Animalcare has launched Buprecare into the UK and Ireland veterinary markets. Buprecare (POM-V) is a veterinary licensed analgesic, containing buprenorphine, for use in dogs and cats. It is licensed for post-operative analgesia in dogs and cats, and potentiation of the sedative effect of centrally acting agents in dogs.

This is the second major product the company has introduced in the last 18 months as Animalcare continues to grow its portfolio of veterinary products with the launch of an ACE inhibitor Benazecare (benazepril hydrochloride) earlier in 2007.

To complement the product launch, Animalcare is offering an ampoule breaker to help practice staff to open ampoules safely, together with a practice support package, containing pain scoring pads to aid in the assessment of pain of patients and judging of adequate analgesia requirements. In addition a dosing table and poster detailing common behavioural changes that can be associated with pain are available. Buprecare 0.3mg/ml is available in 1ml ampoules, in cartons of 5 ampoules.

Stephen Wildridge, Managing Director of Animalcare Ltd. said: "We have a very exciting time ahead with the launches of several new pharmaceutical  products over the next twelve months, and the proposed expansion of our business into the major European veterinary markets."

Please contact your Animalcare representative, or ring 01904 487687 for more details.

Elanco Animal Health has launched Vulketan, a POM-V sterile topical gel developed to encourage the healing of equine wounds.

Vulketan contains ketanserin - a serotonin-S₂ antagonist.² Elanco says that although serotonin is more widely known as a neurotransmitter in the brain, it is also found in platelets and released during platelet aggregation where it can have negative effects on wound healing.^{4, 7}

Managing equine wounds is an everyday occurrence in equine practice¹ and can be difficult and time-consuming, with many potential complications such as infection or the development of proud flesh which could delay healing or lead to reduced functionality. Repeated dressings can be a hassle for owners, and if used inappropriately can lead to their own complications.⁵

Elanco representative Kirsty Prudon said: "Vulketan gel is easy to use and is designed to be applied to undressed wounds, although it has been demonstrated that wounds may be dressed, if required, without affecting Vulketan's efficacy^2,6.

Elanco also points to studies which it says demonstrate that Vulketan has been shown in client owned horses to be highly effective in preventing the formation of hypergranulation tissue and may facilitate the control of secondary infections.^2,3,6. In addition, owners expressed satisfaction with Vulketan in over 90% of cases.⁶

Practising equine vet Linda Belton MRCVS said: "Vulketan is easy to use, well tolerated by horses and produces an excellent end cosmetic result and return to function. With the reduction in the need for dressings and proud flesh control Vulketan has proven to be an advantageous product which owners value."

Vulketan is suitable for use in all horses including pregnant and lactating mares. It is supplied in 75 gram tubes and should be applied twice daily.

For more information, contact your Elanco territory manager call Elanco on 01256 353131.

References

• Elanco. Market Research: Vulketan Gel in horses. A survey of 153 Vets across France, Germany and UK. 2011
• Elanco. Vulketan Summary of product characteristics. Dec 2013
• Engelen M, Besche B, Lefay M-P, Hare J, Vlaminck K. Effects of ketanserin on hypergranulation tissue formation, infection, and healing of equine lower limb wounds. Can Vet J 2004; 45: 144-9
• Janssen PAJ, Janssen H, Cauwenbergh G, De Doncker P, De Beule K, Lewi P et al. Use of topical ketanserin in the treatment of skin ulcers: a double-blind study. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989; 21: 85-90
• Stashak TS, Selected factors that negatively impact healing. In: Equine Wound Management 2nd Ed. Eds. TS Stashak and CL Theoret. Wiley-Blackwell, 2008, pp. 71 - 84
• van Gulik IB,Vinke HE,Cieslicki M. Effect of ketanserin on wound healing in horses, Der Praktische Tierarzt Heft 9, S. 802 ff. 93. Jahrgang 2012
• Vlaminck K. Effects of the S2-antagonist ketanserin on wound repair in horses. Proc 1st World Congress of Veterinary Dermatology, Dijon, France. In: Advances in Veterinary Dermatology 1. Eds. C von Tscharner, REW Halliwell, Ballière Tindall, 1989 pp. 221-5.

Bob Martin, maker of the eponymous flea treatment for cats and dogs, has announced that it will be removing the last of its permethrin-containing on-animal flea treatments from sale in supermarkets. 

The company says the decision was made following a passionate outpouring of emotion - particularly online - over the large number of unnecessary deaths of cats which have been wrongly treated with permethrin-based products for dogs. 

