Please do not leave us alone and unattended in Veterinary Intensive Care Units in our hours of greatest need.

To attempt to ensure that Veterinary Intensive Care Units (ICU's) holding critically ill companion pets are not left unattended and, that veterinary standards are set to uphold, advance and regulate standards in "line with the highest", the following epetition was raised and signed by 875 UK citizens;
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62603

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) claims that it sets, upholds and advances veterinary standards. Whilst RCVS does indeed "set" standards (or as RCVS terms them "Code of Professional Conduct"), it seems that, as will be seen in this document and tragically for our pets, as far as "upholding" standards parts of this Code of Professional Conduct have been flagrantly violated by RCVS surgeons at Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital, and, this disgraceful violation has subsequently been condoned by senior executives in RCVS Professional Conduct Department at RCVS HQ London. Also as will be seen herein, amongst other serious failures to abide by its own Code of Professional Conduct, it seems that when it comes to operating on critically ill small animals i.e. our beloved pets, this Royal College can freely and very loosely interpret the levels of expertise and requisite knowledge of operating personnel.  

(Moreover, RCVS will only investigate what the RCVS itself considers to be serious professional misconduct. It will not investigate allegations of negligence despite; RCVS itself saying that negligence may overlap with serious professional misconduct, and; Lord Denning saying that "negligence may amount to misconduct if the negligence is inexcusable").

----------------------


National and International Codes of Conduct for Intensive Care Units (ICU's). {NB. Perhaps for legal reasons the term "Intensive Care Unit" seems to be going out of vogue now, slowly being replaced by "Critical Care Unit"}.


The NHS states that ……ICU's are specialist hospital wards. They provide intensive care (treatment and monitoring) for people in a critically ill or unstable condition. ICU's are also sometimes known as critical care units or intensive therapy departments. A person in an ICU needs constant medical attention and support to keep their body functioning. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/intensive-care/pages/introduction.aspx.

NHS guidelines on nursing staff in critical care state….. "Appropriate numbers of registered practitioners dependent upon nurse - patient dependency ratio. This effectively means an appropriately qualified nurse is within earshot and/or line of sight at all times". http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/documents/768/quality%20requirements%20for%20critical%20care.pdf

The Royal College of Nursing states on patient observation in critical care….... "An important function of critical care nurses is to provide continuous observation of critically ill patients. Observation will reduce a patient’s risk of precipitous deterioration, monitor their total dependence on support equipment and prevent their agitation or confusion leading to harm. Observation involves assimilation, interpretation and evaluation of information, including the patient’s physical and psychological response to interventions, changes in condition, the significance of monitored physiological parameters and the safe functioning of equipment". http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/78560/001976.pdf

The European Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society (EVECCS) website states…. Intensive care units (ICU) are sections within a hospital that look after patients whose conditions are life-threatening and need constant, close monitoring and support from equipment and medication to keep normal body functions going.........You should expect a high level of activity round the clock. Noise levels are likely to be higher than in other areas of the hospital largely because of the operation of the equipment and the constant presence of staff providing care and undertaking procedures. http://www.eveccs.org/public/what-is-veterinary-critical-care/

The Intensive Care Society defines intensive care as follows …"Intensive care units (ICU), also called critical care or intensive therapy departments, are sections within a hospital that look after patients whose conditions are life-threatening and need constant, close monitoring and support from equipment and medication to keep normal body functions going. http://www.ics.ac.uk/icf/patients-and-relatives/information/about-critical-care/what-is-intensive-care/

The Miller-Keane Encyclopaedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing and Allied Health, 7th edn, 2003 Saunders states ……. An Intensive Care Unit is a hospital unit in which is concentrated special equipment and specially trained personnel for the care of seriously ill patients requiring immediate and continuous attention (intensive care). This definition applies equally to an ICU in a veterinary hospital

This is confirmed in 2009 on the website of the American College of Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia where it is stated in relation to both anaesthesia and recovery, i.e.. objective: to ensure that a responsible individual is aware of the patient's status at all times during anesthesia and recovery, is solely dedicated to managing and caring for the anesthetized patient during anesthesia and remains with the patient continuously until the end of the anesthetic period. 

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Code of Professional Conduct articles 2.7 and 2.8. Clinical Care:
Article 2.7 states "Veterinary surgeons should provide uninterrupted care of an in-patient if it is considered that the animal is not fit to be moved".
Article 2.8 states "Where an animal needs continuous in-patient care, a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse should not leave the animal until appropriate care is provided by a colleague".

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Code of Professional Conduct, Clinical Governance (Animal safety) Article 6.3.a.i states  "In case of any critical event eg unexpected medical or surgical complications, serious complaint, accident or anaesthetic death, hold a noblame meeting of all staff involved as soon as possible after the incident and record all the details".

                                                                                 ---------------------------

RCVS' laissez-faire attitude to its own existing protocols.

When it comes to following its own procedures laid out in RCVS Advice Notes, Complaints Procedures and Guide to Professional Conduct, RCVS seems to have a very generous laissez-faire attitude, even flagrantly contravening articles in its own Code of Professional Conduct e.g.
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Code of Professional Conduct Article 2.7 states........"Veterinary surgeons should provide uninterrupted care of an in-patient if it is considered that the animal is not fit to be moved".
RCVS' Code of Professional Conduct Article 2.8 states........"Where an animal needs continuous in-patient care, a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurseshould not leave the animal until appropriate care is provided by a colleague".

As will be seen below an in-patient who was certainly not fit to be moved, and since uninterrupted and continuous have the same meaning i.e.  non-stop, incessant, never-ending, endless, unremitting etc etc, it seems that a serious contravention of the above two articles has been committed by several surgeons at Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital, and subsequently condoned by several senior people in RCVS' Professional Conduct Department.

Additional contraventions of articles 2.5, 1.4, 2.1, 3.5 and 23.4 of RCVS' Code of Professional Conduct, will also be referred to in this document, as will the following RCVS decrees:


RCVS Advice Note No 3 Para 5 states.............Serious professional misconduct may include the treatment of an animal if that treatment was seriously deficient……..examples are a surgeons reckless care of an animal.

Page 5 item 14 of RCVS pamphlet, Making a Complaint etc also states; …..a complaint may be referred to the Disciplinary Committee where this may involve any of the following; item b) Causing serious harm (or causing a risk of serious harm) to animals or the public……et al

RCVS Advice note 3 Para 3 states that….. examples of serious professional misconduct are false certification, dishonesty and fraud.

RCVS Advice note 3 Para 5 also states that…….. if a veterinary surgeon misleads a client about what happened this could amount to serious professional misconduct

Page 5 item 14 of RCVS pamphlet, Making a Complaint etc states; ….. a complaint may be referred to the Disciplinary Committee where this may involve any of the following, item f) Dishonesty (including false certification) particularly where persistent.

------------------------

With regard to the above RCVS Codes of Professional Conduct articles 2.7 and 2.8. In September 2013 RCVS Professional Conduct Department unbelievably took the uncaring, riskyand significantly contradictory view that ICU's can be frequently totally unattended; including for recurring periods of 15 minutes, in clear contravention and contradiction of its own Codes of Professional Conduct above. This is confirmed in a letter (A26) from Mrs E Ferguson RCVS Head of Professional Conduct 16 September 2013, stating that "We take the view that there is evidence that …..(Jed)…  was checked visually at least every fifteen minutes". This uncaring and execrable practice, clearly breaching and contradicting its own Codes of Professional Conduct, was further confirmed in her letter 19 Oct 2015 which stated … "we see nothing to justify sending back to the PIC (the Preliminary Investigation Committee adjudicating on Jed's case) to consider further and our previous decision remains". 


So our devoted loyal companion pets and important family members, after a lifetime of friendship and companionship, when they are in their hours of greatest need, are not given the highest standard of care they would have in ICU'S in other civilised countries, are not given the same standard of care we would expect for ourselves and our other family members.  And the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the self regulating statutory body responsible for and claiming that.......... " it sets, upholds and advances standards in the UK ";  for the regulation of veterinarians; which has a duty to act in the public interest, including safeguarding the health and welfare of animals committed to veterinary care; for protecting the interests of those dependent on animals and assuring public health through the regulation of ethical and clinical standards, has thumbed its nose at these higher standards, approved the alarming principle that veterinary Intensive Care Units can be frequently totally unattended, and is even prepared to flagrantly violate its own Codes Of Conduct e.g. articles 2.7 and 2.8 as above, when substantiated complaints are made.

Without a doubt the RCVS Council chooses to be different to other professions and accepted norms and in taking that choice this Royal College, this statutory regulator, this self-regulator clearly fails morally and ethically. By not adopting the highest standards of ICU/Critical Care as above, and, especially by failing to follow its own Codes of Conduct, RCVS has lost not only the moral right but also the professional obligation to set/regulate standards, especially standards of care, and in acting so reprehensibly, exemplifying an almost dystopian nightmare of unfettered autocratic self-regulation.


The evidence to corroborate this dreadful state of affairs follows.

------------------------------

It is irrefutable that staff at Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital, where particularly high standards are to be expected, leave their ICU frequently totally unattended, including for recurring periods of 15 minutes, seemingly directly contravening RCVS Codes of Professional Conduct 2.7 and 2.8. Personnel from Hospital Director (Professor L Blackwood) down to ward level in this "teaching" "university" hospital are quite nonchalant about admitting this in writing {see documents B5 & B6} thus indicating that this careless and risky principle is a regular aspect of "Intensive Care" at Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital.


Starwars Jedi (Jed) Hughes (please see page one) was one of the patients in, and subsequently died on either 1st or 2nd February 2012, (as to which actual date remains unclear to this day) in Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital's "Intensive" Care Unit.

Jed was a chronically epileptic dog subject to severe acute epileptic fits. (NB Acute is defined as a "brief, severe and quickly coming to a crisis event", e.g. anything from a broken bone to an epileptic fit). He was also having treatment for senile dementia. Being a Pug dog he was also brachycephalic in which obstructed airway is common. Evidence below will show that Jed was in a prolonged failed recovery from anaesthesia and was showing a failing respiratory rate, but grievously, no appropriate action was taken by ICU staff. In addition we had also been verbally informed 1 February 2012 that Jed could "hear but not see"; this after an ultrasound operation that same morning performed by Aran Mas Badia.

