1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap. 529 (the “Ordinance”), the Veterinary Surgeons Board referred a complaint alleging a disciplinary offence on the part of a registered veterinary surgeon to an inquiry committee for decision. The inquiry committee subsequently met on 2 November 2000 to hear the complaint.

2. The veterinary surgeon had been charged with an offence alleging misconduct or neglect in a professional respect by failing promptly to notify the owner of the death of a cat following post-surgical treatment. The cat had been returned to the veterinary surgeon's care two days after having undergone a surgical operation. It died the same evening, at 9:30 p.m. The owner was not informed of the death until the next day, at about 10:30 a.m. There were methods available to enable the veterinary surgeon to contact the complainant at an earlier stage, in the evening, but he had considered it more appropriate and less distressing to the owner to delay the information until the next day. The committee found that in all the circumstances of the case it was not wrong for the veterinary surgeon to delay reporting the death and dismissed the charge.

3. The committee was satisfied that owners of pets must be informed of the death of the pets in a timely manner. However it noted that there were no guidelines, written or otherwise, as to when such communications must be made. The expectations of the public, and of registered veterinary surgeons themselves, may vary. The committee therefore made a recommendation to the Board that consideration be given to requiring registered veterinary surgeons to obtain instructions in advance from a client who leaves a pet with them as to the manner and timing of any communication to the client.

4. The Board considered the recommendation made by the inquiry committee at its meeting held on 3 November 2000. After careful consideration, the Board decided that the inquiry committee's recommendation should be adopted and that with immediate effect, the following guideline would be promulgated for observance by registered veterinary surgeons –

   “A registered veterinary surgeon should obtain instructions in advance from his/her client who leaves an animal with him/her regarding the timing and manner of any communication with his/her client as to the occurrence of any emergencies including serious complications or death of the animal, etc.”

5. Registered veterinary surgeons are advised to observe the above guideline. The Board's Code of Practice for the Guidance of Registered Veterinary Surgeons will be suitably amended to incorporate this guideline in due course

1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap. 529, the Veterinary Surgeons Board referred a complaint alleging a disciplinary offence on the part of a registered veterinary surgeon to an inquiry committee for decision. The inquiry committee subsequently met on 12 October 2000 and 22 November 2000 to hear the complaint.

2. The veterinary surgeon had been charged with an offence alleging misconduct in a professional respect by hitting a dog on the head several times when examining it in his capacity of a registered veterinary surgeon. The dog was being examined because of an apparent weight loss. There were unsuccessful attempts to weigh the dog and it was after these unsuccessful attempts that the veterinary surgeon was alleged to have hit the dog. The veterinary surgeon agreed that he had slapped the dog once, on its shoulder, to elicit a submissive response. The committee was satisfied that the dog was hit more than once. It was unable to resolve the issue as to the amount of force that was applied and was not satisfied that in this case there was misconduct. The charge was dismissed.

3. The committee stated that a veterinary surgeon must control his patient and may be justified in applying some force to the animal, but any force used must not be excessive. It is not acceptable to cause pain or injury to an animal and veterinary surgeons must approach the application of any force with caution. A single application of force may not be acceptable

4. Registered veterinary surgeons are advised to take note of the views of the inquiry committee (para. 3 above) for observance, where appropriate.

1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap. 529, the Veterinary Surgeons Board had referred a complaint alleging a disciplinary offence on the part of a registered veterinary surgeon to an inquiry committee for decision. The inquiry committee subsequently met on 21 March 2001 to hear the case.

2. The veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence of committing a misconduct in a professional respect by (a) failing to properly advise and refer the owners of an injured dog to seek timely treatment from a better equipped clinic; (b) failing to provide the owners with a written referral letter or to use other means to provide the receiving veterinary surgeon with all pertinent information of the injured dog; and (c) suppressing and/or advising the owners to conceal the fact that the dog had received treatment from him.

3. An injured dog was taken in the late evening to the veterinary surgeon. He treated the dog but then advised the owners to go to another, unspecified, clinic in order to have X-rays because internal bleeding was suspected. The committee heard that the owner had understood from the veterinary surgeon that there was no urgency; and that she was not to tell the receiving surgeon of his treatment.

4. Upon seeking treatment with a second veterinary surgeon, the owner initially denied the earlier treatment. The first veterinary surgeon had also not provided the owner with a referral letter but did respond with details of the treatment, when paged by the receiving veterinary surgeon.

5. The committee found that it was possible that there had been a misunderstanding between the first veterinary surgeon and the owner. It was not satisfied that he had advised the owner to conceal the fact of his treatment. Nevertheless, the committee was of the opinion that a better practice in referring the patient would have been providing a referral letter. The committee dismissed the charges.

1. An inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong after due inquiry held on 19 & 20 June 2001 in accordance with section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, was satisfied that the defendant veterinary surgeon (“Defendant”) had been guilty of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect in that he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, performed a sterilization operation on a female grey and white Persian cat on or about 9 March 2000 at his clinic, which was not up to the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, in particular:

   (a) only about one third of the abdominal muscle wound had been stitched;

   (b) the left ovary had only been partially removed;

   (c) both uterine horns had been inadequately double ligated;

   (d) the right ovarian stump was inadequately ligated; and

   (e) massive abdominal haemorrhage and blood clotting was present.

2. Three witnesses were called to give evidence by the Counsel for the Secretary. A registered veterinary surgeon working for the SPCA (“Dr A”) gave evidence that the cat in question was brought to the SPCA clinic for emergency treatment at 5 a.m. on 10 March 2000 by the owner of a pet shop. The cat was lying on its side, in a lot of pain, pushing its forelegs forward in a circular motion; that it was quite pale. The history that she was given was of the cat having been spayed by the Defendant the previous day at about 2 p.m. and having been returned to him at 11 p.m. because of bleeding. She was informed that the Defendant had surgically explored the abdomen and that he had checked the ligatures.

3. Dr A said that she had checked the CBC; it was normal. There was no blood obtained from an abdominal tap. She put the cat on a drip and gave it analgesics. She replaced its bandage, which was loose, with a tighter body bandage. She handed the cat over to another vet of her organisation (“Dr B”). She explained that she decided not to surgically explore the abdomen in view of the information given to her by the Defendant, including that there had been an exploratory laparotomy earlier; that her concern was that the cat was in shock with low blood pressure; that further anaesthetic at that time could compromise the blood pressure and lead to death.

4. Dr B gave evidence that she examined the cat at 9.30 a.m.; it was brought out from its cage and when the bandage was removed blood came out of the wound. She said that the bandage itself was fairly clean but when the pressure was released the blood came. She therefore surgically explored the abdomen. She stated that only part of the abdominal muscle wound had been stitched; that the left ovary had only been partially removed; both uterine horns had been inadequately double ligated; the right ovarian stump was inadequately ligated; and there was what amounted to massive abdominal haemorrhage and blood clotting. She said there was 80 ml. of blood. She also said that photographs had been taken at the time, which she asserted were photographic representations of what she had seen. The committee decided to allow the photographs to be admitted in evidence.

5. An overseas expert was called to give expert evidence. He opined that the operation was not of a standard to be expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, with inadequate ligation of both uterine stumps and ovarian pedicles, incorrect clamping of the left ovarian pedicle and inadequate closure of the abdominal incision. He also commented on the blood loss, both the amount and the timing. In his opinion the anaesthetics had caused low blood pressure, the anaesthetics would be wearing off resulting in blood being seen at the time of the second operation; that it was probably normal at the time Dr A saw the cat and by the time Dr B saw the cat there was active on-going seepage. He said that it was impossible for the blood to have accumulated from a nicking of a mammary gland's blood vessel.

6. The Defendant described the steps and procedures that he took in the operation; that he had performed the operation correctly. He denied the allegations in the charge. He said that two of his colleagues (“Dr X” and “Dr Y”) were present and observed the operation. In cross examination he said that there was no particular reason for their presence other than that it was their practice to come in and greet each other. He said Dr X was present for about 5 minutes; that he came in when he had already sutured the muscle layer and was starting on the subcutaneous layer; that Dr Y was present for about 10 minutes, coming in when he sutured the muscle layer. He described the return of the cat later that evening at around 11 p.m.; that there was blood seeping from the wound; he applied a half dosage of anaesthetic and cut the stitches of the outer layer. He saw 2-3 cc of blood around the breast part. He applied a bandage to mop the blood and held it there for a minute. There was no more seepage of blood. He said he believed the blood had come from around the mammary gland, so did not cut the stitches in the muscle layer. He resutured the wound and put the cat on a drip. He gave the cat back to the pet shop owner with instructions as to the cat's care.

7. Dr X and Dr Y gave evidence of having been present during the operation. There were some discrepancies between their evidence and that of the Defendant but both gave evidence of being present at a time when the Defendant was suturing the wounds. The pet shop owner gave evidence. He said that he had taken the cat back because there was blood seeping from the abdomen and the Defendant had advised him to bring it back. He said that he was called into the operating theatre to observe the cat. He said that at that time there was not much blood seeping from the wound; that the abdomen was open.

