Stamford Horses.

kerilli

kerilli

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 April 2002
Messages
27,417
Location
Lovely Northamptonshire again!
Visit site
I have finally received an email in response to my query about the Internal Investigation into the matter by the Veterinary Practice which employs the vet who said that the Stamford horses were "fine" (and afaik refused to go out to attend them the night their emaciated condition was reported on here, etc etc.)
The email says:

Thank you for letting me know how the horses are doing, its good to hear that they are thriving.
The matter was discussed at length in the practice with the vets involved and our concerns expressed. In defence of our vets, It turns out that the situation was further complicated by the RSPCA’s objectives at the time. Full clinical examination of these horses, inspite of their obvious poor condition, was normal and no systemic disease was present. However as a practice we do fully appreciate that this condition score is unacceptable and the confusion that arose on this occasion will not happen again.

At Burghley Horse Trials I finally managed to speak to 1 of their vets, and I stated in my email to him about the Internal Investigation that both horses had a Condition Score of Zero when rescued, and that they are now putting on weight.

So, what does everyone think? Are you satisfied with that response, or do you think the vet who said the horses were okay should be reported to RCVS? Is it the RSPCA's fault that the vet didn't recommend that the horses should be rescued immediately? (i.e. a month before the furore on here led to their rescue.)
Thoughts please, I'm not on a crusade on my own here!
wink.gif
 
I wonder what it is the RSPCA asked the vets to comment on as they seem to suggest there were at least three parametres:
- full clinical examination: normal
- investigation for systemic diseases: normal
- condition score: 0 or at least very, very poor

If the RSPCA asked for the first two, which turned out to be normal, and the vet's report was confined to the top two, this may explain the bizarre outcome.

If the RSPCA asked for a judgement on the condition score (either on its own or in addition to the other examinations) then the vet's response seems unjustified.
 
response sounds like typical management-speak bull! Hope that "our concerns expressed" actually means that someone got a right boll***ing but who knows......

Whatever the situation with the RSPCA the best interests of the horses were clearly NOT uppermost in the mind of the attending vet and I think that some sort of escalation would be warranted.
On the other hand, the RCVS does also seem a little erratic at times and if the vet were to be struck off, I personally would view that as excessive.
So, in short - don't know how I would proceed
confused.gif
 
Do we know that the vet definitely didn't suggest these horses were in a bad way? Was it his/her decision to make or the RSPCA/WHW?
 
My initial response to that is that it is a complete fob off and they are trying to pass the buck to the RSPCA

The very fact that the RSPCA asked a vet to attend suggests that they were concerned about the horses health. They only do this where there are concerns for the horses immediate well being and they want to take the horse into care (in other cases they try and resolve the issues with the owner or get the owner to sign the animals over). They needed the vet to agree that the horses were not healthy. This the vet has not done. Being free of systemic disease and being healthy are not the same and any vet knows that.
Hell, people in concentration camps were free off disease but were they healthy?

I'm sorry but I've looked at it each way and body condition is a factor in health. This vet needs to be investigated, his behaviour caused those animals to continue to suffer.

In my opinion the vet
 
Rubbish reply, but they are going to try and cover their own aren't they
smirk.gif


I do think the RCVS should be involved really.

even if the RSPCA only asked them to check for normal physiological parameters and disease (interesting if v v wormy wouldn't be counted at all disease wise- not sure if they were or not) I cannot believe that any vet could not suggest that those 2 needed removing.
 
slinky it was charlie who phoned the vet that evening (as was her practice) and he said something like iirc oh yes I saw them recently I will probably have to go back out again this week then.
 
"...It turns out that the situation was further complicated by the RSPCA’s objectives at the time. Full clinical examination of these horses, inspite of their obvious poor condition, was normal and no systemic disease was present. However as a practice we do fully appreciate that this condition score is unacceptable and the confusion that arose on this occasion will not happen again"

THE RSPCA'S OBJECTIVES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VETERINARY SURGEON'S OPINION. SURELY IT SHOULD BE THE OTHER WAY ROUND? THE RCVS IS THE REGULATOR OF THE PROFESSION AND SHOULD BE INFORMED. ON THEIR WEBSITE THEIR OBJECTIVES AS A REGULATOR ARE OUTLINED:-

The RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the UK. Its role is:

To safeguard the health and welfare of animals committed to veterinary care through the regulation of the educational, ethical and clinical standards of the veterinary profession, thereby protecting the interests of those dependent on animals and assuring public health.

To act as an impartial source of informed opinion on animal health and welfare issues and their interaction with human health.

THEY SHOULD DEFINATELY BE INFORMED OF THE SITUATION AS THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE CLEARLY FOR!
 
That was a standard reply to try to smooth things over and now they hope you/we will go away.

I honestly think they probably did "express their concerns" to the vet concerned and he probably got some sort of warning internally. However I also think they are trying to brush it under the carpet (I work in the NHS and complaints against doctors are dealt with in exactly the same terms).