Furthermore Ms Mas Badia DVM MRCVS Clinician Teacher in Medicine/Oncology at Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital, the senior clinician responsible for the care of Jed, stated verbally on 1 February 2012 that Jed was dying, must have a serious bowel operation or else he would have to be put to sleep as the only kind option. NB (Please see page 4 and report by Mr G Skerritt FRCVS at 1.6 stating that……with medical management may have been possible with the expectation that Jed could have lived longer……et al).


Ms Mas alarming statement above was repeated in an undated letter (A6) countersigned by Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital Director Professor Laura Blackwood (BVMS PhD MVM CertVR DipECVIM-CA (Onc) MRCVS RCVS & European Specialist in Veterinary Oncology).


Moreover, Aran Mas wrote in her letter 2 February 2012 (A5) to Jed's local vet Mr T Hackney …. "The (Jed's) marked hypoalbuminaemia was a big concern ….. and…….it is not uncommon for patients with cancer and hypoalbuminaemia to suffer acute thromboembolic events that can result in acute deterioration and death of the patient. This grave risk was not explained to me at any time, and, (not as thought previously) A5 was not made available to me from either Liverpool or RCVS. I only became aware of it when I looked through Jed's local vet's records.

                                                                      -------------------------------

THE HOSPITAL'S HORRENDOUS & CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS/DOCUMENTS.


About a week after Jed died on 1st or 2nd February 2012, and as a result of a request to Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital for an investigation into his death in their Intensive Care Unit, an undated letter (A6) was received from Ms Aran Mas. A6 was countersigned by Hospital Director Professor Laura Blackwood.

A6 stated….. ….."At 0020 … (on 2 February 2012)…All clinical parameters were similar to the previous checks….. Full clinical examination revealed a normal respiratory rate"…..This agreed with what was written in another significant document, the unsigned Hospitalisation Record (B5 discussed further below) dated 03/02/2012 i.e.…At 0020…parameters similar to previous check …..RR pattern and frequency normal.

So according to Professor Blackwood and Aran Mas everything at 0020 on 2 February 2012 was "normal". (Please see page 4 and report by Mr G Skerritt FRCVS independent veterinary expert's report at 2.2).


However, other Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital documents obtained in April 2012 told a very different story i.e..... Jed's  ICU Clinical Record (B3/B4) 1st/2nd February 2012, which should be a contemporaneous document, not only has clear alterations and crossing out, but also indications of Jed in extremis at 0000 hours which seem to have been mistreated by ICU staff i.e. …….. B3/B4 shows Jed's respiratory rate on 1st-2nd February 2012 as follows…. at 1800 and 1900=28, at 2000=32. At 2200 the figure has been crossed out (i.e. altered) and a rate of 40 per minute entered. At 0000 hours it had dropped to 16 per minute, giving a clear indication of deterioration

The senior resident on duty the night that Jed died at this "teaching" "University" hospital, Ms Isabel Amores-Fuster DVM MRCVS Lecturer in Oncology, stated in her letter 26 March 2013 (A18) to RCVS' Provisional Investigation Committee (PIC) adjudicating on Jed's case ……."All our patients have identification stickers which are printed by the reception staff when the animal first presents to the hospital and on subsequent visits if required. The stickers are used to avoid unnecessary writing when filling request forms and other paperwork"…….et al.

However, whilst B1/B2 (Jed's Clinical Record for 31 January 2012) has an identifying sticker and no contentious contents, the supposedly contemporaneous B3/B4 above has clear alterations and crossing out, no identifying sticker, shows Jed's respiratory rate being dangerously mistreated, and, horrendously shows that Jed had his stomach/bowels gashed open for a bowel operation, (a Laparotomy) without being anaesthetised. Clearly B3/B4 is a complete fabrication.


                                                                                         ------------------

The Hospitalisation Record (B5)

The Hospitalisation Record (B5) dated 03/02/2012 is so crammed with numerous contradictions, even self-contradictions, and inconsistent statements by hospital staff as to make it not worth the paper it is written on, and, to make it seem that the person(s) writing it is/are more than a little deluded.

They cannot even agree who wrote it i.e.

Professor Blackwood's letter of 21 February 2012 (B6) states ........"Aran Mas prepared the summary of events" .....{the Hospitalisation Record (B5)} ....."having talked to all the staff involved". Also, RCVS Head of Professional Conduct Mrs E Ferguson, stated in a letter 16 September 2013 (A26) ….."It is also our view that although Ms Mas was not on duty she nevertheless prepared the hospital report..... (B5) .........as the senior clinician and after obtaining information from the duty vet, Ms Fuster (Ms Isabel Amores-Fuster), ............... We do not consider that there is any evidence to show that you have been misled". 


However, Mr Philip Wood (hospital administrator) stated in his email (A48) of 1 June 2012 ........ the document dated 3rd Feb (B5)is the summary prepared by the senior clinician on duty (Ms Isabel Amores-Fuster) after discussion with all out of hours staff……. and on 23 July 2012 Liverpool University's Senior Hospital Administrator Mr Sam Kennedy (FCIPD) wrote that..... you have received all of the hospitalisation sheets and documentation relating to Jed’s case, including the summary (B5) prepared by the senior clinician  (Ms Isabel Amores-Fuster).  

And Ms Amores-Fuster declares in her letter of 26 March 2013 (A18) {written specifically for the deliberations of the PIC adjudicators} that B5 (DB-12):

                  a) is a report written by myself, Jude Bradbury and Andrea Wahle.

                  b) it is in response to one of Mr Hughes first letters.

                  c) in order to clarify the events of that night.

                  d) was specifically written for this case.

                  e) Such reports are not routinely produced, though a review of unexpected deaths is routine.

                  f) It was written in as much detail as possible.

                   g) as one of the main allegations of the owner was that Jed was not monitored adequately.

                   h) I can confirm that this document was written to the best of our knowledge.


A more explicit and unambiguous way of stating that she herself, Ms Amores-Fuster, together with Jude Bradbury and Andrea Wahle, wrote B5 cannot be imagined; it's akin to a voluntary confession, made without duress, having had over a year after Jed's death to consider it, specifically written for the PIC adjudicating on Jed's case, and which if Jed's case had properly gone to the Disciplinary Committee (DC) Ms Amores-Fuster would have had to validate on oath. 

In addition, Ms Amores-Fuster wrote in her letter of 26 March 2013 (A18) that B5 "was written in response to one of Mr Hughes first letters". However, my first letter was dated 13 February 2012 and B5 states "produced 03/02/2012". If B5 was "produced" "prepared" or "written" on 03/02/2012, and, was in response to one of my first letters, why was it not sent to me contemporaneously? In fact I had to eventually email RCVS on 3 April 2012 for its intervention to ensure these documents were sent to me. (Please see page 4 and report by Mr G Skerritt FRCVS independent veterinary expert's report at 2.1) Moreover the first time I mentioned concerns about Jed's monitoring was in my above letter 13 February 2012.

Moreover, Page 2 of (B5) states …”JB (Judith Bradbury) said that time was 0130 when she rang IAF (Isabel Amores-Fuster) but Mr Hughes corrected this and said don’t you mean 0030, agreed that this was the correct time and apologised for my error”. (Apparently I have details of internal phone calls made from the hospital!!)  But page 1 of (B5) states “0037: called Tier 2 (IAF)”. So page 2 contradicts the correction on page 1 and compounds the author(s) original error. Apparently the author(s) forgot what had been written in page 1 when eventually getting around to writing page 2.

So Judith Bradbury phoned Isabel Amores-Fuster at a time which has been variously declared by the university as 0130, 0030, and 0037 on 2nd February 2012. As above Jed was already in extremis at 0000! And furthermore I suggest that one hasn't got to be in the least medically qualified to say that the window of opportunity for giving effective CPR is probably just a minute or so at the very most.

B5 further states that ……"0037 (on 2nd February 2012)........after speaking to IAF, JB immediately went to reassess Jed and he stopped breathing"…… so Jed stopped breathing at the precise moment she looked at him. Really? And from where did JB come from to reassess Jed? My above contemporaneous email (A10) 2 February 2012 to Professor Blackwood recalled the phrase used by Ms Bradbury to me i.e." I noticed Jed was not breathing" and my request asking to know for how long Jed had not been breathing before "it was noticed" still awaits an explanation.

And B5 also states....... "0037"........"given previous prolonged  recovery from GA". Never, at any time in Jed's life, had I been made aware of Jed having a recovery problem from anaesthetic!


In addition, in the conversation which I had with Judith Bradbury (which began at approximately 0210 2nd February  2012) Judith Bradbury was very precise and deliberate about the times given, spoke without hesitation as though she was reading from a book, but made four significant timeline errors. Quoting an incorrect time once or twice can be a mistake, but quoting four different incorrect times one after the other, particularly the last one which was actually in the future at 0215, i.e. later than the time the conversation was taking place, is completely unacceptable, and, that was when I, who was in shock at having just been told that Jed was dead, finally felt compelled to correct her and say “don’t you mean one”. This conversation was what initially raised suspicions that something was not quite right.

Clearly the contents of B5, like B3/B4, are asking for a suspension of common sense. It's impossible to comprehend and to accept so many contradictions, especially so when given the opportunity to correct errors, the author(s) self-contradicts and thus compounds the original error. Whoever the author (s) were, the fact is that the contents prove that it is not worth the paper it is written on. Plus there is a second Hospitalisation Record (B5a), supplied by RCVS, but with different content. Everyone concerned with composing B5 are either so completely dim-witted, or deliberately disingenuous, as to lead me to believe that B5, like B3/B4, is a complete fabrication and the distressingly contentious documents/comments above and below are red herrings.

But of course Aran Mas states in her letter (A5) to Jed's local vet Mr T Hackney that Jed died a few hours after surgery thus making Jed's death to be 1910 on 1 February 2012. Is this the reality? There is good reason to believe so.

Obviously Ms Amores-Fuster written statements as above (in A18) to the PIC directly contradicts Professor Blackwood and Mrs E Ferguson Head of Professional Conduct RCVS, over the authorship of this most significant and incriminating document. Sadly someone would seem to be dishonest, deceitful and untruthful e.g. Professor Blackwood? Or Mrs Ferguson?  Or Isabel Amores-Fuster? Or Mr Philip Wood hospital administrator? Or Senior Hospital Administrator Mr Sam Kennedy (FCIPD)? Or somebody else?  In any case it is irrefutable that I have indeed been misled.