8. There was one matter that the inquiry noted. There was evidence that the cat had been released into the care of a lay person whilst on a drip. The committee was concerned as to this practice and would refer this issue to the Veterinary Surgeons Board for its consideration of issuing an advice as to this practice. The committee did not take this into account in deciding the issues.

9. Whilst the committee accepted that the Defendant perceived that he performed the operation correctly, from what he had presented to the committee by way of his descriptions and diagrams, and his demonstration of surgical knots, even allowing for the difficulties of presenting the situation on paper and the difficulties for the demonstration the committee was satisfied that he did not perform the operation to a standard required of a registered veterinary surgeon.

10. The charge particularised five matters in which it was alleged the operation was not up to the standard expected. In respect of the first matter the committee was satisfied that when Dr B observed the site, there was a gap in the abdominal muscle wound but they were not satisfied that this was because only one-third of the wound had been stitched.

11. The committee accepted that the photographs were an accurate depiction of what was seen and done by Dr B. From the evidence of Dr B, the photographs and the drawings of the Defendant which reflected his lack of knowledge on anatomy and notwithstanding the lack of histology the committee was satisfied that the left ovary had only been partially removed. The committee was satisfied that massive abdominal haemorrhage and blood clotting was present. From Dr B's evidence and the fact that the blood in the abdominal cavity could only come from the surgical sites of the ovaries and the uterine horns with inadequate ligation, the committee was satisfied that both uterine horns had been inadequately double ligated and the right ovarian stump was inadequately ligated. Even if there had been contributory factors, such as a clotting problem, the main factor was inadequate ligation. Dr A had considered whether there was a clotting problem. There was no evidence that there was. The committee was satisfied that the Defendant was guilty of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect.

12. The committee had been urged to consider a lenient disciplinary order; that the cat was still alive, that the cat owner did not complain. The committee put little weight on these matters. The committee was concerned that this was not an isolated incident, it was not a momentary lapse. Rather, from the evidence before them there was a real concern that the Defendant had inadequate surgical skills and was in need of remedial training. The committee had taken into account that there was no facility in Hong Kong where he could obtain such training. However the committee would be failing in their duty to the public to allow him to continue to practise surgery with his present skills. The committee therefore on 20 June 2001 ordered the Secretary to remove the name of the Defendant from the register; that the order would not take effect for the period of 12 months from 20 June 2001; that for that 12-month period the Defendant must not practise surgery; and that within the 12-month period he must produce evidence, to the satisfaction of the Board, that he was competent to practise surgery. If the Defendant failed to produce such evidence, his name would be removed from the register at the end of 12 months. If he practised surgery within the 12-month period, his name would be removed from the register immediately.

1. The defendant veterinary surgeon (“Defendant”) was charged with a charge alleging misconduct in a professional respect, the particulars being that he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, on 2 June 2001, at his clinic, behaved in a disgraceful or dishonourable manner towards the client in relation to her request for the refund of HK$500 deposit.

2. There was little dispute on the basic facts of the events that gave rise to the charge. The complainant's dog had been X-rayed at the Defendant's clinic on 27 May 2001. She had later decided to take the dog to the SPCA for a second opinion and had requested to borrow the two X-ray films. She had been allowed to do so, upon the payment of a deposit of $500. On 2 June 2001 she had returned to the clinic, with the X-ray films, and sought to recover the deposit. She failed to do so, and it was the manner by which the Defendant declined to do so that gave rise to the charge. The Committee's duty was not to determine whether the complainant was entitled to a refund of the deposit but whether the Defendant had behaved in a disgraceful or dishonourable manner towards his client.

3. The complainant gave evidence that she had decided to return the films on her way back from a visit to the SPCA. She handed the films to the receptionists who took them away to the back office. It was not clear whether both the Defendant and the Practice Manager of the clinic came out at the same time, but she was told in the reception area by them that the films had been damaged and the deposit would not be refunded. The films were not produced in evidence, but it seemed to be accepted that marks had been made, possibly by the SPCA vet.

4. After some talk in the reception area, the Defendant and the Practice Manager left and the complainant waited. She said that in this period she telephoned her sister and brother in law asking them to come. Fifteen minutes later she was asked to go into a consultation room where the Defendant and the Practice Manager were. She said that the Defendant's attitude in the room was angry and rude and frightened her. She agreed that he used no obscenities or foul language; that no one prevented her from leaving the room and that there was no physical contact between the staff and her. She said that after looking at the X-rays he thrust the envelope containing them onto her chest; she told him that he was very rude and was not satisfied with his explanation; she said that he then frightened her by trying to pass the Practice Manager to reach her. (The layout of the consultation room was such that the length of the consultation table separated the Defendant and the complainant who were facing each other; the Practice Manager was at the short end of the table.)

   She left the consultation room and was still there when her sister and brother in law arrived. When the Defendant and the Practice Manager were leaving the clinic they stopped the Defendant and attempted to speak to him. Nothing was resolved.

5. The Practice Manager gave evidence. The Committee took into account that he was still employed at the Defendant's hospital. His recollection of the incident was not as clear as that given by the complainant, but it did not appear that he was attempting to tailor his evidence to put the Defendant in a good light. The Committee did accept his evidence as to the layout of the consultation room, in particular as to the location of the second door of that room. This was relevant as to whether the Defendant was intending to approach and threaten complainant, rather than to simply leave the room. He gave evidence that they were in a hurry to get to another clinic at the conclusion of this meeting. (complainant said that she was in the consultation room some 15 to 20 minutes; the Practice Manager said that this was 30 minutes.)

6. The Committee accepted that the complainant was an honest witness, but believed that she may have misinterpreted the Defendant's actions. It appeared to the Committee that the Defendant had been prepared to spend time discussing the matter with the complainant on an unscheduled appointment, but it was also apparent to the Committee that he was in a hurry to meet his commitments at the other clinic. The situation was obviously not resolving itself, and this may have precipitated grievances on the complainant's part that had not been intended or appreciated. The Committee did not find that the charge had been proved and dismissed the complaint.

1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board met on 25 March and 14 May 2002 to hear a complaint. The veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence of committing a misconduct in a professional respect in that she, being a registered veterinary surgeon, during the period from 26 December 2000 to 2 January 2001 at her clinic, in relation to treatment given to the complainant's dog for an injury to its proptosed left eye, failed to provide proper care and treatment for the said dog.

2. The said dog was injured in an accident and, inter alia, had its left eye proptosed. The dog was then taken to the veterinary surgeon concerned for treatment from 26 to 29 December 2000. On each of the 4 days, the treatment given by veterinary surgeon consisted of a physical pushing back of the proptosed eye into the eye socket by simply using lubricants. It was alleged that during this process there was no anaesthetic used, nor was there any lateral canthotomy – a surgical incision in the corner of the eyelids to allow relaxation of the constriction around the base of the proptosed eye so as to replace the eye back into its normal position. On each visit, the veterinary surgeon attempted to replace the proptosed eye into the socket but failed on each occasion. Eventually on 29 December she succeeded in doing so. However subsequently the dog was taken to another clinic and it was discovered that the left eye was already dead and so had to be removed.

3. The case against the veterinary surgeon was that the procedure adopted by her was completely unacceptable, the reason being that the eye itself being a very delicate structure, would not tolerate the pressure required to push the eyeball back into the socket forcefully; that in order to properly replace the eyeball into the socket a surgical procedure is required that would require putting the dog under anaesthesia, either general or local, and then performing lateral canthotomy so as to allow the relaxation of the constriction and to facilitate the easing back of the eye. Furthermore, it was alleged that the delay in that treatment, the replacement of the eyeball into the socket, reduced the chance of recovery of the eye completely; that whenever a proptosed eyeball occurs, it should be immediately replaced since every hour of delay would seriously reduce the chance of recovery; that because of the four days' delay in replacing the eyeball into the socket that had reduced the chances of full recovery to zero.

4. The committee was satisfied that the veterinary surgeon concerned did fail to provide proper care and treatment and that she did not offer the client a lateral canthotomy. On the defendant veterinary surgeon's own evidence, she appeared not to appreciate what a lateral canthotomy entailed, nor did she appear familiar with both the surgical procedure and the medical treatment of the condition. In this regard, the committee considered that that it did amount to neglect in a professional respect. In accordance with section 19(d) of the said Ordinance, the committee ordered on 14 May 2002 that a warning letter would be served on the veterinary surgeon who was also required to undergo 40 hours of continuing professional education which was to be completed within 12 months from 14 May 2002. She must supply proof of having completed such continuing professional education to the Board.

5. In accordance with section 23 of the Ordinance, the veterinary surgeon concerned subsequently filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order of the inquiry committee. However, on 26 March 2003 she abandoned the said appeal.

1. The inquiry committee met on 17 March, 19 June and 4 July 2003 to hear the case in which both the complainant and defendant were registered veterinary surgeons. The defendant veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence of committing a misconduct in a professional respect in that he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, on a date unknown but prior to about 13 June 2001, he

   and that in relation to the facts alleged he had been guilty of misconduct in a professional respect thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance.