Permethrin poisoning is one of the most commonly reported poisonings in cats worldwide. According to the company, a study carried out by the Feline Advisory Bureau and the Veterinary Poisons Information Service found that 97% of permethrin poisonings in cats have followed the application of a permethrin-containing dog-specific spot on product.

Bob Martin says it believes that most permethrin poisonings are down to mistakes at point of purchase with pet owners mixing up cat and dog products, or being unaware that you cannot use a dog treatment on a cat. For this reason, the company withdrew permethrin from its dog spot ons in 2012, replacing it with fipronil.

Nevertheless, the company continued to sell cat flea collars containing permethrin, which had become indelibly associated with the deaths seen as a result of misusing the dog spot-on.

Georgina Martin, Marketing Manager and great granddaughter of founder Bob Martin said: "Animal health is Bob Martin's top priority. We have decided to reclassify our permethrin-containing on-animal flea treatments to pharmacy-only and call for a change in licensing by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate so that they may only be purchased if advice is given about their correct use.

"This is the next step in our journey as a responsible business having already voluntarily withdrawn permethrin Dog Spot-ons a few years ago which we replaced with fipronil, the same active as used in leading spot on treatments from the vet. To ensure our customers are still able to buy a flea collar from their supermarket we will be launching a new pesticide free flea repellent collar."

Nigel Grimes, Pet Food Buyer at Morrisons PLC said: "It is important for us that our customers who own animals receive the verbal advice and reassurance on the use of permethrin-containing on-animal products. We feel that this advice is needed at the point of sale and should be provided by a suitably qualified person in a pharmacy setting. We will continue to provide pet owners with on-shelf access to a choice of affordable healthcare for their animals from the Bob Martin range."

Meanwhile, Bob Martin has launched the new 'Clear' range of animal collars, which contains margosa extract from neem oil. The company says this natural ingredient is frequently used as an alternative to synthetic insecticides, and is proven to be a highly effective flea repellent, ideal for indoor cats. The new range is now on sale, with the old product being phased out as existing stocks are sold.

The Veterinary Record has published new research which shows that one in seven vets is likely to be burnt-out within 10 years of qualifying.

The study was conducted by a team of Dutch researchers led by Nicole Mastenbroek (pictured right) from the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at Utrecht University.

They noted that veterinary surgeons' psychological wellbeing has been the subject of several studies in different countries in recent years, with some evidence suggesting that male vets are less prone to distress, anxiety, and depression. They wanted to gauge the level of burn-out and engagement with work among vets that had graduated within the past decade, and to assess whether gender or years since graduation are influential factors.

The researchers say they based their approach on the job demands-resources (JD-R) questionnaire, which balances out negative (burn-out) and positive (engagement) aspects of wellbeing associated with work. However, they tailored it specifically for veterinary surgeons, on the grounds that every profession has unique risk factors for burn-out.

The questionnaire was emailed to 1,790 vets who had qualified in The Netherlands between 1999 and 2009, with the final analysis based on the responses of 860, almost three quarters (73%) of whom were women.

Levels of exhaustion and cynicism - both of which are associated with burn-out - were significantly lower than those in a random sample of the Dutch working population. But so too was the level of work engagement.

The responses showed that one in seven respondents (14%) was burnt-out within 10 years of qualifying.

The researchers say that if the criteria for burn-out that are normally used for the Dutch workforce are applied, then the responses would indicate that 27% of the survey respondents were burnt-out.

Women also seemed to reach burn-out faster. Almost one in five (18%) of the female respondents was burnt-out within five years of graduating.

Male vets tended to be less exhausted and more engaged with work than their female peers. Job demands associated with exhaustion were work/home life balance and workload, while job resources linked to engagement included opportunities for professional development and "skills discretion" - the ability to use and develop skills on the job.

Researchers says that behavioural traits explained more of the variance in levels of work engagement between male and female vets than in levels of exhaustion.

Self-belief in one's abilities (self-efficacy) and a proactive stance are linked to work engagement in the JD-R approach. But women vets rated themselves as less effective, optimistic, proactive and assertive than did their male peers.

British Veterinary Association President Robin Hargreaves said: "These findings are worrying but sadly not surprising. We know that a burn out and other manifestations of poor mental wellbeing in veterinary professionals of both sexes are a well-recognised problem in the UK and they are a constant concern to BVA.

"The suggestion of an increased susceptibility to burn out amongst female vets adds to that concern with the increasing proportion of women in the profession."

Locum vet Stavros Paschalidis has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after it found he was dishonest in relation to his treatment of two patients.

Mr Paschalidis faced three charges.

