmond Magistrates Court, he pleaded guilty to seven charges and was conditionally discharged.
2. On 1 September 2011 he was in possession of sexually explicit still images involving animals.
3. On 1 September 2011 he was in possession of a sexually explicit video image of a man having sexual intercourse with a sheep.
4. Between approximately 1 April 2009 and 25 June 2009 he engaged in sexual activity with animals.
5. In July 2011 and/or August 2011, he engaged in written communication via a computer messaging facility in which he made reference to sexual activity with animals and/or interest in the same.

On the first day of the hearing, the respondent made an application to the Disciplinary Committee that the hearing should be held in private on the basis that any publicity about the case 'would offend public morality' due to the nature of the allegations and because the respondent's father suffers from ill-health, which could be adversely affected by any publicity. The Committee rejected the application on the grounds that the nature of the allegations was already in the public domain and that public justice in the context of professional regulation outweighed the private concerns of the respondent regarding his father.

On the second day of the hearing, the respondent made an application to adjourn charges 2 - 5 on the basis that he had already admitted, and received a conditional discharge, for the first charge and would, therefore, not oppose removal from the Register and an undertaking never to re-apply. The respondent also argued that the original decision of the College to register him in July 2013 was flawed because it was unfair to admit him, in awareness of his conditional discharge, apparently for the purpose of taking disciplinary proceedings against him. He also referred to the Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to prosecute him in respect of charge 4.

This application was dismissed by the Disciplinary Committee on the grounds of the gravity of charges 2 - 5 and the fact that the respondent chose to apply to join the Register and had been advised to seek legal advice regarding his conditional discharge beforehand. Furthermore, the Disciplinary Committee heard that there was no error at the time of his registration because the conditional discharge was not a conviction and therefore, under the Veterinary Surgeons Act, there was no option to refuse registration.

The respondent then made a final application to have the case adjourned on the grounds that new documentation he had received the previous day regarding his registration had led his lawyers to conclude that the decision to register him may have been unlawful. However, the Disciplinary Committee said that, in its understanding, the RCVS Registrar had no option but to register Mr Lown. The Disciplinary Committee then dismissed the application on the grounds that any challenge of the validity of registration could and should have been made within the three month time limit for judicial review and that no significant new documentation about Mr Lown's registration had come to light that could reasonably be said to have triggered a judicial review and warrant an adjournment. It also again highlighted the gravity of the charges.

The Disciplinary Committee then heard evidence in relation to charges 2 -5, including that of two officers from North Yorkshire Police who took part in the original investigation, who the Committee found to be credible and reliable witnesses, and, after reviewing the evidence, found that all four charges were proven.

The Committee then considered the appropriate sanction for Mr Lown, and took into account a number of aggravating factors including the risk of injury to animals, premeditated misconduct, sexual misconduct, misconduct sustained or repeated over a period of time and his lack of insight into the offences or his overall conduct.

Professor Noreen Burrows, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In these circumstances, the Committee has no doubt that the respondent's conduct was of the utmost seriousness. The material found in possession of the respondent and his own conduct in charge 4 involved the abuse of animals and a total lack of respect for their welfare. In the judgement of the Committee each of the charges individually amounts to disgraceful conduct and the charges certainly amount to disgraceful conduct when taken cumulatively."

In order to safeguard animal welfare, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct, the Disciplinary Committee directed the Registrar to remove Mr Lown's name from the Register.

The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).

More on this story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-28524348

A vet from Texas hit the headlines this weekend after allegedly killing a feral cat with a bow and arrow and then posting photographs and bragging about it on Facebook.

According to various news reports, Kristen Lindsey DVM's post quickly went viral, and one of two Facebook pages set up in response - Justice for Cat Murdered By Kristen Lindsey - has already attracted over 35,000 likes. There are also petitions to revoke her license on thepetitionsite.com and change.org which have each gathered around 18,000 signatures thus far.

Sky News reports that Ms Lindsey was quickly fired by her employer, the Washington Animal Clinic, which issued a statement on Facebook.

The veterinary clinic's website and Facebook page are both currently unavailable. 

The Faculty of Homeopathy and the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons (BAHVS) have responded to the RCVS's new position on the use of complementary and alternative medicines in veterinary practice.

The organisations say that the RCVS position is that it expects veterinary surgeons to offer treatments "underpinned by a recognised evidence base".

However, what the RCVS position statement actually says is: "we expect that treatments offered by veterinary surgeons are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles".

As yet, neither the Faculty of Homeopathy nor the BAHVS have explained which sound scientific principles homeopathy may be based on. 

The Faculty of Homeopathy and the BAHVS go on to say that misinformation concerning the efficacy of homeopathy has been promulgated by a small minority opposed to homeopathy. 

However, a survey carried out by VetSurgeon.org and Alex Gough MRCVS, Head of Medicine Referrals at Bath Veterinary Group in 2013 found that 83% of veterinary surgeons opposed homeopathy, 78% to the degree that they felt it should not be practised under the the professional title of MRCVS. 

The BAHVS response claims there is quality evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy, in direct contradiction to the many and various bodies and studies that have concluded the reverse, including the NHS, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and more recently, the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), an organisation representing the 29 national academies in Europe including the Royal Society, which recently declared in a statement that: "homeopathy is implausible" and "there is no rigorous evidence to substantiate the use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine."

The BAHVS claims there is growing interest in homeopathy from animal owners, "as they see conventional medicines regularly failing or producing adverse side-effects". It says: "this is especially true in livestock farming where there is a drive to reduce the dependence on antibiotics in light of concerns about antimicrobial resistance".

However, the recent EASAC statement specifically singled out the use of homeopathy in farm animals, saying that the lack of evidence is: "particularly worrying when such products are used in preference to evidence-based medicinal products to treat livestock infections."

The BAHVS response says that if the RCVS were to apply the same evidential criteria it is using for homeopathy to all treatments, there would be far fewer clinical options available to the profession; that the RCVS is limiting veterinary surgeons' clinical freedom. However, it doesn't substantiate this claim with examples of any clinical treatments used by veterinary surgeons which are not based on scientific principles and which would be limited if the same evidential standards applied.

VetSurgeon.org supports the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine. 

Photo: Multicolored homeopathy tubes isolated on a white background. Lush. Shutterstock.