2. The defendant veterinary surgeon entered into a franchise agreement with the complainant to run a clinic in November 1998. In June 2001, the former veterinary surgeon opened his own clinic. He was alleged by his previous franchiser to have obtained confidential information, including information relating to the names, contact telephone numbers and addresses of clients, from the previous clinic. The defendant veterinary surgeon was alleged that he had used such kind of information to solicit and/or canvass business from clients of the said clinic.

3. The committee was satisfied that the facts alleged in the charge have been proved, and that they amounted to misconduct in a professional respect. In accordance with section 19(d) of the said Ordinance, the committee ordered on 4 July 2003 that a warning letter be served on the defendant veterinary surgeon.

1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 21-22 October 2003 and 18 November 2003.

2. The veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect by failing to remove completely the ovaries of two dogs referred to him by their respective owners for sterilization operations. The inquiry involved two separate complaints and complainants.

3. The facts of both cases in relation to the charges were the same. Two dogs were sterilized by the defendant in July 2001. After the operations, both dogs still exhibited signs of estrus. The owners took the dogs to another clinic for further examination, and ovarian tissues were found present in the left ovarian stumps of both dogs. Ovarian bursa tissue was also found in the right ovarian stump in one of the dogs. These tissues were then removed by the other veterinary surgeon and the dogs did not have any further signs of estrus. An overseas expert was invited to give expert evidence on the two cases.

4. The Inquiry Committee ruled that given the purpose of sterilization operation was to remove completely the ovaries and the uterus, the non-removal of the ovarian bursa is irrelevant to the propriety of the operation. The overseas expert who attended the inquiry to give evidence also accepted that the presence of the cystic ovarian bursa had no clinical significance. The Inquiry Committee therefore dismissed the part of the charge relating to the presence of ovarian bursa tissue.

5. In deciding whether the subsequent finding of the ovarian tissue in the two dogs was the result of the surgical errors on the part of the defendant, the Inquiry Committee noted both the overseas expert's views that these were remnants of the ovaries which should have been completely removed during the sterilization operations; and the defendant's claim that this could have been the result of the unusual position of the ovary in the case of one of the dogs and the possibility of an accessory ovary in the case of both dogs. After hearing the evidence, the Inquiry Committee accepted that in one of the cases, the position of the ovary of the dog was so unusually close to the kidney that a competent veterinary surgeon exercising proper care could still have left some ovarian tissue in the dog. The Committee therefore could not be satisfied that it was a surgical error on the part of the defendant in that case. For the other case, the Committee noted that there were reported cases in cats, cows and women of accessory ovaries or of ovarian tissue extending into the ligament of the ovary. Although similar cases in dogs had not been reported in those studies, it had not been ruled out, nor was the overseas expert able to deny, that accessory ovaries could exist in dogs. Furthermore, the manifestation of two episodes of estrus within a month, which according to the evidence of the owner of the dog occurred after the sterilization on the dog, tended to reinforce the likelihood of the existence of an accessory ovary. The Inquiry Committee therefore could not be satisfied that the ovarian tissue subsequently found in this dog was the result of a surgical error on the part of the defendant and not the result of the existence of an accessory ovary or ovarian tissue extending into the ligament. In the circumstances, the Committee dismissed the charges in both cases.

1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 6 February 2004 and 12 February 2004.

2. The defendant veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect by failing to provide proper care and treatment for the complainant's rabbit, in particular, (a) failing to diagnose or correctly diagnose the medical conditions of the rabbit; and (b) giving inappropriate treatment and/or failing to give appropriate treatment to the rabbit.

3. The facts of the case were that the owner of the rabbit found that the rabbit had stopped eating. She took the rabbit to the defendant for consultation. The defendant examined the rabbit and gave an injection to the rabbit. He also prescribed medicine to be given to the rabbit at home. Then, the complainant took the rabbit home and gave it the Papaya tablets in accordance with the defendant's instructions but not the other medicine prescribed. That evening the rabbit developed diarrhea and died the next morning. An expert was invited to give expert evidence on the case.

4. There were conflicting accounts of the defendant's diagnosis and treatment given by the complainant and the defendant. According to the complainant, the defendant told her that the rabbit had a heat stroke which affected its digestion. She said that the defendant never mentioned that the rabbit was in a critical condition and never suggested hospitalization or treatment in the form of drip. The defendant, on the other hand, explained in his letter to the Preliminary Investigation Committee in response to the complaint that the rabbit was nearly dead when it was presented for treatment. He also gave evidence in the inquiry that the rabbit was in critical conditions and might not survive.

5. Having considered the evidence, the Inquiry Committee found that the complainant was an honest and reliable witness and accepted her evidence. Her evidence was also corroborated by the medical history recorded in the defendant's medical record. The Inquiry Committee did not accept the defendant's allegation that, despite his diagnosis that the rabbit was critically ill and required hospitalization and treatment on drip, he did not record that finding in the medical record owing to the brevity of time. That allegation was wholly incredible given his recognition that this was a situation which called for detailed records. Furthermore, that allegation was inconsistent with the fact that in the defendant's letter to the complainant earlier he only stated the diagnosis of ileus and bloat, and no mention whatsoever was made about the critical condition of the rabbit nor his suggestion of hospitalization and drip treatment.

6. However, according to the complainant the rabbit was not in a poor condition when it was taken to the clinic for treatment. Even the expert witness was uncertain whether the rabbit was in a critical condition at that time. There was insufficient evidence for the Inquiry Committee to come to the finding that the defendant's diagnosis of bloated stomach, heat stress and maldigestion, as recorded in the medical record, was incorrect. Therefore the allegation in Charge (a) was dismissed.

7. The Inquiry Committee noted that the treatment given by the defendant according to the complainant and the medical record dealt only with the gastro-intestinal problems. It also accepted the expert evidence that the treatment given by the defendant did not deal with the problem of heat stress. The Inquiry Committee was satisfied that in the circumstances of the case fluid therapy was required to be given in the clinic before the rabbit was released. It rejected the defendant's allegation that hospitalization and drip treatment were suggested but refused by the complainant. It was also satisfied that fluid therapy was not given to the rabbit, nor was it suggested to the complainant in the first place.

8. Therefore, the Inquiry Committee was of the view that the treatment given by the defendant had fallen below the standard expected of registered veterinary surgeons and that this amounted to misconduct or neglect in a professional respect. It therefore found the defendant guilty of Charge (b).

9. Having considered the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors advanced by the defendant, the Inquiry Committee ordered that the defendant be reprimanded in writing and that the reprimand be recorded on the register.

1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 18 May 2004.

2. The defendant veterinary surgeon (“Defendant”) was charged with the offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect by, being a registered veterinary surgeon, in or about October and/or November 2002, seeking to acquire an unfair personal advantage over or at the expense of another veterinary surgeon (“Complainant”), in particular, (a) by targeting the Complainant's clients and canvassing business from them by distributing name cards and offering discounts outside the Complainant's clinic; and (b) by advertising through distributing name cards and offering discounts outside the Complainant's clinic. Charge (a) was laid as an alternative to Charge (b). In other words, if there was a finding of guilt on Charge (a), there was no need to move on to consider Charge (b).

3. Both charges were based on the same facts. The case was that the Defendant was an employee at the Complainant's clinic from October 2000 to 31 July 2002. After the Defendant left the employment he opened his own clinic in Hunghom. In around October and November 2002 a lady distributed the Defendant's new name cards showing his new clinic just outside and in close vicinity to the Complainant's clinic. Two clients who went out from the Complainant's clinic testified that when the name cards were handed to them the lady also told them that discounts would be given to clients from the Complainant's clinic. One of these two clients also testified that the lady told her not to attend the Complainant's clinic next time.

4. The evidence of the witnesses was challenged by the Defence on the basis of inconsistency. The Inquiry Committee (“Committee”) was aware of the inconsistencies which in their view did not affect the evidence of the two witnesses. Given the independent status of the witnesses, the Committee saw no reason for them to make up the evidence. Having regard to the standard of proof appropriate to the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the lady did distribute the Defendant's name cards just outside the Complainant's clinic. The Committee was also satisfied that she also told the two witnesses that discounts would be offered to clients from the Complainant's clinic.

5. The Inquiry Committee then had to determine whether the lady did what they found proved at the instigation of the Defendant. The Defendant gave evidence that he specifically told the lady not to distribute the name cards in the vicinity of other veterinary clinics, as he knew it was wrong to do so and was an issue of importance to his profession. The Committee did not accept his evidence, as in none of his two letters to the Preliminary Investigation Committee was this mentioned although he was specifically asked to explain the allegation that he sought to acquire an unfair advantage over the Complainant by distributing name cards and offering discounts outside her clinic.

6. Taking the totality of the evidence into consideration, the Inquiry Committee found as a fact that the distribution of name cards right outside the Complainant's clinic was instigated by the Defendant. The Committee saw no reason at all why the lady worker would go and distribute the name cards in a place which was not within her instructions from the Defendant. The Committee gave the Defendant the benefit of the doubt as to whether he instructed the lady worker to also offer discounts, as the lady might have done so out of her own motivation to do the job. However, the Committee was of the view that he had a duty to take precautions to prevent his lady worker, acting under his instructions, from breaching the relevant principle of acceptable advertising as set out in paragraph 18.2 of the Code of Practice. The Committee was satisfied that he had not taken such precautions.