Page 5 item 14 of RCVS pamphlet, Making a Complaint etc states; ….. a complaint may be referred to the Disciplinary Committee where this may involve any of the following, item f) Dishonesty (including false certification) particularly where persistent or concealed.I would also refer to a comment by RCVS Disciplinary Committee in June 2007……. Mr Brian Jennings, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "We wish to make clear the importance and status of any document signed by a veterinary surgeon that another body might rely on. Whilst inaccurate information on such documents referred to this Committee would normally result in severe penalty for the veterinary surgeon concerned, ……..et al".

Professor Blackwood's letter 21 February 2012 (B6) omitted Ms Amores-Fuster's name from the OOH (out of hours) staff on duty that night, rather unfairly leaving the temporary surgeons to absorb the responsibility and accountability, and, skewing the direction of investigations at that time.    

Ms Aideen Neylon, solicitor, RCVS Professional Conduct Department, emailed me on 5th October 2012 (A35) stating .... We are unable to arrange a meeting with the University of Liverpool as the veterinary surgeons who were involved with the treatment of Jed are no longer working there. However, Ms Amores-Fuster, the senior resident on call the night that Jed died, was still at the hospital 26 March 2013. She may still be there. 

All in all I am therefore inclined to take the view that Professor Blackwood's and Mrs Ferguson's views can be taken as erroneous, or, even taken as red herrings, and that it is Ms Amores-Fuster, with the assistance of her temporary colleagues, who wrote B5 or/and B5a.The view that it is Ms Amores-Fuster who wrote B5 is unambiguously supported by Senior Hospital Administrator Mr Sam Kennedy (FCIPD) and Mr Philip Wood hospital administrator.

It has always stuck in my mind the blatant eagerness, bordering on insistence and pure panic that I should not immediately drive back to Liverpool when they rang me to say Jed had crashed, on the pretence that the roads were icy, when in fact they were virtually empty of traffic and perfect for driving on. And there remains the unexplained half hour delay in returning my call saying that I wanted to collect Jed's body, and, as to why his body odour was so strongly revolting and sickening, when I did finally pick him up.


No assistance was given to me until after I had arrived at my car's door carrying Jed, Ms Bradbury remaining inside the hospital, and I almost dropped Jed in trying to get my keys and open the car's door.


Furthermore Professor Blackwood's letter B6 states that Jed's arrest was unexpected. Ms Amores-Fuster states in A18 that a review of unexpected deaths is routine. There wasn't a routine review of Jed's unexpected death. I was obliged to request the investigation in my contemporaneous email (A10) 2 February 2012.

                                                                    -----------------------------------

Consent Forms

 Ms Amores-Fuster stated in her letter (A18) to the PIC ….. I can confirm that ……….there are two copies of two consent forms. One is for £700-£2000 for bloods and hospitalisation, dated 31/01/12 and signed (the signature is difficult to read, but the form was signed in front of MS Mas by Mr Hughes). The other one is…………also signed: this signature was taken after the surgeon discussed the case with Mr Hughes prior to surgery".

 In fact there are three Consent Forms.

                  a) The consent form signed by me shows that I deleted item 5 (for euthanasia if necessary….), item 6 (for post mortem….) and item 7 (for retention of tissues and DNA for research purposes…..).

                  b) One of the other consent forms shows that item 5 has NOT been deleted i.e. effectively giving the hospital permission to euthanize Jed.

                  c) The other consent form shows that items 5, 6 and 7 have NOT been deleted, effectively giving the hospital carte blanche to euthanize Jed, to perform a post mortem on Jed, and to allow Jed to be used for research.

                  d) On 11 June 2013 my email (A36) to Professor Blackwood requested copies of each of the two consent forms mentioned in Ms Amores-Fuster's A18 to the PIC.

                  e) Professor Blackwood's reply (A37) of the same date did not include these copies, and, did not mention the existence of a third Consent Form.

                  f) Eventually RCVS sent me 2 pink copies of Consent Forms a) & b) only above, but not of Consent Forms item c) above. 

                  g) Interestingly although the pink copies above show details quite clearly yet Ms Amores-Fuster, in A18 to the PIC, refers to copies of copies which do not transfer details clearly. She also failed to make any comment in A18 on the significant deletion differences between the Consent Forms a) & b).

                  h) However Consent Form item c) above, as far as Liverpool University and RCVS is concerned seems not to exist. But it does; this is not a red herring, it's on my desk.       

There has been an outbreak of contradictory statements in Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital's documents and more than a few are simply so contentious, contradictory and incredulous that they are not worth the paper they are written on, and, the significance of Ms Mas' statement in A5 that Jed died a few hours after surgery i.e. at 1910 on 1st February 2012, and not the following day, should not be overlooked.

RCVS Advice note 3 Para 3 states that…. examples of serious professional misconduct are false certification, dishonesty and fraud ….….and also states that ……..if a veterinary surgeon misleads a client about what happened this could amount to serious professional misconduct.  

Page 5 item 14 of RCVS pamphlet, Making a Complaint etc states; ….. a complaint may be referred to the Disciplinary Committee where this may involve any of the following, item f) Dishonesty (including false certification) particularly where persistent.

Part 2a of RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct states……. At the request of a client veterinary surgeons must provide copies of any relevant clinical records.

Is it not highly significant that Liverpool University and RCVS seems to deny the existence of item c)? It's not included in the PDF bundle of documents (A31) sent to me by Ms Aideen Neylon, (Solicitor, Professional Conduct Department RCVS) and also not included in the bundle of documents from Liverpool. Both above bundles purported to be copies of all documents and clinical records relating to Jed's treatment. And, why is RCVS reluctant to investigate this?

As above I refer to a comment by RCVS Disciplinary Committee in June 2007…….Mr Brian Jennings, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "We wish to make clear the importance and status of any document signed by a veterinary surgeon that another body might rely on. Whilst inaccurate information on such documents referred to this Committee would normally result in severe penalty for the veterinary surgeon concerned, ……..et al.

Furthermore only one Consent Form was included in the above bundle of documents (A31) sent to me by RCVS in PDF format; item b above.

                                                                                ------------------------------------


Laparotomy Documents.

Another Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital clinical document not received until April 2012, (dated 1 February 2012), the unsigned Laparotomy Surgical Procedure Report (A7) is specific in stating that the surgeon, Alistair Freeman, does not have an assistant or a student attending. However, the Laparotomy Planned Procedure Form (B7) is quite contradictory and names a surgeon to be "Zerelda". Also an alteration in the surgeon's name box of B7 is apparent, AM has clearly been altered to AF. In the list of surgeons employed at the hospital around the time of Jed's death there does not appear to be a surgeon named Zerelda, (discussed further later in this document).

The Laparotomy Planned Procedure Form (B7) shows that Jed was sent for recovery in ICU at 1710. Ms Aran Mas stated 2 February 2012 in her final report (A5) to Jed's local referring vet …..“a few hours after surgery Jed developed acute respiratory distress and all attempts to resuscitate him failed". So Jed died at 1910 on 1 February 2012.


                                                                                  -----------------------------------


It is quite beyond belief that the hospital Director Professor L Blackwood could state in her letter 26 March 2013 (A19), (written specifically for the deliberations of the PIC) …..... "I would like to state that I have no reason to suspect that any member of staff has attempted to alter Jed’s medical records or that they have been altered or adulterated. In addition there has been no attempt at any time to obfuscate Mr Hughes’ concerns".

But it's no stranger than writing in her letter to me of 21 February 2012 (B6)…….Staff also have a heightened awareness to change in patients in the ICU…   and….."and you have assumed that between any times given that Jed was not observed or monitored". According to her own letter B6 above it is irrefutable that Jed was not observed and not monitored, and she contradicts herself. ICU was frequently abandoned by staff that night, including for recurring periods of 15 minutes.

Who is misleading whom? There are too many contradictions in the hospital documents to justify their credibility.


                                                                    -------------------------------

Forensic Vet Mr D Bailey BVSc, MSc (Forensic Science), Research Fellow Staffordshire University, MRCVS, in his report on the circumstances surrounding the death of Jed, stated .........  ......."There appears to be anomalies with the records used to document the treatment of Jed. Inconsistencies in these documents  would lead me to suspect that there have been attempts made to alter documents or obfuscate concerns expressed by Mr. Hughes as to the treatment received by his dog Jed. There are some inconsistencies with the hospitalization records that would lead me to believe they have been adulterated. There would need to be a detailed examination of original documents to assess their suitability to be included in this dispute. Once this validity of the documents supplied has been established then a more detailed appraisal of them would become necessary.................

Mr Bailey's statement appears to be fully justified.  

                                                                            -----------------------------------

GRIEVOUS FAILURE OF ICU STAFF TO ACT APPROPRIATELY ON JED'S TRAGIC FAILED RECOVERY FROM ANAESTHESIA.

In a very contentious scenario of Jed enduring and surviving almost eight hours of failed recovery from anaesthesia in ICU i.e. until 2 February 2012, it is clearly irrefutable that Jed never recovered from anaesthesia, and as above, ICU staff admit their concern on this as early as 2000 hours.. Even the RCVS investigators (Barrister & ex detective Mr Michael Hepper & Mrs Pam Mosedale MRCVS) at a meeting 17 August 2012, when asked by me at what time they would have alerted me, replied..... "at 2000"...... When asked at what time they would have alerted the anaesthetist they said they could not comment on clinical matters. (Why not, isn't Mrs Mosedale a qualified veterinary surgeon?) Yet Ms Isabel Amores-Fuster, the senior and only member of permanent staff on duty in ICU failed to call me at 2000, or the on call anaesthetist at any time, and a quote from B6 says “The on-site staff also has back up from an anaesthetist, and senior clinicians in medicine and surgery, who they can call in if required”.

Furthermore, Aran Mas wrote in her letter (A5)…. "The (Jed's) marked hypoalbuminaemia was a big concern ….. and…….it is not uncommon for patients with cancer and hypoalbuminaemia to suffer acute thromboembolic events that can result in acute deterioration and death of the patient"....... This grave risk was not explained to me at any time. In addition A5 was not made available to me from either Liverpool or RCVS. I only became aware of it when I looked through the local referring vet's records.


