LONDON - “The main message that pet owners and veterinary surgeons should take
home from this evening’s Tonight programme is the importance of communicating
with each other.”

So says RCVS President Jill Nute after watching ITV Tonight presenter
Jonathan Maitland’s report - ‘Pets undercover’ - on the types of treatment
and level of veterinary fees charged by some members of the veterinary
profession.

“There is no National Health Service for animals. Veterinary treatment,
like private medical or non-NHS dental treatment, can sometimes become
expensive, especially in an emergency, so it is vital that vets always tell
their clients the likely cost of treatment as soon as possible, and present a
range of different treatment options.”

This advice mirrors the guidance already set out in the RCVS Guide to
Professional Conduct, by which all veterinary surgeons are expected to abide.

Jill continues, “Equally, clients should always be prepared to ask their
vet about the potential costs of treatment and medicines, and about what
other options there might be. If the client has any concerns, they should
either shop around for better value, or ask for a second opinion.”

Inevitably, although Jill was interviewed by Mr Maitland for over an
hour, less than two minutes was used in the actual broadcast.

Elsewhere in her interview, Jill had agreed that most animal owners were
right to be concerned over whether there was sufficient regulation of
veterinary fees, but maintained that this was largely down to the control of
market forces, not the RCVS.

She had emphasised that the College could step in where high fees might
constitute serious professional misconduct, but cautioned that the Office of
Fair Trading would take a very dim view of a professional regulator
attempting to introduce price-fixing. “This was not in the public’s
interest,” she’d said.

However, Jill had some concern about the way in which the profession had
generally been portrayed in the programme. “In my 39 years of practice, I
seem to have seen a very different side to the profession,” she said.

“In any profession, there will always be a few individuals who give the
rest a bad name, and we do a fair job in investigating the complaints that we
receive about these individuals. However, the vast majority of veterinary
surgeons are honest, caring, conscientious and extremely hard-working
professionals, with their patients’ and clients’ best interests at heart.”

“Mr Abrahams did, however, make some important points about financial
incentives for veterinary surgeons, and this is something that the College
will look at.”

Turning to Tonight’s coverage of the RCVS inquiry into Mr Ranes Sanyal
and the accusation that he should not have been restored to the Register,
Jill emphasised that Mr Sanyal had been found guilty of serious professional
misconduct, and drew Mr Maitland’s attention to the severity of the College’s
original sanction against him, including the acute stigma and severe
financial penalty of being struck off.

Referring to the extra training (particularly in pharmacy and bandaging)
that Mr Sanyal had received since being struck off, Jill said: “He had paid
his penalty, he had shown contrition, and he had also undertaken further
training.

“The DC would not reinstate any veterinary surgeon who they felt was
still a threat to the public.”

Notes to Editors

1.The RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the UK and
deals with issues of professional misconduct, maintaining the register of
veterinary surgeons eligible to practise in the UK and assuring standards of
veterinary education.

2.RCVS disciplinary powers are exercised through the Preliminary
Investigation and Disciplinary Committees, established in accordance with
Schedule 2 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the 1966 Act). The RCVS has
authority to deal with three types of case:

a)Fraudulent registration

b)Criminal convictions

c)Allegations of disgraceful professional conduct

3.The Disciplinary Committee is a constituted judicial tribunal under the
1966 Act and follows rules of evidence similar to those used in a court of
law.

4.The burden of proving an allegation falls upon the RCVS, and the RCVS
must prove to the standard that the Committee is sure.

5.Further information about the Disciplinary Committee Inquiry into Mr
Ranes Sanyal can be found via www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

Source: Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

Ian Holloway, Senior Communications Officer, Tel: +44-(0)20-7202-0727, email: i.holloway at rcvs.org.uk