The first was that he failed to carry out an examination or vaccinate a dog called Beluga, but made entries in the clinical records for the dog indicating he had.

The second charge was that, on the same day, he failed to carry out an examination or vaccinate a cat called Simba, but made entries in the clinical records for the cat indicating he had, and told a veterinary nurse colleague that he had vaccinated the cat.

The third charge was that the conduct of Mr Paschalidis in relation to the other two charges was dishonest and/or misleading and that he was therefore guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee found the charges relating to the failure to carry out an adequate examination and vaccinate Beluga and Simba proven.

The Committee also found that Mr Paschalidis had been dishonest and misleading in relation to his clinical records for Beluga.

Although Mr Paschalidis admitted the charge that he had failed to examine Simba, he denied that the record was misleading or dishonest as he said he'd been interrupted by a colleague whilst making the notes, rendering them an incomplete draft.

The Committee found it unproven that Mr Paschalidis had dishonestly made entries in the clinical records for Simba indicating that he had vaccinated him when he hadn’t.

Nor did it find that that Mr Paschalidis had been dishonest in his entries which indicated that he'd examined Simba, instead finding that his conduct was misleading.

However, having found that Mr Paschalidis was dishonest in his recording of his examination/vaccination of Beluga and that he was dishonest in relation to his communication of vaccination of Simba to a colleague, the Committee found that his conduct amounted to conduct falling far below that to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon.

The Committee took into account eight testimonials, which were all positive about Mr Paschalidis’ character.

The Committee also noted his Continuing Professional Development (CPD) record, which, from February 2020 to February 2023, totalled over 170 hours.

It also considered that there was no evidence of actual harm to either Beluga or Simba, no evidence of any gains for Mr Paschalidis, and that the episode lasted no longer that one hour.

Against that, the Committee considered the risk of injury to the animals from not being vaccinated or examined adequately and the breach of client trust.

Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee assessed that the conduct of Mr Paschalidis, which included dishonesty, was in the upper middle range on the scale of dishonest conduct as the breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct were committed deliberately and for dishonest reasons, rather than through inadvertence or mistake.”

"The Committee decided that all of the mitigating factors, combined with an absence of any further incidents or similar behaviour having been drawn to the College's attention, alongside the positive testimonials, led it to conclude that the risk of any repetition of similar conduct was reduced such that Mr Paschalidis no longer poses a significant risk to animals or the public."

"The Committee considered that the misconduct found proved was sufficiently serious to require suspension from the Register, which would have a deterrent effect and would satisfy the public interest in this case.

"However, because Mr Paschalidis had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon for two years since these events without complaint and had shown some insight, the Committee decided that a lengthy suspension would not serve a useful purpose and would therefore be disproportionate. "

“The Committee therefore decided to direct that, as a deterrent, Mr Paschalidis’ registration be suspended for a period of six months.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/ 

Earlier this month, veterinary surgeon Matthew Wilkinson caused a storm after giving a controversial interview to the Daily Mail to promote his book: On The Destiny Of Species. VetSurgeon member Martin Jones has read the book to find out whether the book supports the allegations. Here is his review ... 

I can't deal with hypocrisy (and if I do it I want it pointed out), especially when it leads to more suffering.
Matthew Watkinson, on his own fishsnorkel blog

Being subjective isn't about evidence, it's about feelings, and the most fundamental part of being subjective is the projection of extrinsic values...... i.e. X means Y to me so I will assume X means Y to X as well
On the Destiny of Species, p.17

...it should be perfectly obvious that feelings can corrupt perspective and warp reality.
On the Destiny of Species, p.18

I can only say that you make me ashamed to be human.
On the Destiny of Species, p.112

On the Destiny of Species is the Book of Matthew Watkinson. It's a piece of Matthew himself: his theories, his feelings, his world view. It's the document at the centre of the storm, the cause (and topic) of much argument recently, here and on a wider stage. Matthew has attacked the veterinary profession, if not quite by going through the front door, then at least by coming in the windows. He's put his name to the accusations, has been robust in defending them and has inarguably stood by his principles. The response has not, I think, surprised him; but it may have surprised some of us. Despite not having actually read the book, many people have felt qualified to comment - often with some force.

So, in the interests of objectivity I volunteered to read the thing, and to apply some scrutiny to what the man is actually saying; we're all agreed - including Matthew - that the Daily Mail did a poor job on his behalf, reducing his argument in the minds of its readers to an attack on veterinary ethics and profits. Matthew clearly wishes to say more, so why not listen?