So despite;........... the risks of an epileptic attack (seizure) and resulting death;  that Jed was a brachycephalic patient and brachycephalic patients are more prone to upper airway obstruction; that Jed was receiving treatment for senile dementia and suffered from separation anxiety; that Aran Mas had said that very afternoon that Jed was dying; the "big concern" and the "common and acute risk of deterioration and death" of Jed as above; the grade 4 risk under anaesthesia (as mentioned in Jed's referring vet's report); two procedures in one day, including the very serious bowel operation that afternoon; the overwhelming irrefutable evidence that, in some eight hours in ICU Jed never recovered from anaesthesia; that Jed developed eyesight problems in hospital, (on return to the hospital on 1st February 2012 we were told that Jed could hear but not see, please see report by Mr G Skerritt FRCVS independent veterinary expert's report para 1.5-1.6); that Professor Blackwood stated in A18 that ....... "Jed was an acutely ill dog with a challenging condition";  that Aran Mas had said eight hours earlier that he would have to be put to sleep if he did not have the operation,…….Isabel Amores-Fuster, Judith Bradbury and Andrea Wahle in ICU failed to alert the on-call anaesthetist at 2000, or any other time that evening, to Jed's tragic non-recovery from anaesthesia, and, furthermore failed to alert me, denying me the chance to be with Jed when he died, and an act that can only be described as so uncaring and so heinous that it merits serious disciplinary action. A needless failure by Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital: the consequences of which will haunt me forever.


Also inexplicable was the decision taken by Isabel Amores-Fuster, Judith Bradbury and Andrea Wahle between 2100 and 2130 hours not to monitor Jed, and, to leave ICU regularly unattended between 2100 and 2200. Notwithstanding the importance of expert veterinary opinion, taking the statement by Ms Mas by itself i.e. Jed's….... "marked hypoalbuminaemia was a big concern" …..and……."it is not uncommon for patients with cancer and hypoalbuminaemia to suffer acute thromboembolic events that can result in acute deterioration and death of the patient (NB Acute is defined as a "brief, severe and quickly coming to a crisis event") so it hardly requires an expert to conclude that Jed was in mortal danger. The decision taken by Isabel Amores-Fuster, Judith Bradbury and Andrea Wahle not to monitor Jed and to regularly leave the ICU unattended is therefore inexplicable, inexcusable and grievous. It cannot be justified. Unless of course Jed was already dead and had died at 1910 as stated by Aran Mas.

Moreover, it seems strange that at about the same time as this grievous decision was taken, the "duty" intern surgeon Andrea Wahle was allowed to go to bed, and, the only "awake" intern surgeon Judith Bradbury left the wards to see to an emergency consultation. Apparently Andrea Wahle (housemate of Judith Bradbury) had been on duty that day until 5pm and then returned at 8pm to be the "duty vet" until 0800 the following morning. NB In my opinion, and in view of the more than a few critical document's lack of credibility, the veracity of the above emergency consultation should be verified.

Andrea Wahle seemed to be the only person present with knowledge of epilepsy. She had experience of working in the neurology section at the Small Animal Internal Medicine Clinic University of Munich, and, staff were well aware that Jed was a chronic epileptic, and, that Jed had adverse neurological problems, (please see report by Mr G Skerritt FRCVS independent veterinary expert's report paragraphs 1.4 through 1.6.)

The decision not to monitor Jed and to leave ICU regularly unattended is inexcusable, defies common sense, and was never reversed. To make matters worse, according to Professor Blackwood's letter B6 …"staff were in and out of ICU frequently between 2100 and 2200"....... How frequently?

And as if it was possible to make an already scandalous situation more execrable, more damning, it is shown in B5 that a decision was taken at about 2300 for the Intensive Care Unit to be abandoned, to be totally unattended for recurring periods of 15 minutes. This is confirmed in B6 which states…." Jude then stayed in ICU until approximately 11pm when she went back to the ward area with Sarah to perform some duties there: between 11 and 12.00 she returned several times to ICU to visually check all the patients,....... et al" and I refer to the following Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Code of Professional Conduct articles 2.7 and 2.8.

Article 2.7 states "Veterinary surgeons should provide uninterrupted care of an in-patient if it is considered that the animal is not fit to be moved".

Article 2.8 states "Where an animal needs continuous in-patient care, a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse should not leave the animal until appropriate care is provided by a colleague".

Since Jed was indubitably an in-patient and was certainly not fit to be moved, and since uninterrupted and continuous have the same meaning i.e. non-stop, incessant, never-ending, endless, unremitting etc etc, it seems that a serious contravention of the above two articles has been committed by Liverpool University staff, and, condoned by senior executives of the body setting standards in the UK, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, thus effectively driving a coach and horses through the Codes of Professional Conduct of this self-regulating Royal College.

And in any case, where could Jed have been transferred to? This university, with an annual turnover of £400 million is, according to the university…. "an internationally-recognised leader in the field of veterinary medicine and the Small Animal Teaching Hospital is one of the busiest small animal referral centres in the UK".

And furthermore, as levels of staff, from the Director of Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital, down to ward level, are quite nonchalant about putting in writing that the Intensive Care Unit can be totally unattended in this way, this indicates a regular aspect of "Intensive Care" at  this hospital. In other words our devoted, defenceless pets that rely on, and are completely at the mercy of, ICU staff, can be abandoned whilst in their painful and utterly distressing hours of greatest need. If a pet stopped breathing as staff left ICU then that pet would surely die, and I suggest that one hasn't got to be in the least medically qualified to say that the window of opportunity for giving effective CPR is probably just a minute or so at the very most.


Jed never had a daytime fit and the time when they decided not to monitor him, and, to leave ICU regularly unattended, was when he was at his most vulnerable i.e. approaching the time most likely for him to have an epileptic attack. He always had a severe fight to breathe when having an epileptic fit, with awfully loud and severe rasping; rasping loud and alarming enough to wake me at night (which is why I always slept with my bedroom door open and within 3 or 4 yards of him). It was incredibly distressing for him, and for me to have to watch him fighting for breathe, fighting for life itself. Long and many were the nights when I feared for him but time and again he fought for breath and always came back to me. For reasons of his chronic epilepsy, and also of Jed's suffering from intense chronic separation anxiety when I wasn't around, I declined to have holidays for many years.


As well as being a very innately caring little guy, as small as he was he was also a gallant warrior, simply the best of the best, risking his own safety and severe injury defending me against the biggest. It was a great honour to have been his guardian. I cannot bring Jed back to say goodbye to him, to let him know I hadn't abandoned him, but I can make myself worthy of him, by, one way or another, avenging the unnecessary death of my little innocent best buddy.


RCVS Code of Professional Conduct article 2.5 states that the animals……. carer should be made aware of the level of supervision that will be provided ……particularly the level of supervision during an overnight stay……et al. If I had been aware that Jed would not have the continuous, uninterrupted presence of staff, in view of his acute epileptic attacks, wild horses would not have dragged me away from Jed.

I have always felt that the hospital did not give Jed's chronic epilepsy, and the acute attacks he suffered from due to it, the attention it deserved. Professor Blackwood's letter (B6) states............ "All patients in the hospital have case sheets which specify when specific checks and tests are to be carried out". However, there is no documentation showing evidence of a risk assessment of an epileptic attack occurring, and as above, Andrea Wahle, the only person with any special knowledge of epilepsy, was allowed to go to bed. There is a medical syndrome known as SUDEP (Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy) and there are 1200 epilepsy deaths across the UK each year. Who is to say that this doesn't also happen in animals that are chronically epileptic, and, suffer from acute attacks?


Apparently Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital does not carry out risk assessments of any kind. In the meeting 17 August 2012 with Mrs Mosedale and Mr Hepper Mrs Mosedale said that it was certain that a risk assessment had been done. Well where is it? I don't have one and neither RCVS or Liverpool have ever provided me with one in any of their bundles purporting to be copies of all of Jed's documents.

In any case as it is irrefutable that staff are quite relaxed about stating in writing that the ICU is frequently totally unattended, including for recurring periods of 15 minutes, the probability of one of the two of them being around when Jed stopped breathing is somewhat low, and the statement in the thoroughly discredited B5 that ……"after speaking to IAF, JB immediately went to reassess Jed and he stopped breathing" rings very hollow, i.e. so Jed stopped breathing at the precise moment JB looked at him. Really? And from where did JB come from to reassess Jed?

The foregoing evidence that there was not continuous attendance in the ICU of Liverpool  University Small Animal Teaching Hospital, as  required in such a unit, has serious significance for all critical  patients and I would point out that RCVS Advice Note No 3 states ………… …….Serious professional misconduct may include the treatment of an animal if that treatment was seriously deficient……..examples are a surgeon's reckless care of an animal, and, Page 5 item 14 of RCVS pamphlet, Making a Complaint etc states……. a complaint may be referred to the Disciplinary Committee where this may involve any of the following; item b) causing serious harm (or causing a risk of serious harm) to animals or the public……et al.

I fail to see how it could have been anything else but acutely risky to leave Jed unmonitored and frequently totally unattended, including for recurring periods of 15 minutes. There is absolutely no doubt that, if Jed had been human, and being mindful of the incriminating and contradictory documentation, a criminal investigation would have been instigated.

                                                                             ---------------------------

Research and Jed's remains.

1) On presentation at Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital on 31 January 2012, it seems Jed was examined by Dr Dan Batchelor, the internal medicine lead for the clinical group that week. His interests are researching the regulation of intestinal glucose transporters in dogs and cats, and their relevance to diabetes mellitus and obesity. After a little more time in the research laboratory he rejoined the Medicine team at the Small Animal Teaching Hospital, University of Liverpool in 2011 as Clinical Teacher in Internal Medicine. His clinical interests include all aspects of canine and feline internal medicine and his research interests include pancreatic disease and the regulation of intestinal function.

 2) After Jed's death on a date which Liverpool University is not prepared to clarify, Jed's tissues were sent to Bridge Pathology in Bristol, an organisation that, (as quoted on their website) ..................... are very keen to use our caseload for clinical research purposes. We will be concentrating on prognostically-relevant, clinically-driven studies that could have a direct bearing on diagnosis, prognostication or treatment of veterinary patients. In collaboration with our clients, we will be looking for ways to obtain follow-up information on the submitted cases on a routine basis. We also welcome the opportunity to collaborate with general and referral practitioners to facilitate their research ideas..................... 