7. The Inquiry Committee found also that the purpose for instructing the lady worker to distribute name cards just outside the Complainant's clinic was to canvass business from the Complainant's clients. The mere act of distribution of name cards just outside another veterinary clinic was sufficient for the Inquiry Committee to reach a finding of professional misconduct. As such the Committee needed not decide whether the failure to take precautions to prevent the lady worker from offering discounts to these clients would amount to neglect in a professional respect. However, if the Committee was required to do so, it certainly thought that such failure would amount to neglect in a professional respect. The Inquiry Committee therefore found the Defendant guilty of Charge (a). As such the Committee did not make any judgment on Charge (b).

8. Having considered the matters advanced in mitigation and the gravity of the charge, the Inquiry Committee agreed that this was a one-off incident which was unlikely to recur and the case was towards the lower end of the scale. Therefore the Committee ordered that a warning letter be served on the Defendant.

1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 22 – 24 November 2004.

2. The defendant veterinary surgeon (“Defendant”) was charged with the offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect by failing to provide proper care and treatment for the complainant's dog (“the dog”). In particular, she, being a registered veterinary surgeon, during the period between 19 February 2002 and 18 March 2002, in relation to treatment given to the complainant's Pekingnese dog,:

   (a) failed to offer further diagnostic testing and/or pursue differential diagnosis when the dog's medical conditions failed to improve;

   (b) adopted inappropriate treatment methods for the dog in that: (i) by prescribing human cold preparations in the treatment of productive coughing which indicates lower respiratory disease; and (ii) by prescribing dexamethasone in a case where the drug is contra-indicated; and

   (c) compounded different medications together without due or any regard at all to the risk that the efficacy and safety of each of the drugs prescribed might be compromised.

3. The case involved the Defendant's treatment of the complainant's dog during the period from 19 February 2002 to 18 March 2002. The dog was first presented to the Defendant on 19 February 2002 with coughing and nasal discharge. The Defendant made a diagnosis of upper respiratory tract infection. Injections were given and medications prescribed. On 26 February 2002 the dog was brought to the Defendant for further consultation, this time with productive coughing and nasal discharge. The same diagnosis was maintained and further medications, which included dexamethasone, were prescribed. On 14 March 2002 the dog was reported by the owner to be dyspnoeic. The next day it was brought back to the Defendant. The Defendant maintained the same diagnosis of upper respiratory tract infection and explained that the condition was due to constriction of the trachea during recovery. Injections of dexamethasone and an antibiotic were given and similar oral medications were prescribed. Nevertheless, the dog died on 18 March 2002 but the cause of death was not determined.

4. From the Defendant's explanation to the Preliminary Investigation Committee, the Defendant did not dispute what the owner described as to what happened, except that there was some dispute as to whether the dog was dyspnoeic. Two overseas experts were invited to attend the inquiry to give evidence. According to the evidence of the expert in canine medicine, the Defendant should have been alerted to other diagnostic possibilities at the 2nd consultation on 26 February 2002, given that productive coughing was strongly suggestive of lower respiratory tract diseases. Nevertheless the Defendant maintained the diagnosis of upper respiratory tract infection and treated the dog accordingly. During the 3rd consultation on 15 March 2002 the dog was presented with a history of severe coughing since the previous day, and it was obvious that lower respiratory tract infection should be further investigated and examination conducted to question the original diagnosis, given that if it had been a simple upper respiratory tract infection the medication would have been effective and the dog would not have re-presented with the same signs.

5. The expert also testified that the medications prescribed by the Defendant were preparations for human cold, but made into powder form and mixed by the Defendant. Such fixed-ratio preparations were inappropriate for the dog due to the difference in pharmacokinetics between humans and canines, and were likely to significantly worsen any concurrent lower respiratory tract infection by dehydrating the airways and making expectoration more difficult, thus trapping the infection in the lungs.

6. Having considered all evidence including the Defendant's explanation to the Preliminary Investigation Committee and her written submission in her letter dated 10 November 2004, the Inquiry Committee was satisfied that given the clinical progression and history of the dog the Defendant should have pursued the investigation of other possible diagnoses, if not earlier, at the latest by the 3rd consultation. In failing to do so she must have failed to recognize the possible presence of other underlying problems, despite the fact that the clinical progression and history of the dog was strongly suggestive of such possibilities. The Inquiry Committee was also satisfied that the treatment given by the Defendant to the dog was inappropriate for its condition, in particular dexamethasone with its potential immuno-suppressive properties and its potential to mask the clinical signs. This indicated a lack of understanding by the Defendant of the overall effects of dexamethasone in an immature dog. In this case she should have at least eliminated the possibility of infectious aetiologies before prescribing dexamethasone. As to the use of fixed-ratio preparation for human colds, the committee accepted the opinion of the expert that its use in this dog was inappropriate. The committee accepted that there were risks associated with the practice of compounding different medications. However, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant compounded the different medications without due regard to the risk of so doing.

7. The Inquiry Committee was satisfied that the conduct of the Defendant in failing to pursue the investigation of differential diagnoses in the light of the clinical progression and history fell below the standard expected of registered veterinary surgeons. The inappropriate treatment given by the Defendant also fell below the expected standard. The committee was satisfied that this amounted to misconduct in a professional respect and therefore found the Defendant guilty in respect of paragraphs (a) and (b) but not guilty in respect of paragraph (c) of the charge.

8. The Inquiry Committee was informed that a disciplinary order was made in May 2002 by this Board in respect of the Defendant for failing to provide proper care and treatment in relation to a dog's eye injury. A warning letter was served on her and she was required to undergo 40 hours of continuing professional education within 12 months of the order, which she had fulfilled.

9. The Defendant put forward a number of matters in mitigation. In the Inquiry Committee's opinion, the only matters which carried weight in mitigating the gravity of the charge were that (i) she was concerned about the potential risks to a small puppy associated with the investigative procedures; and (ii) in practice she had to make decisions on the cost-effectiveness of the investigative procedures in the context of the dog owner's financial situation. For the avoidance of doubt, the committee's findings were neither influenced by the death of the dog nor the outcome of the medical treatment. What concerned them was the Defendant's clinical approach to the case.

10. While the Inquiry Committee noted that the previous disciplinary order was made after the commission of the misconduct in the present case, the fact remained that she had been found guilty in relation to treatment of two dogs which reflected adversely on her competence. The committee was particularly concerned as to (1) her ability to interpret relevant clinical information and (2) her lack of understanding of the effect of drugs which had potential harmful effects if used improperly. In considering the order to be made, the committee bore in mind their duty to protect the users of veterinary services and to ensure the competence of registered veterinary surgeons.

11. Having considered the mitigation advanced and the gravity of the case, the Inquiry Committee made the following order:

    (i) A warning letter be served on the Defendant; and

    (ii) The Defendant completes training of 30 hours in clinical pharmacology and 30 hours in clinical problem-solving skills in small animal medicine within 24 months, such training to be approved by the Board in advance. In the event of the Defendant's failure to comply with the order, the following restriction on her practice shall be imposed and recorded in her practicing certificate unless the Board with legitimate reason orders otherwise:

    “That the Defendant shall only practise under the supervision of a registered veterinary surgeon who has at least 5 years relevant experience in small animal practice until such time she has fulfilled such requirements to be imposed by the Veterinary Surgeons Board, the supervisor and the arrangement for the supervision to be approved by the Board.”

1. The Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 6 - 7 January and 18 February 2005.

2. The defendant veterinary surgeon (“Defendant”) was charged with the offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect by, being a registered veterinary surgeon, on or about 19 April 2003:-

   (a) upon being informed over the telephone by the owner of a female Pomeranian dog (“the dog”) about the emergency situation of the dog, failing to make proper arrangements for emergency services, appropriately advise and/or to make appropriate response in a timely fashion;

   (b) after the owner brought the dog back to her clinic for the dog's emergency situation, failed to make proper arrangements and inappropriately restrained the dog during medical examination causing the dog unnecessary distress, serious pain and/or suffering; and

   (c) having taken on the care of the dog, negligently in the provision of treatment to the dog by, failing to give priority to the investigation of airway obstruction and/or taking of appropriate action to the relief thereof.

3. The case involved the treatment of the complainant's dog on 19 April 2003. The dog was a 12 years old female Pomeranian and was obese. The dog had been treated by the Defendant on two previous occasions in December 2002 and February 2003. No complaint whatsoever was made in respect of the previous treatments. On 19 April 2003, the Defendant diagnosed the dog of suffering from upper respiratory infection, tracheal collapse and Grade I heart murmur. It was the same condition as the previous examination in February 2003, except that the condition seemed to have deteriorated. Prescription was given and the complainant took it home. On arrival back home the complainant found it panting. After she gave it medicine the panting became more serious. She telephoned the Defendant's clinic. On the first 2 calls which were answered by the male veterinary assistant, she was told to observe the dog and to call again only if the dog's tongue turns purplish-blue. The 3rd call was answered by the female veterinary assistant who undertook to inform the veterinarian and call her back. Fifteen minutes later she decided to take the dog back to the clinic.