Before we start, I'd like to point out that I'm not here to perform a hatchet job on behalf of the veterinary profession. When I asked Matthew for a copy, I was quite open that I might hate it, and that I would say so, but that if I didn't then equally I would say so. So here goes.

Matthew kicks off by defining objectivity and subjectivity; former good, latter bad. Science and reasoning right, emotion and hypocrisy wrong. As with what is to come, he doesn't hold back on this score. However, if this was to be an objective review, in which prose, style and accessibility of content were examined, then it would be fairly short and not particularly complimentary. The typographical errors start on line two and batter the more sensitively tuned reader pretty much continuously to the end. It's rambling, poorly edited, and repetitive for much of its length (the work would decently fit into a book half its current size). It fails to engage the reader on any level that isn't centred on shared anger.

But to concentrate on the book's failing as a work of literature would be to ignore the message, and that's surely what we're here for. The theories and arguments therein are what should concern us, and I'll attempt to review them below.

First, the surprises, in particular that vets feature hardly at all. Our complicity in propagating recessive genes is tackled early on, and whether or not we feel responsible as individuals, it can't be denied that this section is one of the book's successes. The vitriol that Matthew pours into modern farming, and at the breeders behind some of our more extreme patients, is genuine and heartfelt, and he might quite validly have expanded here. Admittedly some of his conclusions are rather worrying, if only for their undeniable plausibility to the layman:

Similarly, in dogs, the congenital heart defect patent ductus arteriosus could not have become a heritable risk without veterinary surgeons

The statement shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the way that recessive genes flow through populations, with a clear implication that we fix 'em up (although I suspect almost none of us could ever attempt the feat) so that they can get back to breeding.

The book is actually about lack of objectivity in conservation, and the inconsistency in preserving a species because of its attractiveness, often at the expense of less amiable species. Matthew espouses the view that we are essentially puny humans, and that nothing we do really matters. I know now that he is Darwin's biggest fan, doesn't believe in God and is dismissive of creationists, doesn't believe that any animals reliant on conservation actually appreciate the fact, and does believe that all animals should be viewed in terms of their ability to adapt and exploit, rather than their usefulness to us:

.... conservation has nothing to do with extinct animals and everything to do with the way some people feel about extinct animals

Matthew sets himself up as the crusader and lone voice of reason, as an unequivocal judge of those who stand in the way of his theories. Among these are pretty much all conservationists, quite a number of biological and global warming scientists and anybody who indulges in post-rationalisation (those who use new evidence to retrospectively confirm their beliefs). And then he goes and says:

My decision to study veterinary medicine was based on the naïve assumption that it would involve the pragmatic application of objective selection principles

Really? At sixteen, I remember liking animals and wanting to impress girls. Those who live by the sword, Matthew. His approach to people who might seek a different view is robust, to say the least:

peace-promising Harp Seal fanatic Rebecca Aldworth.... the chief scientist of the IUCN has completely forgotten, or never actually known, that species don't evolve themselves in the right direction..... despite their own quite ludicrous beliefs...... but to anyone with half a brain...... Honestly, what the hell is wrong with these people...... is obviously controlled by idiots...... thus it should be face-punchingly obvious.....

All of which contrasts nicely with the statement made at the start of the book:

I believe that ethical diversity is as natural as biological diversity, but either way, I'm not preaching

The book makes huge promises to "conclusively destroy the empirical basis for almost everything the conservation community has ever said." It fails to do so, quite spectacularly. Matthew's interpretation of both the science and the motivation of conservation (and remember, in being objective, we should be seeking evidence) is deeply flawed and he resorts to the kind of mudslinging that ends in rubbish fights behind the bike sheds. On the more recent efforts to conserve cod stocks by harvesting other species in preference, he comes to an embarrassingly asinine conclusion:

'Atlantic Pollock...can be distinguished from cod by their greenish hue.' 119

Is that it? Are the 'stewards' really telling us to kill Pollack instead of Cod because Pollack have a 'greenish hue'?

Yes. They are.

Really, Matthew? You're actually claiming that fishermen catch Pollack because they're colour-biased, rather than because this population may currently be harvested without threat to its viability? Yes, you are. In fact, you do: it's right there on page 72.

Similarly, Matthew isn't above misappropriating the views of others to prove his point. Here, on the conservation groups which appeal to the public for funds:

Surely they don't mean the end of climate change, and rampant habitat destruction, and rapid population growth, and extreme poverty in many areas of the world, and global food shortages, and extinction threats etc. etc.