3) There is a requirement in the Bridge Pathology Submission Form (A8) clearly stating……. "Materials from these submitted tissues may be used for clinical research purposes. Please tick here if you do NOT want these tissues to be used for research projects"….. (Please note the word NOT is in capital letters on the submission form). 

4) This checkbox was not ticked.

5) The submitting vet at Liverpool is Dr Dan Batchelor. 

 6) The Submission Form (A8) to Bridge Pathology and the resulting Histopathology Report from Bridge Pathology (A8) were not included in the bundle of documents sent me from Mr P Wood Clinical Services Manager University of Liverpool Small Animal Teaching Hospital on 5 April 2012 purporting to be all of Jed's clinical history. They were also not in the PDF bundle of documents (A31) sent to me by Ms A Neylon, Solicitor, Professional Conduct Department, RCVS 8 November 2012, also purporting to be a copy of the clinical history of Jed. They are in my possession now only because, in March 2013 (13 months after Jed's tragic death), I was made aware, by a third party, of their existence.

 7) Ms Rankin, Head Nurse at the hospital, stated in her email April 15 2013 to me that Jed's tissues were sent to Bridge Pathology on 1 February 2012. However this would seem to be impossible because they could not have been "fixed" by 1 February 2012. 

8) Jed's tissues were not received at Bridge Pathology until 7 February 2012. Included was a sample of Jed's fluid which Bridge Pathology do not analyse and consequently were immediately returned to David Cleary at Liverpool. From a pure layman's point of view it is interesting that Liverpool, a university teaching hospital, seems not to have these pathology facilities on site but/and that Ms Amores-Fuster states in her letter A18 that …a bacterial culture was performed on Jed's abdominal fluid…..et al.


9) The final report (A8) was emailed to Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital on 9 February 2012 but as above somehow failed to find its way to me from either RCVS or Liverpool University.

 10) The Surgical Procedure Report (A7) shows Alastair Freeman BVM&S PHd CertSAS MRCVS as the laparotomy surgeon and specifically states that he does not have an assistant. Yet B7 shows a person "Zerelda" as a surgeon, operating on Jed. There is a Mrs Zerelda Wustefeld-Janssens who, at the time of Jed's death, it seems was employed at the hospital as an orthopaedic research assistant. Also on B7 the initials of the surgeon performing the Laparotomy have been altered. There was no evidence that "Zerelda" is a qualified surgeon but seems to be operating as one i.e. outside her area of expertise.


11) With regard to expertise please see the following articles taken from the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and referring to "expertise";

          1.4 The referring veterinary surgeon has a responsibility to ensure that the client is made aware of the level of expertise of appropriate and reasonably available referral veterinary surgeons, for example, whether they are RCVS Recognised Specialists, European specialists or certificate holders.
          2.1 Clients are entitled to have their animals housed in a comfortable environment, monitored and treated by day and night, as appropriate to the animal's condition, by persons with the requisite knowledge and expertise.

          3.5 Veterinary surgeons must not hold out themselves, or others, as having expertise they cannot substantiate, or call themselves or others a ‘specialist’ or similar, where to do so would be misleading or misrepresentative.
          23.4 Veterinary surgeons must not hold out themselves or others as having expertise they cannot substantiate, or call themselves or others a ‘specialist’ or similar, where to do so would be misleading or misrepresentative.

         17.1b Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who knowingly or carelessly permit anyone to practise veterinary surgery illegally may be liable to a charge of serious professional misconduct.

12) Liverpool did not send a copy of any of the three consent forms to Bridge Pathology.

13) Liverpool University and RCVS seem to be denying the existence of Jed's Consent Form item c), the one which gives the hospital carte blanche to euthanize Jed, to perform a post mortem on Jed, and to allow Jed to be used for research. Why?

14) In April 2013 I was greatly distressed, and horrified to the highest degree, to discover that some of beloved Jed's remains were still being held at Bridge Pathology and on 17 April 2013, fourteen months after Jed's death, I finally received these from the archives of Bridge Pathology...........8 wax blocks and 8 glass slides.

                                                                                           ----------------------


Jed's Eyesight.

Upon returning to Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital around midday of 1st February 2012 we were informed by Aran Mas that Jed was dying. An extract from (A6) states  ................. “that without surgery, given the deterioration in his condition at that time"… (the day following admittance)…… "the only kind option would have been to put Jed to sleep”............. I had no hesitation in giving permission for the operation and I then asked to see Jed.
NB The hospital's non-contentious clinical records (B1/B2) shows that Jed was bright, alert, responsive and brisk from 31st January until 0800 1st February 2012. (Please see page 4 and report by Mr G Skerritt FRCVS which states at 1.6 states……with medical management may have been possible with the expectation that Jed could have lived longer……et al).

The nurse who brought Jed in remarked, casually, that Jed could ,,,,,,,"hear but not see"......... So it seems that nursing staff were aware that Jed had become blind whilst in the care of the hospital, (according to doc B3/B4 after having been anaesthetised for an ultrasonography performed by Aran Mas). In light of the discredited nature of the hospital's documents it is therefore not surprising that there is nothing in Jed's documents mentioning that Jed could not see or of Jed's new trauma of becoming blind in their care. Furthermore staff did not inform me of this serious and significant development prior to our return on 1 February 2012.

I was already greatly distressed having just a few minutes earlier been informed that Jed was dying, and, that without the Laparotomy operation I would have to put him to sleep. I remember that tears were rolling down my face and now, casually, offhand, we were being told that Jed could not see. At the time it certainly did not penetrate that Jed was permanently blind and assumed that the casual phrase "hear but not see" was a temporary effect of the anaesthesia given for the ultrasound he had undergone that morning, otherwise she would have said that Jed was blind. If I had been told that Jed was actually permanently blind then that would probably have struck home but, right then, I just wanted Jed back.

What would also have made something like this (that Jed was permanently blind) virtually unreal and unbelievable is that we had just spoken to Aran Mas and she had not mentioned it. She was the expert, the person in total charge of Jed's care, the person I trusted 100%, and at that time I had the greatest respect for her. In fact, upon returning home on 31 January 2012 I had emailed her and stated " ……. but now I feel that he is in the best hands and receiving the best care possible........... So for Aran Mas not to have mentioned that Jed was blind was equivalent to saying that there was nothing improper. The above ex-President RCVS Mrs Molyneux stated in July 2014 …"Animal owners trust vets to deliver first-rate care" and Part 2 of RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct states ..... The veterinary surgeon/client relationship is founded on trust. And in my naivety in 2012 I put my trust and Jed's care in their hands.

Had I been informed in the conversation a few minutes earlier by Aran Mas, that Jed could "hear but not see", I would have had to consider more fully Jed's situation and quality of life upon a successful operation and recovery. I would certainly not have given permission for the operation, but probably have taken him home, either to let him go asleep in my arms or just see how he got on around the vicinity he knew so well. (Please see report by Mr G Skerritt FRCVS independent veterinary expert's report at 1.6 that……with medical management may have been possible with the expectation that Jed could have lived longer……et al).

I have known blind dogs that went for walks. Of course if I had taken this innocent little fellow home his loss of eyesight would very soon have been discovered. But as soon as we arrived back at the hospital we had been informed by Ms Mas (who had operated on Jed that morning) that without surgery, given the deterioration in his condition at that time"… "the only kind option would have been to put Jed to sleep. As I was not given this eyesight information by Aran Mas I had had no hesitation in giving permission for the operation to go ahead. I feel that I was grievously misled by the oncologist, Aran Mas Badia, into giving permission for Jed to have a Laparotomy (according to B3/B4, without been given any anaesthetic) that was secondary in importance.

I reintroduced that phrase verbally......... "hear but not see"........ on 17 August 2012 to the RCVS investigators at a meeting in my home. This is actually noted in the investigator's report but that was the last I heard of it from the RCVS, so still naively trusting them, as far as I was concerned at that time if the RCVS did not consider it important, that was another indication that Jed had not been permanently blinded. Furthermore, in my email of 8 November 2012 (A46) to Ms Aideen Neylon, solicitor, RCVS, because of inaccuracy in the above investigator's report, I had requested that the report should be destroyed. As that report is the first and main substantiation of having raised the issue of Jed being able to....... "hear but not see"........ it is hardly likely that I would want it to be destroyed.

It is now apparent to me that Jed had become blind (please see report by Mr G Skerritt FRCVS independent veterinary expert's report paragraph 1.5) between the time we left the hospital on 31 January 2012 and when we returned the following day, after the ultrasound operation (performed by Aran Mas) on the morning of 1 February 2012.  


                                                                                 ------------------------------

Jed's contradictory and contentious date and time of death
.

Ms Aran Mas, the senior clinician responsible for Jed's care, stated in her final report (A5) to Jed's local referring vet …..“a few hours after surgery Jed developed acute respiratory distress and all attempts to resuscitate him failed". (A5 was one of the documents not made available to me from either Liverpool or RCVS. It was discovered in Jed's local vet's records).

                  a) The Laparotomy Planned Procedure Form (B7) shows that Jed was sent for recovery in ICU at 1710. Therefore according to Aran Mas Jed died at 1910 on 1st February 2012 and this date and time is confirmed by the following; There was not enough phenobarbitone prescribed (by Aran Mas) to cover Jed's needs after 0800 on 1st February 2012; How prescient of Aran Mas to know that Jed would not need his 2000 dose of phenabarbitone on 1st February or his dose at 0800 the following morning 2nd February 2012. In addition, in his letter 21 February 2012 (A30) Dr Tim Nuttall, Head of Veterinary Education and Acting Director of Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital stated….. "We normally dispense a few days worth of treatment at a time to avoid incurring a dispensing fee for every dose". A few days' treatment equals 180mg but only 120mg was prescribed on 31 January 2012 by Aran Mas.

                  b) Upon returning to Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital on 1st February 2012 Aran Mas informed me that Jed was dying. This is confirmed in the hospital's undated letter (A6) stating  ................. “that without surgery, given the deterioration in his condition at that time"… (the day following admittance)…… "the only kind option would have been to put Jed to sleep”.