4. Upon examination the Defendant found the dog to be suffering from respiratory distress and heart failure. At the end of the examination the dog's condition suddenly deteriorated and it became cyanotic. In view of the sudden deterioration, the lack of good prognosis and the pain the dog was suffering, the Defendant suggested euthanasia and the dog was put down later that day with the owner's consent. There was, however, a dispute over the payment of the fee for euthanasia.

5. The Secretary's case in respect of Charges (a) and (c) both related to the same time, that was the interval between the 1st and 2nd visits when the dog was away from the clinic. Charge (a) is in relation to the male assistant's failure to advise the immediate return of the dog to the clinic, and Charge (c) in relation to failure to investigate the problem of airway obstruction. In the view of the Inquiry Committee, they both related to the assistant's failure to advise properly. Charge (b) related to the alleged forceful closing of the dog's mouth by the female assistant during the examination by the Defendant, an act contra-indicated for a dog with respiratory distress.

6. All 3 charges turned on the acts of the Defendant's staff, not the acts of the Defendant herself. Section 3.3 of the Code of Practice provides that “Negligence by lay staff may be regarded as being the responsibility of the registered veterinary surgeon under whose direction they work. It may lead to disciplinary proceedings against the registered veterinary surgeon.” Section 13.2 of the Code provides that “veterinarians should ensure that lay staff…having, in the case of emergency, given first aid to any animal for the purpose of saving life or relieving pain, report and hand over the case to a veterinary surgeon at the earliest opportunity”. In the view of the Inquiry Committee, these provisions were not intended to impose vicarious liability on a veterinary surgeon for the acts of her staff. Instead, they imposed professional liability on the veterinary surgeon for her failure to ensure that her staff perform their duties properly. In other words, if the veterinary surgeon failed to provide proper training, supervision and monitoring of the staff, she would be liable for the negligent acts of the staff that flowed from such failure.

7. Having considered all the evidence, the Inquiry Committee was satisfied that the Defendant had provided proper training and supervision to her veterinary assistants both in recognizing and dealing with emergency situations, as well as the proper restraining of dogs for the purpose of examination. The committee understood that the owner was a caring owner, and therefore was seriously upset when she saw her beloved dog suddenly deteriorate right after the examination. It would be difficult for her to accept, and it is difficult for a layman to understand, that the physical condition of a dog of that old age and obesity could deteriorate drastically. While bearing in mind that allowance should be given for the fact that the events took place almost 2 years ago, the committee was of the view that the owner's perception of the acts of the Defendant and her staff was affected by her emotional state. From the owner's demonstration of how the dog's mouth was forcefully closed and the sketch of the relative positions of the parties, the committee noted that she could not be in the position to see that the dog's mouth was held in the way she described. In fact, the proper way for restraining a dog which often involves holding the side of the mouth could easily have been misunderstood by a layman as closing of the mouth. As the committee was not satisfied that there had been forceful closing of the mouth, they found the Defendant not guilty of Charge (b). As the Inquiry Committee had found that the Defendant had provided proper training and supervision of her staff, it followed that the committee found the Defendant not guilty of Charges (a) and (c).

8. The Inquiry Committee wished to further point out that they did not think that the male assistant's advice to the owner was definitely a wrong one. A dog may pant for either pathological or non-pathological reasons. It was the way in which dogs cooled themselves, given that they did not have sweat glands. In many situations the putting of an old and obese dog through the trauma of a journey to the clinic could be even more damaging than to let it rest and observe it closely. It was a balancing exercise and a matter of judgment which without the benefit of hind-sight might not always prove to be the wisest choice.

1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, an Inquiry Committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 5 days between 20 September 2004 and 9 April 2005.

2. The 1st defendant veterinary surgeon (“1st Defendant”) was charged as follows:

   “That he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, at a veterinary clinic (“the Clinic”), in relation to the complainant's dog (“the dog”):-

   (a) in about September 2002 to October 2002, carried out treatments to the left hind leg of the said dog in a negligent and/or inappropriate manner;

   (b) at the night of 1 October 2002 or in the early hours of 2 October 2002, failed to provide proper and/or adequate arrangement for emergency after-hour service to the said dog; and

   (c) on 17 October 2002, carried out surgical operation on the said dog without performing any or any adequate or appropriate pre-surgical investigations.

   In relation to the facts alleged above he has been guilty of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect.”

3. The 2nd defendant veterinary surgeon (“2nd Defendant”) was charged as follows:

   “That he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, at a veterinary clinic (“the Clinic”), in relation to the complainant's dog (“the dog”):-

   (a) in about September 2002 to October 2002, carried out or authorized the carrying out of treatments to the left hind leg of the said dog in a negligent and/or inappropriate manner;

   (b) at the night of 1 October 2002 or in the early hours of 2 October 2002, failed to provide proper and/or adequate arrangement for emergency after-hour service to the said dog;

   (c) on 17 October 2002, carried out or authorized or condoned the carrying out of surgical operation on the said dog without performing any or any adequate or appropriate pre-surgical investigations, and

   (d) during the period from about September 2002 to October 2002, as the principal of the Clinic, and as the 1st Defendant's employer and/or supervisor, failed to adequately supervise and/or provide adequate support, monitoring or advice to the 1st Defendant in the treatment of the said dog.

   In relation to the facts alleged above he has been guilty of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect.”

4. The case related to the treatment of the fractured femur of the left hind leg of a dog. The fracture was treated on 28 September 2002 at the Clinic by the insertion of an inter-medullary pin and two cerclage wires. An external cast was applied to the leg and the dog was taken home. Three days later the cast came off. In the late evening of 1 October 2002, after telephoning the clinic but to no avail the dog owner summoned a veterinary surgeon from another clinic for emergency treatment. The dog was brought back to the clinic the next day, and was given further treatment and taken home again. Three days later the cast again came off and the dog was brought back to the clinic. A 2 mm bone plate was added to reinforce the fixation. However, the bone plate was not strong enough. The inter-medullary pin migrated and bent. The sharp end of the pin pierced the skin. Hence, on 17 October 2002 the bent pin was removed and a new pin was inserted. However, as the clinic's X-ray machine was out of service, the re-insertion was done without a radiograph taken before the surgery. When a radiograph was taken the next day, it was discovered that the bone plate and the cerclage wires had loosened. The dog was then taken by the owner to another clinic for follow up.

5. At the relevant time both defendants practised at the Clinic. The 2nd Defendant was the principal veterinarian and employed the 1st Defendant. At the time of the operations on the dog there was active arrangement for the 1st Defendant to become a partner in the clinic. The Inquiry Committee had to determine at the outset what the involvement of each of the defendants in the treatment of the dog was. The committee could not rely on the evidence of the dog owner in this respect as he clearly was mistaken when he referred to the 2nd Defendant at the clinic when the 2nd Defendant was physically not in Hong Kong. Neither could the committee confidently rely on the evidence of other witnesses called by the two defendants for reasons of their relationship with the defendants. The 1st Defendant admitted that he was the veterinary surgeon in charge of the case but insisted that the 2nd Defendant took part in the treatments at various stages. However, this was in stark contrast to his description of the events to the Preliminary Investigation Committee from which it was evident that he himself was the only one performing the operations on the dog. It was also evident from the medical records written by the 1st Defendant that he himself performed the operations with no mention of the 2nd Defendant's involvement whatsoever. In this regard, the committee wished to mention that the 1st Defendant strenuously objected to the production of the handwritten records when they asked for it. The committee subsequently discovered that, contrary to the 1st Defendant's allegation that the computer records were tampered with to delete reference to the 2nd Defendant's involvement which was reflected in the handwritten records, there was no reference at all to the 2nd Defendant in the handwritten records. The Inquiry Committee also noted with surprise that the production of the handwritten records was objected to by the Counsel for the Secretary, bearing in mind his duty as a minister of justice to present the case fairly and not to seek a conviction by suppressing material evidence. The committee was satisfied that the operations were all performed by the 1st Defendant without the involvement of the 2nd Defendant.

6. When the Inquiry Committee approached the case they borne in mind that the defendants should be judged in the circumstances when the relevant events took place, including emergency situations which might not allow a thorough analysis with the benefit of hindsight. Given that the operation on 17 October 2002 could be considered as an emergency treatment to prevent infection of the wound, the fact that better procedures could have been adopted did not mean that the 1st Defendant should be liable for professional misconduct.