If they're promising salvation, I guess they do, and I'm sure they really believe it too. In the words of Richard Dawkins:

'...these people actually believe what they say they believe.' 376

OK, so Professor Dawkins was talking about religious fundamentalists, rather than wildly optimistic nature 'managers', but faith is faith regardless of what it's making up on the spot.

I wonder what Richard Dawkins would think about having his thoughts hijacked to somebody else's agenda? Post-rationalisation, Matthew.

Conclusions that Matthew draws from the statistics he presents are prone to error:

2 million dairy cows will suffer at least 3.1 million cases of disease every year, and if you share the incidence risk equally, each individual has a 155% chance of getting sick every year.

Perhaps I should repeat that, for all those who think life should be preserved at all costs:

If you share the incidence risk equally, each individual dairy cow has a 155% chance of getting [sic] each year.

Another stick which Matthew uses to beat the reader: the phrase 'perhaps I should repeat that'. It can be a nice conceit, a device to use sparingly when one has a show-stopping point to make; by the fourth or fifth instance, it had me clenching my teeth. The valid point here, that lameness in cattle is one of the greater scandals of modern farming (and that the RSPCA isn't entirely objective in its approach to animal welfare), is lost in the bungling of the message.

Possibly the least successful portion of the book is where Matthew attempts to take on climate change and the science behind it. Now, I'm not sure that either Matthew or I are equipped to take this on, and there is a fair amount of confusion evident as a result, not to mention some self-contradiction about the importance of the role of carbon dioxide. He also clings to the quaint notion that because the earth hasn't died yet, it won't. It brings to mind the apocryphal story of the Bronx housewife, on being arrested for murdering her husband, "Whaddya mean - I stabbed him loadsa times before and he never died".  It's pretty likely that when the human race kills itself off, plenty of other lifeforms will flourish - but the simple facts are that we don't know how and when we're going to do it, or how much we'll destroy on the way out. I was particularly tickled by Matthew's assertion that dumping nuclear waste into the rainforests is

.....a good plan that will inevitably fall on deaf ears

In asserting that all lives must end, but Life will continue indefinitely (neatly ignoring the principle that entropy will eventually win, but not for a little while yet), Matthew aims to apply objective scrutiny to the abiding principles of conservation - and thereby expose it for the pointless sham that he believes it to be. However, such an approach to our relationship with our ecosystem and to individuals' rights to life may help to reduce sentimentality, but it's also distinctly joyless and seeks to take from humans their capacity to find pleasure in activities that don't necessarily influence their own survival. Like it or not, we've evolved to enjoy stuff, we're the dominant species and Darwinism dictates that we strive to maintain this status. If we want to save a bunch of polar bears, we can. It might help, it might not. If we want to cull jellyfish so that our marine food stocks are safeguarded, then we're following simple Darwinian principles. But as the species that made it through to master abstract thought, to at least understand the principle of altruism and to be able to seamlessly construct shields against our own hypocrisy, we can save what we like, when we like. Matthew seems to be angry about this, and that's not entirely healthy.

There are points to be made here: Matthew wants to take on the indiscriminate dog breeders; he rightly pulls up some of the eco-babble that promises total world destruction - and the unwarranted guilt that it engenders; he makes a nice point about the parallels between ecological proselytising and religion - but then ruins it by repeating it over and over again, page after page. Simply, if rather brutally, the book doesn't work for me on any level. I wasn't convinced by a single argument that I hadn't already considered and I found it an absolute chore to read.

I apologise to Matthew. I wanted to be positive and to be able to demonstrate that his actions were at least well-motivated, and had allowed him to bring something to the table with his book. But I fear that he'll be remembered simply as the man who tried to fight overcharging in the profession, and it's clear that that's the one point he hasn't actually tried to make.

One last thing. Matthew contends that we must strive for objectivity, and that we should fight hypocrisy. He makes the clear point that dead animals do not have feelings, and that to give them significance is subjective. In his words elsewhere though, he has described how in dealing with his agent, he became frustrated by the lack of pace; Darwin's great work was nearing its 150^th anniversary, and in order to tie in properly with this it was imperative that the book be published without delay.

To this, I have to say: the anniversary wasn't aware of the book's arrival. The anniversary has no thoughts on the matter; it isn't animate or sentient or in any way aware. The anniversary didn't care whether or not it was celebrated. In fact, the:

.... [celebration of the anniversary] has nothing to do with [the anniversary itself] and everything to do with the way some people feel about [anniversaries]

The subjective course of action was to sack the agent and self-publish in a hurry. The objective course of action would have been to retain the agent, forget about an arbitrary date and get a good editor in. There was the basis of a decent book here: Matthew has some things to say; unfortunately, he seems to have gone out of his way to make sure that few people want to listen, both in the writing of the book and in its promotion. What a shame.