I am sure many of us on here would support you if you want to continue to complain. I for one would be happy to offer anything (just not sure what but could all sign a letter or something for the RCVS?)
 
I complained at the time to the RSPCA regarding the length of time it took to get help to these horses and I got this pathetic response:

Thank you for your letter informing us of your concerns relating to media coverage of the Stamford Horses.

The RSPCA had visited these horses on a number of occasions, along with officers from World Horse Welfare. We then arranged for a vet to attend on 14 August 2009 who stated that they were not suffering.

Unfortunately, without a veterinary statement saying the horses were suffering, the RSPCA was unable to remove the horses or take further action.

Another vet since visited the horses and stated that one was suffering.
RSPCA inspectors attended and worked with police on the removal of the animals to a sanctuary where they are being looked after on behalf of the RSPCA.

As this is an ongoing investigation, I am sure you can appreciate that we cannot comment further at this stage.

Thank you again for contacting the Society and for your obvious concern for animal welfare.


Kind regards
RSPCA HQ Advice Team

Sounds like everyone is blaming everyone else
mad.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
The vet concerned said they were old horses and were still standing so didn't think there was a problem. If I remember rightly at the time someone on here spoke to the vet concerned on the phone and he laughed about the horses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh dear
crazy.gif
 
I don't think it is a satisfactory reply at all.

I do think that this is an ethical matter for the vet, even if the horses were clinically free of disease, they had a duty to recommend taking them into care, due to the horrendous condition score.

They have shot themselves in the foot here, as they say in their reply " despite their obvious poor condition". The RCVS themselves quote health, welfare and ethics when vets deal with animals.

I would argue that, the RSPCA would not have contacted a veterinary if they did not think that the horse's welfare was affected, and that the vet who examined the horses, would have been able to see clearly that the animals were in very poor condition, and were suffering from lack of care.

As such, the vet who first attended these horses did not perform his ethical duty to the horses, namely, to remove them into the care of the RSPCA and therefore relieve their suffering. Therefore the RCVS should be taking some action to, at least remind, perhaps retrain, this particular vet in the importance of upholding their code of conduct, and the importance of good animal husbandry and care, to make sure that horses in this condition are not allowed to suffer.
 
That's a really good point f_s, they did admit the horses were in an obviously poor condition, which should have generated a duty on the vet to act regardless of what his client, the RSPCA, had asked for. So even under their own reasoning they did wrong.

Out of interest does anyone know of a code of ethics for vets? I remember a couple of years ago doing some research on the possibility of setting up an MA in the ethics of veterinary science, but could not find much evidence of professional interest (I don't mean that individual vets are not ethical, rather that the professional, on a formal level, is not particularly interested in ethics). A friend of mine who is a vet suggested that the advice they get from the Royal College is to do whatever the client asks for not what is in the best interests of the animal, but not sure if that is everyone's experience.
 
[ QUOTE ]
In defence of our vets, It turns out that the situation was further complicated by the RSPCA’s objectives at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that a vet's professional opinion will overwrite any 'objective' a welfare organisation may have. So the conclussion I have to come to is that the vet saw nothing to concern or alarm them.

I would say that the condition score of the chestnut was actually in the minus scale - so would say that you've been fobbed off.

It would be most interesting to see what the RCVS makes of the whole thing......
crazy.gif
 
No, not a satisfactory reply at all Kerilli. They do seem to be giving the brush-off! Anything we can do to aid further probing?!!
 
I think it is a terrible response firstly as someone said they will of course try and cover there backs....secondly why try and pass the book to the RSPCA..and thirdly all though free of disease these particular horses were emaciated which we could all see so surely the Vetinary practise should have been able to instigate a rescue plan regardless of RSPCA a rather feeble excuse in my eyes....and imho they should be reported and made to clarify there reasons to the powers that be...
 
What on earth do they mean rspca objectives??? The only objective would be 'would you as the vet support a case of neglect????!!!'

Was this a court shy vet????? If so they should have stated this when the call was first put through to them, not attend and claim a call out fee from the rspca then not support a case!! If they'd have expressed their concerns about cases on first contact, another vet could have been called!!!
 
Sounds like there trying to brush you off!

its unlikely that a vet would be struck off for such conduct(actually striking off is very rare) but they could suspended from duty....however vets have been struck off in the past for refusing to attend cases as they compromised the animals welfare.

Personally i think this is the sort of case that needs reporting to the RCVS.
The vets duty of care is at the end of the day towards the animals welfare not the owner and there are times when the profession needs reminding of that fact...
If nothing else a RCVS investigation on a failure to account for the welfare of animal might be enough to make another vet rethink their next decision or stand up to an owner and use the fact that its a professionally inforced standard to back themselves up.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS OATH

In as much as the privilege of membership

of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

is about to be conferred upon me.

I promise and solemnly declare

that I will abide in all due loyalty

to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons,

and will do all in my power

to maintain and promote its interests.


I promise above all

that I will pursue the work of my profession

with uprightness of conduct,

and that my constant endeavour

will be to ensure the welfare of animals

committed to my care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top