The High Court has decreed a reduction in a veterinary practitioner’s two-month suspension, citing it as excessively stringent. The censure, initially imposed on a Veterinarian over his treatment of a Golden Retriever named Alfie, was reduced by half by Mr Justice Mícheál P O’Higgins, thus equalling a single month.
The basis of the issue revolved around the fact that the vet, William McCartney, executed a procedure on Alfie’s left leg, despite the original understanding being that his right leg was to be operated on. The decision was made after Mr McCartney, who runs North Dublin Animal Hospital, performed an evaluation on the dog in August 2020. He deemed it in the best interest of Alfie to firstly undergo an operation on the left leg, with a consequent one on the right leg scheduled for a later date.
Sadly, these plans were not communicated to Alfie’s owner prior to the surgery. After the completion of the operation, Mr McCartney had to leave due to an urgent family medical situation. Consequently, Alfie’s owner, upon collection of her pet, was under assumption that the operation had been conducted on the incorrect leg.
Mr Justice O’Higgins noted in his verdict that Mr McCartney failed to brief a coworker to disclose the change of plans to the owner and neglected to notify her personally. The owner attempted to get answers from the receptionist and an assistant at the clinic, but no one was able to provide an explanation. The vet was unreachable.
The owner mentioned that she, along with her children who were present during the surgery, were immensely shaken by the incident, having assumed a mistake had been made.
The vet admitted to understanding her apprehension, a point which was referred to by the judge. Mr McCartney later reached out to the owner and offered a gesture of goodwill by pledging to not charge for either the previous operation or the impending one on Alfie’s right leg. His offer was turned down. The owner organised for a different vet to perform the operation on Alfie’s right leg which was successful.
A claim was filed with the Veterinary Council of Ireland, the agency overseeing Ireland’s veterinary profession by the owner. The vet accepted his errors but denied any allegations of professional misconduct, and his case was presented before the council’s Fitness to Practice committee.
In his recent ruling, Justice O’Higgins exposed that the council had found experienced veterinary specialist, Mr McCartney, guilty of several charges, including not informing the pet owner of his decision to operate on the left leg prior to surgery, and not seeking the owner’s consent beforehand. However, the council did not believe he had operated on the incorrect leg, nor kept quiet about such an error.
Mr McCartney was thus served a two-month professional suspension but contested the penalty in the High Court, stating it was exceedingly unjust. During his case against the council, he contended they had not considered his understanding of the situation, the fact that Alfie was unharmed, and the necessity of the surgery on the left leg.
Despite his claims, the council insisted on the seriousness of the misconduct and maintained that Mr McCartney had total disregard for the fundamental role a pet owner plays in caring for their animal. Yet, the council’s finding of misconduct was not contested by McCartney.
In considering the circumstances, Justice O’Higgins acknowledged Mr McCartney’s expertise in the field but found it puzzling that he neglected to communicate with the pet’s owner, or even a work colleague, prior to operating on Alfie.
Even so, Justice O’Higgins evaluated that when considering all circumstances, Mr McCartney’s offence fell within the middle range. Factoring in the absence of aggravating circumstances and many points in his favour, the Justice deemed the suspension overly harsh, thus reducing it to one month. Justice O’Higgins concluded that sending the verdict back to the council for further discussion would not be beneficial for anyone involved.