To Matthew, I apologise again. I wish you the best of luck, I respect and defend your right to air your beliefs and if I'd liked the book, I would have said so. To others, who might accuse me of kicking a man when he's down, I say that I cannot hurt the man financially: Matthew has now started to give the book away as a pdf download. You can find it, along with debate and biography, on his blog:

http://fishsnorkel.wordpress.com/

RIP Fleas, the environmental flea treatment from Genitrix, has been given a new formulation to ensure it acts more quickly in the killing of adult fleas and that it continues to kill fleas as they emerge from pupae for up to 12 months.

Now known as RIP Fleas Extra, the product is also licensed for the control of house dust mites in the environment for up to 12 months.

According to Genitrix, the reformulation makes RIP Fleas Extra the only environmental flea treatment to contain three active ingredients while complying fully with new EU Biocides regulations. It is the only such treatment to be fragranced and is also the only product to be presented in a volume which will cover 120 square metres – ie the size of an average house. RIP Fleas Extra contains:

Tetramethrin – a second generation synthetic pythrethroid and a contact insecticide with a rapid knockdown action of insect pests

Permethrin – a potent insecticide with a powerful contact action on insects but with a low toxicity to most mammals

Methoprene – a compound that mimics the insect juvenile hormone and arrests development of fleas and house dust mites in the environment.

When used synergistically, Tetramethrin and Permethrin provide a rapid knockdown and kill of fleas as they hatch from pupae. Studies have shown that this combination works four times more quickly than Permethrin alone.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has found Powys-based Stephen Kiernan Lomax MRCVS not unfit to practise after he was convicted of causing death by careless driving.

Mr Lomax was found guilty of causing death by careless driving at Shrewsbury Crown Court in July 2019 and was subsequently sentenced to a 12-month community order, 300 hours’ unpaid work, 15-months’ driving disqualification and ordered to pay £1,000 in prosecution costs and victim surcharge of £85.

Mr Lomax declared his conviction to the RCVS in April 2020 as part of his declaration upon renewing his registration, following which the RCVS started its concerns investigation process leading to his appearance before the Disciplinary Committee last Monday.

At the outset of the hearing Mr Lomax admitted the charge against him, which was also accepted by the Committee based on its receipt of the certificate of conviction from Shrewsbury Crown Court.

The Committee then considered whether the conviction rendered Mr Lomax unfit to practise. The RCVS submitted that the nature of the conviction and the devastating consequences of Mr Lomax's conduct, which caused the death of a 64-year-old woman, rendered him unfit to practise. 

The College also submitted that his conduct would be considered to have fallen far short of the standard expected of a member of the profession, that it had devastating consequences, and that the conviction would have an impact on the reputation of the profession and the public’s confidence in it.

Mr Lomax’s counsel, who represented him during the hearing, submitted that he did not accept his conduct rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, although Mr Lomax did accept that the impact of his conduct was devastating.

Mr Lomax’s counsel submitted that there was a significant difference between his conduct and its consequences, as evidenced by the fact he was charged with careless driving rather than dangerous driving meaning that, though his standard of driving had fallen below that expected of a competent and careful driver, it did not fall far below. Nor was there a suggestion that Mr Lomax had carried out a deliberate act, was carrying out any dangerous manoeuvres or was otherwise impaired.

Dr Martin Whiting, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “There is no doubt that the consequences of Mr Lomax’s conduct were serious and tragic for the [victim’s] family.

"The Judge at the Crown Court referred to their loss in detail and it no doubt played a significant part in the sentence he passed, as reflected by his comments.

"The Committee was cognisant, however, of the different role it had to perform.

"A criminal conviction marks a breach of criminal law, whereas a finding of unfitness marks a breach of professional standards.

"When looking at the conviction, the Committee focused on the actual conduct of Mr Lomax and the concomitant level of culpability, rather than the consequences. Whilst it would be artificial, insensitive and inappropriate to ignore the consequences, the Committee was concerned with the conduct.”

He added: “The Committee did not consider that Mr Lomax’s conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and concluded that the public, in full knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, would not expect a finding that the conviction renders him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

"Rather, the public would recognise that whilst the consequences were appalling for the [victim’s] family, in terms of Mr Lomax’s culpability this was a momentary piece of poor driving rather than anything more blameworthy. At its height it was careless driving for three or so seconds.

"In the Committee’s view Mr Lomax’s careless behaviour fell below, but not far below, the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

 The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Virbac has launched Sulfatrim, the first veterinary-licensed Trimethoprim and Sulfamethoxazole (TMPS) oral antibiotic for use in rabbits, pigeons and bearded dragons.