7. The treatments given by the 1st Defendant to the dog on 28 September and 5 October, however, were not performed in a competent manner. On 28 September according to the post-operative radiographs, the inter-medullary pin was inserted too far and penetrated through the femoral condyle. The committee accepted the expert evidence that there was nothing wrong in that, as long as prompt remedial action was taken to rectify the situation. Nevertheless, nothing was done by the 1st Defendant. He claimed that he knew the penetration had occurred but elected to do nothing apart from observing the development. However, this was not mentioned in the medical records. The internal fixation failed and the fracture collapsed. At the surgery on 5 October the 2 mm bone plate was too small thus too weak for the size of the dog. The use of an external cast was contra-indicated as it added weight and stress to the fracture rather than protect it. The treatments were inappropriate and were performed incompetently. The 1st Defendant's conduct in this respect clearly fell short of the standard expected of registered veterinary surgeons. The committee was satisfied that the 1st Defendant's conduct amounted to professional misconduct and they found him guilty of Charge (a).

8. As to Charge (b) in relation to arrangement for emergency after-hour service, the Inquiry Committee did not find sufficient evidence to support that charge. What they were concerned with were the arrangements made by the defendants to provide that service. They were satisfied that the pager service system they provided was reasonable and adequate for the purpose. There was no previous history of failure of the system. As to the dog owner's inability to reach the clinic on 1 October 2005, there were a number of possibilities including the dialing of a wrong number by the dog owner or the unforeseen failure of the paging service.

9. As to the 2nd Defendant, having found that he was not involved in the operations, the Inquiry Committee had to further consider whether he had failed his duty to supervise the 1st Defendant and to render assistance to him. The committee accepted that the 1st Defendant specifically refused the intervention of the 2nd Defendant in the case and declined assistance. While it was the duty of all principals of veterinary clinics to supervise inexperienced veterinary surgeons under his employment, the committee had to bear in mind that the 1st Defendant was a fully qualified professional and had been able to function independently without any obvious problem for quite some time. The committee was satisfied that the 2nd Defendant had been providing support to the 1st Defendant and had made himself available for advice whenever requested. The committee also had to weigh in the balance factors including the high achievement of the 1st Defendant in his academic training, the working relationship between them, and the 1st Defendant's request to deal with the case by himself. It was not a situation where the 1st Defendant had asked for advice or assistance but was declined by the 2nd Defendant, nor was it a situation that the 2nd Defendant failed to make himself available for advice and assistance. While it was unfortunate that the 2nd Defendant's confidence in the 1st Defendant's competence was in the end proven to be wrong, it was a matter of judgment and would not render the 2nd Defendant liable for the misconduct of failure to supervise his employees.

10. In conclusion, the Inquiry Committee found the 1st Defendant guilty of Charge (a) and not guilty of Charges (b) and (c). The committee found the 2nd Defendant not guilty of Charges (a), (b), (c) and (d).

11. Having considered the gravity of the charge and the mitigation advanced, the Inquiry Committee ordered that the 1st Defendant be reprimanded in writing and that the reprimand be recorded on the register. They further ordered that he should complete 12 hours training in the principles of orthopaedic surgery and 8 hours training in radiographic interpretation within 12 months from 9 April 2005, such training to be approved by the Board in advance. In the event of the 1st Defendant's failure to comply with the order, the following restriction on his practice should be imposed and recorded in his practicing certificate unless the Board with legitimate reason ordered otherwise:

    “That the 1st Defendant shall only perform surgeries under the supervision of a registered veterinary surgeon who has at least 5 years relevant experience until such time he has fulfilled such requirements to be imposed by the Veterinary Surgeons Board, the supervisor and the arrangement for the supervision to be approved by the Board.”

12. The Inquiry Committee made the observation that although no system of supervision was fool-proof, a principal veterinary surgeon had the duty to ensure that his employees did not take on tasks which were beyond their capabilities, and should be alert to the fact that inexperienced members of the profession could sometimes be over-confident and not aware of their own limitations. Positive safeguards in this respect were expected of principals.

13. The Inquiry Committee was also of the view that the medical records they had seen in this case did not measure up to the standard of records veterinary surgeons were expected to keep. Although this had not affected their findings on the propriety of the treatment provided by the 1st Defendant, the committee remarked that proper records were required for the purposes of proper following up of the medical problems of the animals either by himself or other veterinary surgeons.

1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, an Inquiry Committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 14 April 2005.

2. The defendant veterinary surgeon (“Defendant”) was charged as follows:

   “That he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, on or about 23 February 2004, in a veterinary clinic, performed a castration operation on the complainant's dog (“the dog”), without the prior consent or authorization from the owner.”

3. The case involved a dog with the problem of swelling of the tail gland. It was brought to the Defendant's clinic for treatment. Treatment by medication was tried but the problem was not resolved. Eventually the owner brought the dog back to the clinic on 23 February 2004 for treatment by surgical removal of the tail gland. When the dog owner was asked to sign the consent form for the operation, he noticed that the operation was wrongly written as “Castration”. He immediately pointed out the error and the veterinary assistant there and then amended it to “draining of tail blood and pus” in Chinese and “tail glad” in English, which must have been “tail gland” spelled wrongly. The owner's mobile phone number was put down on the consent form before the owner left the clinic, leaving the dog behind for the operation. The dog was collected later in the afternoon. On return home, the owner discovered that the dog's testicles were removed but nothing was done to the swollen tail gland. The owner complained and the clinic apologized, saying that it was the professional judgment of two veterinary surgeons that the castration was the best way to solve the swollen gland problem.

4. There was no dispute that the castration was performed by the Defendant. There was also no dispute that the owner had not given consent for the castration. However, the Defendant said that there was mis-communication between him and the other colleagues in the clinic about the fact that consent had not been given for the castration, and that he was misled into believing that in fact consent had been given.

5. The Inquiry Committee accepted the evidence of the dog owner that he had on three separate occasions before the operation pointed out that the dog was brought in for removal of the tail gland, not for castration. His evidence was corroborated by the crossing out of the word “castration/castrate” in three documents, namely, the appointment diary, the consent form, and the medical record card.

6. According to the Defendant, he was originally not responsible for the operation, but the operation was subsequently assigned to him because the owner had specifically asked that the operation be performed by him. He was not present when the dog was being admitted. The surgeon who admitted the dog had told him before the operation that the dog was brought in for castration. He asked the assistant to check the consent form, and the assistant came back and informed him that the appropriate consent was given. Relying on the verbal information from the admitting surgeon and the assistant, the defendant proceeded to perform the castration.

7. The Inquiry Committee was surprised at the way the matter developed. The owner had emphasized on three separate occasions to, apparently, three different staff of the clinic that the dog was not brought in for castration. The appointment diary, the consent form and the medical record card were all corrected as a result. It would have taken a complete breakdown of the operation in the clinic for all three staff involved not to pass the strong message of the dog owner to the operating surgeon, and more so for the opposite message to be passed on to the Defendant. When the Defendant saw that the word “castration” on the medical record card was crossed out, in the view of the committee this must have put him on inquiry as to whether the dog was actually admitted for castration.

8. It was the personal duty of every registered veterinary surgeon to ensure that proper consent had been given before carrying out an operation, particularly in respect of irreversible operations. While the surgeon might delegate this duty to his staff in proper circumstances, he retained the personal responsibility to supervise the staff to ensure that it was properly carried out. It was not sufficient for him to merely rely on the words of his staff or colleague. The committee was of the view that the Defendant had not discharged that duty. In particular, the fact that the word “castration” was crossed out would have put him on inquiry and to exercise particular care to ensure that proper consent was given. In evidence he also agreed, with hindsight, that every surgeon had to check the consent form himself in order to satisfy himself that consent was given. In failing to do so, the Defendant had failed his duty, particularly in the unusual circumstances of the case.

9. The Inquiry Committee had considered the fact that it was a busy day in the clinic. However, it was the duty of a veterinary surgeon to ensure that he paid sufficient attention and care to each case, no matter how many cases he was handling. Pressure of work was no excuse for a degree of care below the required standard.

10. On the other hand, the committee accepted that the operation performed by the Defendant was in the best interest of the dog, as demonstrated by the resolving of the swollen tail gland problem. Nevertheless, the owner's decision must be respected, and a veterinary surgeon was not entitled to override the owner's decision. The performance of an operation without the proper consent was completely unacceptable, particularly if the owner had expressed objection to the operation.

11. The Inquiry Committee was satisfied that the Defendant's conduct had fallen short of the standard expected among registered veterinary surgeons. They were also satisfied that this amounted to misconduct in a professional respect. They found the Defendant guilty as charged.

12. The Inquiry Committee accepted that the Defendant in his position as an employee of the clinic might not have much say in the practices of the clinic. They also took note of the fact that the operation had successfully resolved a problem which persisted for quite some time. Having considered the gravity of the case and the mitigating factors, including the Defendant's sincere apology soon after the incident, and that it was unlikely that the offence would recur, the committee ordered that a warning letter be served on the Defendant.

13. The Inquiry Committee would wish to take the opportunity to remind members of the profession that they had the personal duty to ensure that they practised in accordance with the professional standard required of them. Irrespective of their positions as employers, employees or self-employed practitioners, they had to ensure that the practices and procedures of the clinic were compatible with their professional duties. The lack of communication had often been the cause giving rise to professional misconduct. This was particularly important where there was a language barrier between the practitioner and the animal owners. Practitioners should actively review their clinic procedures and, where necessary, implement changes so as to conform to the requirement of the profession.