                                    1) It is strange that document (B1/B2) shows that Jed was bright, alert, responsive and brisk from 31st January until 0800 1st February 2012. {Furthermore clearly no problem with his eyesight before Aran Mas performed the ultrasound}.                     

                   c) Moreover as per Aran Mas statement in A5…. "The (Jed's) marked hypoalbuminaemia was a big concern ….. and…….it is not uncommon for patients with cancer and hypoalbumisaemia to suffer acute thromboemolic events that can result in acute deterioration and death of the patient"....... (Acute is defined as a "BRIEF, SEVERE AND QUICKLY COMING TO A CRISIS EVENT" e.g. anything from a broken bone to an epileptic fit) so it hardly requires an expert to conclude that Jed was in mortal danger. Taking this statement by Ms Mas by itself, the decision taken by Isabel Amores-Fuster, Judith Bradbury and Andrea Wahle not to monitor Jed and to leave ICU regularly unattended is therefore inexplicable and inexcusable, unless of course Jed died much earlier.

                  d) Furthermore this grave risk of acute deterioration and death of Jed was not explained to me at any time and, as above, A5 was not in any of the bundles received from RCVS or Liverpool.

                  e) Also during his hypothetical 8 hours of failed recovery from anaesthesia there is no evidence that Jed should have been turned regularly (one of the most basic routine care tasks in any caring establishment) to avoid thrombosis and (as Aran Mas wrote) the acute thromboembolic events that can result in acute deterioration and death of the patient. But of course as Aran Mas has decreed that Jed died at 1910 there would be relatively little need for this basic caring task.

The significance of Ms Mas' statement in A5 that Jed died a few hours after surgery i.e. at 1910 on 1st February 2012 should therefore not be overlooked. Allied with the above evidential facts and not forgetting that document A5 was not made available to me from either Liverpool or RCVS, and, that Jed could have had an acute epileptic attack and died at any time, there is every reason to believe that serious doubts arise over Jed's survival time in ICU, and the likelihood of Jed's death at 1910 on 1 February 2012 makes more sense than the discredited, delusional and contradictory documents above indicating survival until the next day.

Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital is unable to say with any degree of clarity when Jed died, not even what day it was.

Incredibly the RCVS still claims that it has refuted and consequently rejected my complaints saying as above that … we see nothing to justify sending back to the PIC (Preliminary Investigation Committee) to consider further and our previous decision remains. Not one iota, not one shred of evidence has been provided by RCVS for making that statement and therefore RCVS has not in any way refuted my version. My version still centres on information and misinformation which has been taken from Liverpool University's own documents.

                                                                                -------------------------

Mr Christopher Murdoch RCVS Professional Conduct Officer.



Information was also provided Mr Murdoch as follows; in his letter 1st June 2012 (A33) Mr Murdoch stated……."we do not consider that these provide substantive evidence of an attempt to mislead you, because we do not consider it has been established from the invoice and/or the care sheets that Jed did not receive 45mg of phenabarbitone every 12 hours”.

However upon reading the care sheets and invoice Mr Murdoch would have seen that only 120mg of Phenobarbital (known on the street as "feenies", "pheenos" or "phennies") was prescribed and dispensed on 31 January 2012, this being enough only for one dose at 2000 on 31 January 2012 and for one dose at 0800 on 1st February. There was not enough for the following dose at 2000 or the dose at 0800 on 2 February. The Clinical Records (B1/B2) detailing the administration of medications confirms this.

Therefore Mr Murdoch has indubitably established that Jed did not receive 45mg of phenabarbitone every 12 hours and Mr Murdoch has explicitly proven that substantive evidence of an attempt to mislead me has been established. Furthermore, Mr Murdoch confirms that he sought advice from a senior veterinary surgeon attached to the PIC and therefore this senior veterinary surgeon is involved in the corollary that substantive evidence of serious professional misconduct has been established. It is strange that when I first raised this implicit corollary in his letter of 14 July 2012, despite reminders from me, RCVS declined to answer this very significant evidence provided in its own letters. Why? Because it is irrefutable. It would be very interesting to know the identity of this mysterious "senior veterinary surgeon" attached to the PIC.

Aran Mas prescribed Jed's medication. According to her Jed died at 1710 on 1st February 2012. Again, how prescient of Aran Mas to know that Jed would not need his 2000 dose of phenabarbitone on 1st February or his dose at 0800 the following morning 2nd February 2012.

Moreover, Jed's previously prescribed medication"Aktivait" was not administered at all. This was originally prescribed by Jed's local vet for the onset of senile dementia but Aran Mas failed to prescribe it at the hospital. The Clinical Record B1/B2 (detailing the administration of medications) confirms that Jed's medication was not properly prescribed or administered. 

 In 2013 and in response to documents totalling 13 pages of evidence and comments sent to Mr Nick Stace (Chief Executive of the RCS and Secretary on the Governing Board of Trustees) including one document entitled........ "Liverpool University's Concept of Intensive Care at Small Animal Teaching Hospital (1st -2nd February 2012)".........Mr Stace described the contents as substantive.  

                                                                           ------------------------------


Intimidation and Bullying by Liverpool University.

On 3 April 2012 the Clinical Services Manager Mr Philip Wood finally sent me a bundle of documents purporting to be a full copy of Jed's history stating....... "Please find enclosed copies of all documents and clinical records relating to Jed's treatment". Subsequently at various times it was necessary for me to query if indeed all of Jed's history had been sent to me on 3 April 2012 and I received the following replies from senior hospital administrators;

 30 May 2012, Philip Wood again wrote........ "I have already sent copies of all hospitalisation sheets and other documentation relating to Jed’s case, the document dated 3rd Feb is the summary prepared by the senior clinician on duty after discussion with all out of hours staff and you have received copies of all available paperwork".  

 23 July 2012, Liverpool University's Senior Hospital Administrator Mr Sam Kennedy (FCIPD) wrote... "I have looked at the previous communications between yourself and the hospital and it is my understanding that you have received all of the hospitalisation sheets and documentation relating to Jed’s case, including the summary prepared by the senior clinician. I agree with my Mr Wood’s findings and concur with him in that I have nothing further to provide you with".

 25 July 2012, Mr Sam Kennedy wrote again........"Having now looked at all the information at our disposal, there is clearly nothing I can say to convince you that Jed was treated in a proper manner whilst in our care, in spite of providing a full account and a copy of all of our records".  NB Please note the word "all" is underlined.

However, in direct contradiction, in November 2012 I was made aware by a third party that a clinical document, the phenobarbital and potassium bromide combined test results (PPBR report), was not in the bundle of documents sent to me on 3 April 2012. Nor was it in bundle A31. I subsequently obtained it from Sam Kennedy

And again in direct contradiction, on 27 March 2013 I was made aware by a third party of the existence of very significant clinical documents, the Submission Form (A8) from Liverpool to Bridge Pathology (A8), and the resulting Histopathology Report from Bridge Pathology (A8), which were also not in the above bundle sent by Liverpool to me on 3 April 2012.  

 On 23 April 2013 Professor Blackwood emailed me, excerpts as follows ……………….."Please do not email our staff for further information - there is none available"…………and…………."We have nothing more to add…………and….. We have supplied all the notes in relation to Jed".

On 5th August 2013, in an effort to acquire a neurologist's report, (please see report by Mr G Skerritt FRCVS independent veterinary expert's report paragraph 1.6) I emailed (A23) three of Liverpool's neurologists.

On 8 August 2013 Professor Blackwood's replying email (A34) to my A23 stated …..As we have already pointed out to you on a number of occassions, there are no clinical notes for Jed that have not already been copied to you……nothing to add to our previous correspondence & consider the matter closed…. et al. Please do not email our staff for further information- there is none available.

(It was only on 9 August 2013 that page 4 of A3 (Jed's History & Clinical Examination Sheet) was received from Liverpool. I hadn't even been aware that such a page existed and it hadn't been sent in either A31, or the bundle of documents from Liverpool in April 2012)

On 9 September 2013 another reply to my above email (A23) came from Liverpool University's Director of Legal, Risk and Compliance Mr K Ryan who stated in his letter (A24) ………"I have reviewed all correspondence and am confident that the university has provided a comprehensive written record"……. and that such communications…."may amount to an unreasonable course of conduct for the purposes of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 and as such attract both criminal and civil penalties. For the avoidance of doubt, if these types of communications persist the university is willing to consider all available options".........  

On 1st October 2013 I emailed (A25) Ms S Costello, Director of Human Resources at Liverpool University making a formal complaint and asking for an explanation as to why her two colleagues (Mr Kennedy & Mr Wood) incorrectly wrote that all of Jed's clinical history had been sent to me. Ms Costello replied that she would pass the matter on to the Institute Manager, Gloria Latham, who would arrange for my complaint to be investigated. On 21 October, having not heard from Ms Latham, I emailed Ms Costello again and the following day a reply was received from Ms Costello's PA saying she had passed the matter to Ms Latham for her kind attention. I have detailed this so that it can be seen that at least there are two good people at Liverpool University, who were prepared to (as Prime Minister David Cameron is repeatedly saying), "do the right thing" and were in favor of an investigation. Big respect to them! It was brave of them and very, very heartwarming to me.

However, I then had a letter (A27) 25 October 2013 from Mr K Ryan above who wrote…..….. I am instructed that despite receiving my letter dated 9th September 2013 ……… you have continued to contact the University regarding this matter.  In particular, I am instructed that you have contacted our HR Director, Carol Costello with a formal complaint. As you are aware I am satisfied that the university has discharged its obligations to you relating to this matter. The university now considers this matter closed and I have advised my colleagues Carol Costello and Gloria Latham not to investigate this matter further. I am now considering the university's position regarding legal proceedings against you. Finally for the avoidance of any doubt please note that the university will not respond to any further correspondence on this matter.