Kate Woolley MRCVS, Product Manager, said: "Until now, no similar veterinary-licensed product has been available for these species and, in an environment where vets are increasingly aware of the responsible use of antibiotics across all species, we are very happy to launch Sulfatrim, the first licensed TMPS for rabbits, pigeons and bearded dragons."

Sulfatrim is presented in a 30ml bottle with a dispensing cap and syringe. 

Veterinary surgeons and nurses are being called on to 'grow a pair' and sign an online petition for urgent action on the issue of brachycephalic breeds.

The petition was set up by veterinary surgeon and journalist Pete Wedderburn, after discussion with colleagues, in response to an open letter to the profession from Jemima Harrison, producer of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary broadcast in 2008.

In the letter, Jemima notes that Kennel club registrations of Pugs rose from 2,000 in 2005 to 10,000 last year. Over the same period Bulldog registrations more than doubled to 7,000 and the number of French Bulldogs increased 4000% to 14,607.

All vets do, she says, is 'organise CPD days on how to manage the increasing numbers of creatures that turn up at your practice doors gasping for air', 'refer clients on to soft-tissue specialists who do their best to remedy the deformity that has been bred into them', and 'section that Bulldog and say nothing to the breeder about how wrong it is that the dogs are no longer capable of birthing their own pups'.

She argues that there is 'institutional kow-towing to the Kennel Club and a reluctance to do anything other than accept their platitudes that they have to take things slowly or risk "losing" the breeders'.

In response, Pete's blog and petition calls for a working party to develop concrete proposals to tackle the issues as a matter of urgency: 'Despite the evident appeal of short-nosed pets to many of our clients, it is our duty as vets to not just treat these animals, but also to lobby for reform in the way they are bred – in particular the 'extreme' brachycephalics such as Pugs, Bulldogs, French Bulldogs and flat-faced Persian cats'.

The Dog Breeding Reform Group has welcomed the petition. Chris Laurence MBE, DBRG Trustee and former veterinary director of the Dogs Trust who has signed the petition, says: "Vets in companion animal practice see dogs with inherited breathing difficulty almost every day and are frustrated that there seems to be no end to the daily suffering of these breeds. The DBRG is delighted that vets are now getting together to highlight the issue and to plead with breeders to stop producing puppies with such malformed heads that they are unable to breathe easily."

The petition, which has already gathered nearly 1000 signatures, can only be signed by veterinary surgeons and nurses. You can sign it here.

Leeds-based Gary James Cassius Samuel has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee following his conviction for animal welfare offences in 2016.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mr Samuel had been convicted of five animal welfare offences at Leeds Magistrates' Court in January 2016. The charges related to causing unnecessary suffering to a number of animals including twelve dogs and four cats, and failing to take steps to ensure that the needs of the animals for which he was responsible were met. The animals were kept at the Armley Veterinary Practice, for which Mr Samuel was, at the time, practice principal.

Mr Samuel was sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 12 months on the condition he completed 150 hours' unpaid work and paid a fine of £100. He was also ordered to pay costs of £500 and a victim surcharge of £80. He was also made subject to a disqualification order for three years.

Dr Samuel subsequently appealed against his conviction in April 2018. His appeal was dismissed in respect of five of the charges but was upheld in respect of one charge, which, as a result, did not form part of the College’s case.

Dr Samuel declined to attend the hearing in person and was not represented before the Disciplinary Committee. In considering the facts of the charges against Dr Samuel the Committee found them proven.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, rendered Dr Samuel unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

The College’s case was that the convictions concerned animal welfare and therefore went to the heart of his practice as a vet, that Dr Samuel behaved in a manner incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, that he failed in his core responsibility as a veterinary surgeon to protect and act in the best interests of animal welfare, and that he maintained he had no responsibility for the animals on his practice premises – an assertion referred to as ‘an extraordinary position for a veterinary surgeon to take’. 

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "ust as the judgment of the Crown Court and the Magistrates Court had found, the Committee also found that Dr Samuel must have known that the animals were in distress and were in a neglected state. The Committee was sure that Dr Samuel must have been aware of the animals notwithstanding his continued denial. The Committee concluded that Dr Samuel was unfit to practise because of the facts underlying the convictions. Dr Samuel had an overriding duty of care for the animals and to take action in relation to their health and welfare because they were living under the roof of his veterinary practice."