14. The Inquiry Committee emphasized in previous cases the importance of proper medical records. They had seen the same problem in this case. It was important for veterinarians to record the advice they had given and the decision made based on such advice.

1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance CAP. 529, an inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 9 th - 10 th January 2006.

2. The defendant veterinary surgeon (“Defendant”) was charged as follows:

   “That he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, in a veterinary clinic, in relation to treatment given to the complainant's dog (“the dog”), failed to provide proper care and treatment. In particular, he:

   (a) on about 22 September 2003, provided improper medications to the dog in that he failed to pay regard or sufficient regard to the possible drug interactions and adverse effects; and

   (b) on about 30 September 2003, when the complainant contacted his clinic to enquire about the treatment given to the dog, failed to ensure that staff of his clinic carried out their duties or behaved or responded in such a way or manner as to avoid damaging relationships between the veterinary profession and the public.

   In relation to the fact alleged he has been guilty of misconduct in a professional respect thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap 529.”

3. The Defendant pleaded guilty to both charges (a) and (b). Upon the production of the Summary of Facts, the inquiry committee indicated that they were not satisfied that the facts supported charge (b). The Defendant applied for withdrawal of the guilty plea on charge (b). The inquiry committee was informed that his legal representative had neither explained to him the effect of the relevant provision of the Code of Practice nor that the stated facts did not support charge (b). While the committee was surprised at the unsatisfactory manner in which the Defence prepared for the inquiry, they did not think that the Defendant should be prejudiced by the lack of proper advice. The inquiry committee allowed the application and entered a plea of not guilty on charge (b).

4. The case on charge (a) was in relation to injections which were given by the Defendant to the dog in question in the morning of 22 September 2003 . The dog was treated for the symptoms of a painful loin. Injections of ketoprofen (a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)) and dexamethasone (a glucocorticoid) were given to the dog. In the afternoon, the dog exhibited haematemesis which was symptomatic of gastric ulceration/haemorrhage. The complainant, the dog owner, took it to another veterinary clinic for emergency treatment. The ulceration problem persisted until 26 September 2003 when the vomiting stopped.

5. According to an expert in veterinary pharmacology, it was a fundamental principle of therapeutics that NSAIDs and glucocorticoids should not be administered concurrently, as co-administration of the two drugs would lead to drug interactions and would greatly increase the risk of gastro-intestinal ulceration and haemorrhage. The adverse reactions exhibited by the dog in question were well documented drug interactions, and the reactions were potentially fatal.

6. On the basis of the Defendant's plea and his admission of the stated facts, the inquiry committee was satisfied that the facts on charge (a) amounted to professional misconduct and the inquiry committee found the Defendant guilty of charge (a).

7. As to charge (b), the allegation was that the complainant telephoned the clinic several times to ask for the name and the nature of the injections but the nurses of the clinic were not helpful and refused to assist. It was also alleged that on one occasion the nurse talked to her rudely.

8. The inquiry committee had heard evidence from the complainant. She stated that she personally wrote both complaint letters to the Veterinary Surgeons Board. However, upon being pointed out to her that the handwriting and the signatures on the two letters were entirely different, she then changed her evidence that she wrote only one of them. She felt that the nurse was discourteous when she called on 30 September 2003 . There was no evidence on what was actually said over the telephone, other than the sentence that she would not know the drugs even if she was told. Nevertheless, she never asked to speak to the Defendant. She had used the services of the clinic for 1 to 2 years before the incident. The same nurses were there but they had never been discourteous before.

9. The inquiry committee had also heard the evidence of the Defendant. He joined in August 2003 as one of three employee veterinary surgeons in that clinic. Each day only one veterinary surgeon would be on duty who would also be responsible for supervision of the lay staff. One of the nurses was responsible for overall supervision of the other staff and carrying out the instructions of the veterinary surgeon. There were daily meetings between the veterinary surgeon and the lay staff-in-charge on that day to discuss the cases and any problems which might have arisen, and advice and instruction would be given as to how to deal with those problems. There had been no problems with this system of supervision or the nurses not following the veterinary surgeon's directions. There were standing instructions that all clients should be treated with courtesy. The Defendant was not aware of any dispute between the nurses and the complainant. He knew that the medical records were faxed to the other clinic on 26 September 2003 upon request. He was on duty on the 22 nd and 26 th of September 2003, but he was not sure whether he was on duty on the other days up to 30 September 2003.

10. On the evidence the inquiry committee was not satisfied that the clinic nurses had refused to provide the information requested by the complainant. She asked for the drug names of the injections, and was provided with the names of the drugs. When she asked for the dosage, the information was provided. When she asked for the information to be faxed to her, this was also done. Furthermore, the medical records had already been faxed to the other clinic on 26 September 2003 . This was confirmed in both the medical records of the Defendant's clinic and the medical records of the other clinic. The inquiry committee was not certain of the motivation for the continued demands for this information as it would have been available to her through the medical records which had already been faxed to the other clinic.

11. Neither was the inquiry committee satisfied that the clinic nurses were rude to the complainant during the telephone conversation on 30 September 2003 . Firstly, there was no evidence of what was actually said. The statement that the complainant would not know the drugs even if she was told was undiplomatic, and the inquiry committee understood how this could be mis-interpreted as discourtesy by an animal owner who was dissatisfied with the treatment. Secondly, from the medical records she had been using the services of the clinic since January 2002 and had been to the clinic 13 times before treatment on 22 September 2003 . From the complainant's evidence the nurses had never been discourteous to her on all those occasions.

12. The inquiry committee was also satisfied that the Defendant had exercised proper supervision of the lay staff. It was a reasonable system of supervision, and the system had been working well. There was no evidence that the system had been ineffective or that the lay staff failed to follow the instructions of the veterinary surgeon on duty. There was also no evidence in this case to indicate that the Defendant failed his duty of proper supervision.

13. For these reasons the inquiry committee found the Defendant not guilty of charge (b).

14. The inquiry committee wished to reiterate that the Code of Practice did not impose on members of the profession a strict liability for all the acts of their lay staff even if they had no knowledge of such acts. Instead, it imposed on a veterinary surgeon a duty to exercise proper and reasonable supervision over the lay staff. It did not seek to make him liable for the unforeseeable breakdowns in a reasonable and effective system of supervision. Therefore, what the inquiry committee was looking for was a proper discharge of that duty to supervise.

15. On the other hand, the inquiry committee had to express reservation on the wide manner in which charge (b) was drafted. By casting the net so wide it would also catch conduct which was obviously not professional misconduct. One example was where a veterinary surgeon or his lay staff expresses an honest opinion which was opposite to the public opinion, in particular on controversial issues such as using animals for experiments on human medicines, or the level of fees for veterinary services. While section 13.1 of the Code of Practice contained the words that a registered veterinary surgeon “must ensure that his lay staff carry out their duties in such a way as to avoid damaging relationships between the profession and the public”, the section had to be interpreted in its context of being a guidance on the supervision of lay staff. If, as was in this case, the allegation was that the lay staff refused to provide medical information upon request, or that they behaved rudely to the client, the Defendant should be charged as such specifically rather than as the failure of an over-stretched and questionable duty.

16. The inquiry committee was of the view that it was good practice for the lay staff to make a note in the medical records of significant enquiries or requests made by clients, and to communicate the same to the veterinary surgeon so that potential problems which might arise from misunderstanding or lack of communication could be avoided.

17. The inquiry committee did not think that there was any mitigation of weight, other than the fact that he pleaded guilty and showed remorse. He was of clear record. The mistake committed by the Defendant was of fundamental importance, and potentially fatal. Fortunately the dog recovered due to timely treatment by the other clinic.

18. Having regard to the gravity of the case, the inquiry committee ordered that a warning letter be served on the Defendant, and the Defendant shall complete 20 hours of training in clinical pharmacology within 12 months from the date of the order, such training to be approved by the Board in advance. In the event of the Defendant's failure to comply with the order, the following restriction on his practice should be imposed and recorded in his practising certificate unless the Board with legitimate reason ordered otherwise:- “The Defendant shall only practise under the supervision of a registered veterinary surgeon who has at least 5 years relevant experience in small animal practice until such time he has fulfilled such requirements to be imposed by the Veterinary Surgeons Board, the supervisor and the arrangement for supervision to be approved by the Board.”

1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance CAP. 529, an inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 12 th -13 th June 2006 .

2. The defendant veterinary surgeon (“Defendant”) was charged as follows: -

   “He, being a registered veterinary surgeon, on or about 26 June 2003 , in relation to treatment given to the complainant's dog (“the dog”) in a veterinary clinic, failed to provide proper care and treatment for the dog. In particular, he:-

    - adopted inappropriate sedative combination for diagnosis of the dog;

    - in considering the appropriate dosage of sedative combination for the dog, failed to give proper and due regard to the dog's symptoms which suggested the presence of suspected abdominal fluid and emaciation; and

    - failed to provide any or any sufficient supportive therapy during the diagnostic process of the dog.

   In relation to the facts alleged above, he has been guilty of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance.”