My reply on 28 Oct 2013 (A47), which was copied to Mrs E Ferguson Head of Professional Conduct, is too long to show here. However I copy below a few sections; ……
1) ………Nor did I mention Mrs Zerelda Wustefeld-Janssens' Facebook……..……take place before or after she apparently operated on Jed, and apparently outside her area of expertise? Perhaps I should have brought the above to the attention of the RCVS prior to June 2013?.....et al
2) …….. the RCVS decision is irrelevant because this body will only investigate serious professional misconduct i.e. conduct that can result in a vet losing their job, hence the comment by a member of the RCVS that "nobody is losing their job over this". Therefore, as a client of your hospital it remains my duty to investigate a) neglect and b) "conduct of a discreditable nature"…….
et al


As above please see the following articles regarding expertise taken from the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct;
1.4 The referring veterinary surgeon has a responsibility to ensure that the client is made aware of the level of expertise of appropriate and reasonably available referral veterinary surgeons, for example, whether they are RCVS Recognised Specialists, European specialists or certificate holders.
2.1 Clients are entitled to have their animals housed in a comfortable environment, monitored and treated by day and night, as appropriate to the animal's condition, by persons with the requisite knowledge and expertise.
3.5 Veterinary surgeons must not hold out themselves, or others, as having expertise they cannot substantiate, or call themselves or others a ‘specialist’ or similar, where to do so would be misleading or misrepresentative.
23.4 Veterinary surgeons must not hold out themselves or others as having expertise they cannot substantiate, or call themselves or others a ‘specialist’ or similar, where to do so would be misleading or misrepresentative.

17.1b Veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who knowingly or carelessly permit anyone to practise veterinary surgery illegally may be liable to a charge of serious professional misconduct.
Neither Mr Ryan nor Mrs Ferguson replied to A47 above.


However Mr Ryan did write on 8 September 2014, trying to bully me into disabling Jed's website by issuing very specific distressing threats, as detailed below.

In March 2014 it was discovered that another significant document, Jed's X-Rays, charged for in the hospital's invoice, was not in the bundle of 3 April 2012 from Liverpool University, nor were they in the PDF bundle (A31) from RCVS, both bundles purporting to be a full copy of Jed's medical history.    

RCVS Advice note 3 Para 5 states that…….. if a veterinary surgeon misleads a client about what happened this could amount to serious professional misconduct.  

RCVS Advice note 3 Para 3 also states that….. examples of serious professional misconduct are false certification, dishonesty and fraud.

Part 2 of RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct states …… It follows that the utmost care is essential in writing case notes or recording a client's personal details to ensure that the latter are accurate (particularly in relation to financial details) and that the notes are comprehensible and legible"…..and ……. At the request of a client veterinary surgeons must provide copies of any relevant clinical records….and…. The veterinary surgeon/client relationship is founded on trust.

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Code of Professional Conduct, Clinical Governance (Animal safety) Article 6.3.a.i states  "In case of any critical event eg unexpected medical or surgical complications, serious complaint, accident or anaesthetic death, hold a noblame meeting of all staff involved as soon as possible after the incident and record all the details".
I have no evidence of this record and neither was there such a document recording this "noblame" meeting included in the PDF (A31) bundle from RCVS. Was there such a meeting? If not then Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital again contravened the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct. If there was a meeting where is the record?


On 8 September 2014,  Mr Ryan wrote again (unfortunately quoting a pornographic website) and demanding that I remove or disable access to the website immediately and provide a signed undertaking not to repeat the comments relating to the university in any medium …… and  …..Provided you agree with the above no further action will be taken……..We require your response by 4pm 22 Sep 2014 …….Once we have your agreement we will send a written undertaking for you for signing………..If this agreement is not received….    the university reserves the right to issue proceedings……..the remedies that may be available to the university include an injunction…….damages, legal costs and interest. In the meantime the university reserves all of its rights in this matter……

Jed's website remains open and payment has recently been made to maintain it until 2021.

What remains quite incredible is the preference of Liverpool University to threaten, to intimidate and to attempt to bully me over the contents of Jed's website yet Liverpool University has notably failed to chase me for the payment of their invoice for £2925.49 dated 8 February 2012.  
                                                                                         ------------------------

The shoddy and inferior RCVS investigation.

Apart from the fact that the hospital staff's repeated avowals of having sent all of Jed's clinical history are irrefutably wrong, on 25 July 2012 Sam Kennedy, Senior Hospital Administrator of Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital, had written that the RCVS was......"currently undertaking an investigation of the matter".

The discovery of the existence of the Histopathology report (A8) in March 2013 prompted me to conduct a partial audit of the PDF bundle (A31) sent to me on 8 November 2012 by Ms Aideen Neylon, Solicitor, Professional Conduct Department, RCVS purporting to be a copy of the clinical history of Jed. However, the partial audit revealed that four very significant clinical documents were not in this bundle i.e. the Submission Form to Bridge Pathology (A8) and Histopathology Report from Bridge Pathology (A8), the Laparotomy Surgical Procedure Report (A7) and the Laparotomy Planned Procedure document (B7). Neither were Jed's X-Rays, of which I still await a copy, and there was only one Consent Form. Also as well as a complete copy of the discredited B5 there is an additional part copy which cuts off immediately after the entry at 2200, so significantly there are two different B5 documents. Who is misleading whom? Furthermore, what appears to be the same Veterinary Laboratory Report, Konelab Pathology report and Haematology reports are each copied some 4 -5 times, and, the Referral/Advice Form has been copied twice. This would appear to double the size of the bundle, to "bulk out" bundle (A31).

It is reasonable to believe therefore, that in the investigation by the RCVS on 25 July 2012, which also involved the meeting on 17 August 2012, very significant documents were not available for the consideration/deliberations of the investigators. And it follows that the investigators report to the PIC would not have taken these documents into account.

Subsequently Mr Hepper & Ms Mosedale did submit an inaccurate report dated 20 August 2012 to the PIC. For example their report stated. ….. "Mr Hughes thinksthat the interns on that night made a conscious decision not to monitor Jed"…..et al. However, Professor Blackwood's letter of 21 February 2012 (B6), and, the Hospitalisation Record (B5) confirms that a deliberate decision not to monitor Jed was taken between 2100 and 2130 on 1 February 2012, the time of day when Jed was entering the period when his epileptic fits occurred. (Jed never had a daytime fit). Furthermore, and as proven in B5, the Intensive Care Unit was left totally unattended for recurring periods of 15 minutes. Further proof of this risky, disgraceful and uncaring act is given in Professor Blackwood's letter B6 which states…." Jude then stayed in ICU until approximately 11pm when she went back to the ward area with Sarah to perform some duties there: between 11 and 12.00 she returned several times to ICU to visually check all the patients …et al.

Furthermore in the meeting 17 August 2012 with Mrs Mosedale and Mr Hepper, Mrs Mosedale said that it was certain that a risk assessment had been done. Well where is it? I don't have one and neither RCVS or Liverpool have ever provided me with one. So I am also entitled to ask did the report to the PIC erroneously state that a risk assessment had been written and acted upon?

Moreover the above indicates that Mr Hepper & Ms Mosedale appeared not to have read significant documentation prior to our meeting on 17 August 2012 above and before writing and submitting their erroneous and therefore invalid report 20 August 2012. And at the above meeting, after Mr Hepper had virtually barged into my house as if he was on a police raid, within a few minutes of being invited to sit down, and virtually before the meeting had started, he opined to the effect that…. “people aren’t losing their jobs over this” and “all those years of study” with a very huffy demeanour. I was shocked. And when I said that I wanted to bring a letter to their attention it was suddenly time for Mr Hepper to get his train back to London. With regard to their report of this above meeting to the PIC I questioned its accuracy in my email (A42) to Ms Neylon of 8 October 2012 and placed on record that I did not agree with much of its contents, following it up with mine (A45) of 22 October 2012 explaining why.

I feel entitled to ask, if the PIC had knowledge of all the evidence within this document, above and below, would they have come to a far different conclusion and refrained from its insulting and distressing comment that .......... "The Committee (PIC) wished to note that it refutes your version of events entirely"........... I believe it would have had to do so, and, that the investigation was either such an absolute sham or so grossly inefficient that the investigation itself should be investigated as an issue of pure carelessness and/or  misconduct, by an authority other than RCVS. And it does make me wonder how many other shoddy and inferior investigations there have been?

Astonishingly in an email 8 November 2012 (A32) from the above Ms Neylon she states that "We do not agree with your comments that the investigator's report is inaccurate".

Again it is quite beyond belief that the hospital Director Professor L Blackwood could state in her letter 26 March 2013 (A19) written specifically for the deliberations of the PIC …..... "I would like to state that I have no reason to suspect that any member of staff has attempted to alter Jed’s medical records or that they have been altered or adulterated. In addition there has been no attempt at any time to obfuscate Mr Hughes’ concerns".  

But it's no stranger than writing in her letter to me of 21 February 2012 (B6)…….Staff also have a heightened awareness to change in patients in the ICU…   and….."and you have assumed that between any times given that Jed was not observed or monitored". Flippant remarks from a very senior person. The credibility of Professor Blackwood is reduced to zero. According to her own letter B6 above, it is irrefutable that Jed was not observed, not monitored, and ICU itself REGULARLY UNATTENDED. No wonder there are so many contradictions in her staff's documents, it does seem that contradictions cascade from the very top of Liverpool University Small Animals Teaching Hospital.

                                                                                     ---------------------------------

Misconduct In Public Office.

Unfortunately, like the House of Lords, RCVS is undemocratic, is not answerable to the people of the UK; the ordinary person having no recourse whatsoever apart from the right to challenge RCVS very expensively in court. Without an effective opposition it has become complacent, arrogant and corrupt. However there is one other possibility of obtaining redress but which pertains only if RCVS is considered to be a "public office" e.g. like a  police authority.

On April 16 2013 the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (Lord Justice Leveson, Mr Justice Mitting and Mr Justice Males) held that "an office was a public office if its nature involved a public duty which represented the fulfilment of one of the responsibilities of government".

Lord Justice Leveson, Mr Justice Mitting and Mr Justice Males continued by saying…The test related to the nature of the duty undertaken and, in particular, whether it was a public duty in the sense that it represented the fulfilment of one of the responsibilities of government such that the public had a significant interest its discharge extending beyond an interest in anyone who might be directly affected by a serious failure in the performance of the duty.

1) As above the RCVS takes the role that parliament takes for voters and is the statutory authority on the care of animals. Therefore the duty RCVS undertakes is …..  a public duty in the sense that it represented the fulfilment of one of the responsibilities of government.

2) In 2013 it was estimated that 13 million (45% of) households have pets, and in addition 875 UK citizens have signed an appropriate epetition….. ….http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62603. So clearly the public has a significant interest its discharge extending beyond an interest in anyone who might be directly affected by a serious failure in the performance of the duty.