In considering its sanction against Dr Samuel, the Committee concluded that removal from the Register was the most appropriate option. It took into account the fact that the animals were found starving in a cellar without water, that Dr Samuel had not demonstrated insight into the serious nature of his offences, that he continued to deny responsibility and, furthermore, found no evidence that he no longer posed a risk to animals in the future. 

Ian Green added: "The Committee decided that the behaviour found proved was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon because in this case there had been a serious departure from standards as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons…. Furthermore, there had been serious harm caused to a number of animals and a risk of harm to a number of other animals."

Dr Samuel has 28 days from being informed of the Disciplinary Committee’s decision in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.

The Committee’s full decision and findings can be found here

Portuguese equine biotech firm Equigerminal has launched what it says is the first-ever commercial diagnostic test for New Equine Virus (NEV), a potentially deadly virus.

NEV was first identified in 2013 by veterinary surgeon Dr Isabel Fidalgo Carvalho, who went on to found Equigerminal to develop a commercially viable NEV diagnostic test that can be used by veterinary surgeons, vet labs and horse owners.

Isabel says that NEV - the equine equivalent of HIV - is often misdiagnosed or hidden by other diseases that induce similar symptoms, like anaemia and neurological issues in horses. It is most commonly confused with the Swamp Fever virus (EIAV) and Equine Herpesviruses (EHV).

Indeed, when they tested a number of horses with anaemia, Equigerminal researchers first believed they had found the presence of a divergent strain of the Swamp Fever Virus (EIAV) - because the horses cross reacted with EIAV, but were negative in the official tests. Subsequent research found they were actually suffering from NEV.

Equigerminal says it is believed that NEV is present in up to 10% of horses. Isabel said: "We did test 213 samples from Ireland and found 7% of positive samples for NEV. These Irish horses were horses that usually travel to UK and other locations for sports events."

For the new test, a veterinary surgeon needs to take a blood sample which is sent to the Equigerminal lab.

Isabel says treatment is currently targeted towards improving the general well-being of the horse, health monitoring, and boosting the animal’s immune system. The next stage is to find a treatment, and ideally a cure for NEV. Meantime, Isabel said: “We now need to raise awareness of the problem and help vets to diagnose this disease correctly.”

Staff at South Wales-based, VetPartners-owned Valley Vets have gone on strike for two weeks after pay negotiations broke down earlier in the year and 94% of British Veterinary Union members at the group voted in favour of industrial action. 

VetPartners says Valley Vets has around 200 employees, less than half of which are members of the union, although the BVU says 50% are required for recognition.

Suzanna Hudson-Cooke MRCVS, Branch Chair at BVU said: “Fees at Valley Vets have increased by 25% in two years, which is hurting pet owners whilst some staff at Valley Vets are being paid so little that they’re having to use foodbanks.

“Three years ago, VetPartners CEO Jo Malone committed to paying all staff a living wage, which still hasn’t happened”

“VetPartners did increase the salaries of lower paid members by 7.27% in the last review, but this was mostly to meet its legal obligation to pay the minimum wage.”

VetPartners responded to these points saying:

"It has been and still is our aim to pay at least the real living wage to all of our employees. We have moved closer to the aim over the past three years.

"There are 20 members of the regular team that work at Valley Vets who are below the real living wage and they are paid approximately 1.6% below that level.

"Since April 2020, we have uplifted overall salary costs at Valley Vets by 31.45% before the increase in April 2024, at a time when VetPartners, like many businesses across the UK, has been hit by a sharp rise in the cost of goods and services, interest rates and rampant inflation.

"Valley Vets’ profitability has declined over the last three years.

"We have made advances over several years in improving many benefits for our teams such as life cover, health shield, sickness and enhanced maternity cover and want to continue to do so.

"We have seen mass redundancies from other large groups and we are trying to avoid this at Valley Vets.

"The BVU in Unite requested pay and condition increases initially that would have raised employment costs by over 25% and they are currently requesting increases which would raise this by 15% which would make Valley Vets unsustainable without a significant reduction in the workforce, something we are trying to avoid.” 

During annual salary reviews in 2024, we benchmarked pay for all roles within Valley Vets and they sit in the upper quartile.

"We prioritised lowest-paid team members with a 7.27% pay increase while higher paid colleagues also received an increase at a lower rate.

"We are also well aware of the affordability of care fees, and that is why we felt fees paid by our clients could not be raised any further to support significant salary increases demanded by the BVU in Unite.

The strike is due to continue till the end of July, during which time the BVU says staff are being released from the picket line as needed to provide local animals with emergency care.

Staff are not paid whilst out on strike so the BVU has started a fund, here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PTVKVK3