Furthermore RCVS states in its Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons…….."The RCVS regulates veterinary surgeons in accordance with the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, to protect the public interest and to safeguard animal health and welfare". In fact the public interest is mentioned approximately 40 times in the above Code.

Therefore the role of the RCVS and its autonomous PIC fulfils the definition of being a public office, and, the test referred to above is satisfied.

To date I have not been successful going down this avenue of obtaining justice. However with the recent new evidence that has come to light, including the flagrant contraventions of RCVS' own Codes of Professional Conduct which were only brought to my attention some two months ago and are now incorporated in this document, I feel justified in placing this document in the hands of the relevant authorities. As it's the Professional Conduct Department, (the department of the RCVS whose job it is to deal with complaints) that has condoned the flagrant contravention of its very own Codes of Professional Conduct and thereby committed a most grievous misdemeanour, it certainly would not be fitting for them to be involved, other than as the accused.

                                                                                           -----------------------------

Unwise and unprofessional actions of Ms Aran Mas Badia.

Notwithstanding the importance of the evidence above, I was not informed, and if I had known that Jed was being placed in the hands of unsupervised inexperienced interns who are there for just one year, I would not have gone anywhere near that hospital, in the same way that, if I had known how Aran Mas would respond to my questions the morning Jed died (Aran Mas' excuse, when I spoke to her on the morning of Jed's death, was the repeated comment...... "I wasn't there",…. "I wasn't there" ...... and advertised herself on Facebook, I would never have gone anywhere near that place.


 Ms Aran Mas Badia, DVM MRCVS Clinician Teacher in Oncology at Liverpool University proudly displayed on her Facebook page. ....  “ I say i’m only having a few, and then get absolutely WANKERED! …………… “it’s for those nights where everyone blags you to go out and you give in and say your having a few next thing you know your stumbling through your house at 4 in the morning absolutely WANKERED! Good Times!”  

   …"I say i'm only having a few, and then get absolutely WANKERED!, Introduce un tenedor en un enchufe y sabras quien visita tu perfil, Llegar a una fiesta como Audrey Hepburn y acabarla como Courtney Love, Poner a parir a alguien y terminar diciendo "no, pero es majo", A mí también se me escapa la risa en los momentos serios, Anda! mira es flexible!!!!! Crac! anda pos no., ¿Qué está más lejos, "el quinto coño", o "a tomar por culo"?

Please get your own translation from the Spanish, although, as Aran Mas is Catalan it may be in that language.

It is no wonder Aran Mas "wasn't there" when I spoke to her the day Jed died, nor was Aran Mas up to it when, as her superiors contentiously insist, she wrote the delusive document (B5), nor when she wrote in her undated letter (A6) that Jed had surgery on 1 December, and I am reasonably obliged to ask was Aran Mas fit enough to make decisions and operate on Jed on 1 February 2012? Aran Mas is/was employed at Anderson Moores veterinary surgery in Winchester after leaving Liverpool.

{Addendum 9 May 2014). In my initial complaints I declined to mention to the RCVS the details above that Aran Mas so proudly revealed in Spanish/Catalan on her Facebook page}.

RCVS did accept that using inappropriate language on social media websites such as Facebook is inappropriate and that this has been dealt with by way of advice to Ms Mas Badia.
                                                                       ----------------------------------                                                                        


In response to new evidence supplied to RCVS in a three page letter 21 May 2015; RCVS responded on 8 June 2015 as follows….. We confirm that we have received copies of your recent correspondence……et al….. We have also made arrangements for your file to be recovered from our storage archives. We will get back to you in due course.


On 19 October 2015 Mrs E Ferguson, Head of Professional Conduct, RCVS wrote…we see nothing to justify sending back to the PIC (Preliminary Investigation Committee) to consider further and our previous decision remains.

Clearly then the  Professional Conduct Department RCVS doesn't seem to be appalled, sickened or shocked that, according to Liverpool University's clinical document B3/B4, Jed had his stomach/bowel gashed open for a bowel operation, (a Laparotomy), an excruciatingly painful and serious operation, without being anaesthetised. And RCVS Professional Conduct Department continues to ignore that virtually every person of note in previous pages above is connected to statements and/or documents which are so very contentious and contradictory that they are not worth the paper they are written on. Furthermore it seems strange that it took them five months to decide that the contents of the above letter 21 May 2015 (integrated in this document) was of no value and so overall I take the view that the statement " arrangements for your file to be recovered from our storage archives" was not made with honest intent and was either a PR stunt or a deliberate deception.   

I was totally unsurprised because, in the five months of waiting for their reply, RCVS Professional Conduct Department had not asked me to substantiate any of my allegations. Indeed I had fully expected this because as detailed in Page 3, in 2014 the government stepped in and barred the RCVS from allowing its own council members to be part of these two statutory committees, thus making these committees more professional and more independent of the influence of vested interests.

Mrs E Ferguson's above letter 19 Oct 2015 also failed to make any comment on the appalling practice of leaving critically ill pets unattended in ICU's and the epetition http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62603 signed by 875 UK citizens. So this cruel, reprehensible and inexcusable practice is still permitted by RCVS, the statutory body which claims to set, uphold and advance standards for veterinarians in the UK but apparently is not all that concerned about standards for our critically sick pets in Intensive Care Units, preferring to leave them defenceless in their hours of greatest need, or at flagrantly contravening its own Codes of Professional Conduct. By upholding this practice and by contravening its own Codes of Professional Conduct the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has lost the moral right and the professional obligation to carry the immense responsibility of setting standards, especially standards of care. I doubt if anyone at RCVS or Liverpool University has even heard of a Care Plan, one of the most important and basic document in any care establishment, because I certainly didn't get one from Liverpool University Small Animal Teaching Hospital or RCVS.

Ultimately it should be about "Caring"; not about "all those years of study".


========================

Not strange then that since 19/20th December Facebook informs me that…… We’ve detected suspicious activity on your Facebook account and have temporarily locked it as a security precaution. I await the resolution of this unfortunate position so that the principle of speaking the truth freely can be re-established and contact can be maintained with the 875 people who signed the above government epetition.

This page, along with Page 3, replaces the page 2 rushed out when my Facebook account was locked.

I salute all our adorable furry companions. We are so indebted to them. God bless them all. I do believe that, all that we have loved and been loved by in return, we will meet again. xxx

======================


9 February 2016................ It is inconceivable that staff of the Professional Conduct Department, and, anyone with the letters MRCVS after their name, were not aware of the content of their statutory institution's Code of Professional Conduct. As what seems to be flagrant contraventions of RCVS' own Codes of Professional Conduct have occurred, and been condoned by RCVS, these very significant developments are fully deserving of emphatic attention, and so as from today, and for ease of reference, where possible these seemingly flagrant contraventions, which were brought to my attention only in late December 2015, will be emphasised, and, in this colour font of purple.

This would seem to be an appropriate time for some individuals to reflect on the Declaration on admission to their industry i.e.

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. For this reason, on admission to membership of the RCVS, and in exchange for the right to practise veterinary surgery in the UK, every veterinary surgeon makes a declaration, which, since 1 April 2012, has been:........ "I PROMISE AND SOLEMNLY DECLARE that I will pursue the work of my profession with integrity and accept my responsibilities to the public, my clients, the profession and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and that, ABOVE ALL, my constant endeavour will be to ensure the health and welfare of animals committed to my care."  (NB. NOT my upper case letters).


Addendum 21 March 2016.
Continuity of Care.
It seems strange that after Jed's irrefutable case was unjustifiably and insultingly rejected by the RCVS veterinary elite in June 2013, on 25 July 2014 the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, Section 2.Veterinary Care was amended to exclude the imperative articles 2.7 and 2.8 above, thus from that latter date eliminating the right of animal guardians to make allegations/claims of veterinary misconduct/negligence under those articles e.g. allegations of hospitalised sick animals being abandoned,  whether they are in Intensive Care or not. Since 25 July 2014 the welfare of sick animals has been forever deprived of the protection of articles 2.7 and 2.8.

Aside from that scandalous and shameful abolition, the abolition of these articles coincidentally reduced veterinarian's labour costs, thus increasing their profits, whilst negatively affecting the Continuity of Care of sick animals.

True Continuity of Care is now so diluted as to be negligible; whilst veterinarian's profits can soar, vested interests profit at the expense of animal welfare.

A response is awaited from RCVS to email of 14 March 2016 asking why these critical articles 2.7 and 2.8 have been abolished. 

                                                                                        ----------------------------
There seems to have been contraventions of the RCVS' Code of Professional Conduct by personnel in the Professional Conduct Department (PCD), not least a contravention of the above statement by Mr B Jennings, Chairman of RCVS' Disciplinary Committee.

In any organisation, statutory or otherwise, Mr Jennings statement would have set a clear and binding precedent and a moral imperative. But today RCVS prefers to ignore these precedents, demonstrating only too clearly the abysmal depths to which the RCVS' PCD (and therefore the RCVS) has descended to since 2007. Furthermore, as a severe penalty would be applied to a veterinary surgeon for this contravention of their own Code of Professional Conduct, is it not fair to say that, for personnel in the PCD to deliberately ignore such a severe contravention, then a more than severe penalty should be applied to PCD personnel?
As well as being a case of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect by some PCD personnel it could and should warrant an investigation by other authorities with responsibilities for the public good/interest. The old adage raises itself yet again…. "Who guards the (self regulating) guardians"? As does the adage ...... "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".


With regard to Defra's  consultation on changing the constitution of the Council of the RCVS it is noted that there were 52 responses, most of which were from people engaged in the veterinary industry, and, unsurprisingly most of whom seemed to be in overall favour of Defra's and RCVS' proposal. Match that against the 875 UK citizens who severely condemned RCVS on our epetition https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/62603.  Animal welfare and the public interest have not been served by the consultation.

                                                                         ==========================




                           Facebook.........   Ronald Hughes
                           Twitter:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,   @sjhugdotcom

                           LinkedIn..............Ronald Hughes

                           email …. companionanimals@hotmail.co.uk

The Unacceptable Face of Self Regulation in the UK.

UK's Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Loses Moral Right To Set & Regulate Standards of Care.