3. The facts of the case were that on 26 June 2003 the 7.5 year old dog was taken by the owner to the Defendant's clinic with a history of vomiting and diarrhoea for two weeks. Upon examination the Defendant auscultated a cardiac murmur and palpated a tense, bloated abdomen and a mass in the cranial abdomen. Due to the aggressive nature of the dog, leading to the inability to perform a complete physical examination, he suggested a thorough examination and radiographs under general anaesthesia, and the owner consented. Sedative drugs were then administered. After sedation, the Defendant noticed that the dog was pale, weak and recumbent, but was aggressive and became cyanotic when handled for further examination. It was put back in the cage for sometime, and later anaesthesia was induced. Upon a repeated clinical examination it was confirmed that the dog had a cardiac murmur, a fluid-filled distended abdomen, with a cranial abdominal mass. A blood sample and an abdominal radiograph were taken. Purulent sero-sanguinous fluid was also obtained on abdominocentesis. During the radiographic procedure the dog went into cardiac arrest. Resuscitation failed and the dog died.

4. The inquiry committee 's concern was not on the cause of the dog's death, but on the propriety of the sedation and anaesthesia procedures. The Secretary's case was that the use of the sedative acepromazine and the anaesthetic propofol was problematic, given the cardiac murmur which indicated the possibility of a heart disease. Acepromazine had the side effect of vaso-dilation and lowering the blood pressure, causing decreased venous return and thus might exacerbate any pre-existing heart disease. Propofol also had significant potential to compromise a patient with cardiac disease. It was also the Secretary's case that supportive therapy such as oxygen and intravenous fluid should have been provided to minimize the adverse side effects.

5. The inquiry committee accepted the expert opinion that acepromazine and propofol were not appropriate for patients with indications of heart disease. The Defendant's explanation for the use of these two drugs was that he was familiar with the side effects, but it was his clinical judgment that the dog's history and symptoms were not indicative of a clinically significant heart disease and so it was safe to use the two drugs. The basis for his clinical judgment was that the dog was presented with a history of gastro-intestinal symptoms, and had been taken on a walk in the country park about 2 weeks before, and the owner did not indicate that the dog showed any signs of respiratory distress. During the consultation the dog was active and showed no signs of shortness of breath. Although a heart disease was offered as a differential diagnosis for the cardiac murmur, given the history and the gastro-intestinal symptoms at that point it was judged unlikely that the dog was suffering from a clinically significant heart disease.

6. The inquiry committee had to decide whether a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon would have made the same clinical judgment as the Defendant in the circumstances of the case. Having regard to the fact that the dog was able to take a walk in the country park, and was active with no clinically obvious symptoms of a heart disease during the examination except a murmur, and a distended abdomen which could have been related to gastro-intestinal disorders or the palpated cranial abdominal mass, the inquiry committee could not say with certainty that the clinical judgment was an unreasonable one.

7. On the other hand, the inquiry committee had to consider whether the way the Defendant managed the dog had fallen below the standard expected of registered veterinary surgeons. While there were better alternatives to the drugs used, again the inquiry committee could not say with certainty that the sedatives and anesthetic administered by the Defendant were unreasonable in this situation. As to the issue of supportive therapy, the inquiry committee noted that an intravenous catheter was placed and intravenous fluid was administered. The dog was subsequently intubated and provided with oxygen support. The inquiry committee considered this to be adequate under the situation.

8. While the Defendant's approach in management of the dog was less than ideal, and his clinical judgment was, with hindsight, proven to be wrong, the inquiry committee could not say that this was a judgment that no reasonably competent veterinary surgeon would have made. Having made these findings, the inquiry committee was unable to say that the Defendant's conduct in management of the dog had fallen short of the standard expected. The inquiry committee found the Defendant not guilty of the charge.

9. The inquiry committee had to emphasize that they were not endorsing the management approach of the Defendant. In fact his approach was marginally close to the lower end of acceptable standard for registered veterinary surgeons. They had to advise the Defendant that in similar cases he should give special consideration to the possibility of other underlying diseases and take a more cautious approach in diagnosis and treatment.

10. While this was not directly relevant to the charge, the inquiry committee was of the view that the medical records in this case were basically inadequate and unorganized, particularly so in light of his extensive experience. Had a charge been brought in this respect, the outcome would certainly have been much less favourable.

1. Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance CAP. 529 (“the Ordinance”), an inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board (“the Board”) held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 22 January 2007.

2. The defendant veterinary surgeon ("Defendant") was charged as follows:

   “That he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, on 7 December 2004, were convicted at the Kwun Tong Magistrate’s Court of an offence, namely engaging in corrupt conduct with respect to voting at an election, contrary to sections 6 and 16(1)(b) of the Elections (Corruption and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, Cap 554, Laws of Hong Kong, which may bring the profession into disrepute.”

3. Having considered the submissions by the Defendant, the advice given by the Legal Adviser and the facts of the offence committed by the Defendant as found by the Magistrate and the other evidence put before the committee, the committee was of the view that the Defendant’s conviction was one that might bring the profession into disrepute as provided for in section 17(1)(f) of the Ordinance.

4. The committee noted that while the Magistrate found expressly only that the Defendant had been reckless, his other findings implied that he was of the view that the Defendant had also been dishonest. This was something that the committee considered that it might bring the profession into disrepute. In any event, even if the conviction was based solely on recklessness, the committee still considered that this was something that might bring the profession into disrepute.

5. In coming to this conclusion, the committee was of the view that recklessness was something that the public might well perceive as affecting the profession because it would bring into question the Defendant’s competence to carry out his professional duties. His job required high standards of attention to detail, which was the very thing the Defendant admitted, both to the Magistrate and at the hearing, that he had not done with respect to the subject matter of his conviction. In all the circumstances, therefore, the finding of the committee was that the Defendant was found guilty of the charge.

6. Having considered the Defendant’s submissions in mitigation, the factors raised by the Legal Adviser and all the facts of the case, pursuant to section 19 of the Ordinance, the committee ordered that the Defendant be reprimanded in writing and the reprimand be recorded on the register by the Secretary to the Board. In arriving at this decision, the committee noted that although the Defendant had received a fine for his conviction, but for the mitigation given the Magistrate stated that he would have imposed a custodial sentence. This showed that the offence was a serious one. Nevertheless, given that this was a first offence and the subject matter of the Defendant’s conviction related to conduct outside his profession, the committee did not consider that it was appropriate to go so far as to order removal from the register. On the other hand, it was considered a sufficiently serious matter by the committee to order a reprimand that would be recorded on the register.

1. Under section 18 of the Ordinance, an inquiry committee of the Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 12 March 2007.

2. The defendant veterinary surgeon ("Defendant") was charged as follows:

   “That he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, and the Principal of a veterinary clinic, on the night of the 14th of September, 2004, failed to provide proper and/or adequate arrangements for emergency after-hour service for the Complainant’s cat and that in relation to the facts alleged, he has been guilty of misconduct in a professional respect thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap. 529.”

3. Having carefully considered all the evidence placed before it, the committee decided that the prosecution had failed to prove its factual case against the Defendant. Specifically, it had failed to prove that the Defendant, as the Principal of the clinic, failed to provide proper or adequate arrangements for emergency after-hour service. In particular, the committee considered that there was no proper basis on which it could find that the two Defendant’s witnesses were not telling the truth in giving evidence that the Complainant was informed of the availability of emergency 24-hour veterinary services.

4. The inquiry committee emphasized that in coming to the decision, they were of the view that the Complainant was a truthful witness. However, in the distressing circumstances of the case, there could have been misinterpretation and/or misunderstanding between her and the clinic staff, which might explain the conflict between her evidence and that of the witnesses concerning what she was told at the material time.

5. The Defendant was found not guilty of the charge. The committee took this opportunity to remind practitioners of their professional obligation to make proper provision for after hour service and ensure that the availability of such provision was effectively communicated to those requiring it.

1. Disciplinary inquiry held on 21 May 2007

   Under section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance Cap. 529 (“the Ordinance”), an inquiry committee (“the Committee”) of the Veterinary Surgeons Board (“the Board”) held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 21 May 2007.

2. The defendant veterinary surgeon ("the Defendant") was charged as follows:

   “That he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, in the course of consultation regarding his client’s cat, adopted an inappropriate and/or inadequate diagnostic approach resulting in failure to detect the cat’s pregnancy.”

3. The Defendant was found guilty of misconduct in a professional respect thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap. 529, on his own plea of guilty.

4. The Committee decided to order that: (1) the Defendant’s name be removed from the register for a period of twelve months; (2) the carrying out of this penalty shall be suspended for a period of twelve months (“the said period”); (3) during the said period the Defendant was required to undertake 30 hours of further structured training in internal medicine following a course of study that had been approved by the Board; and (4) in the event that the Defendant failed to complete such training by the expiry of the said period or was found guilty of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect committed during the said period, the Committee’s order for removal of his name from the register for twelve months was to take effect upon such expiry or finding as appropriate.

5. In coming to this decision, the Committee had had regard to all the submissions of counsel for the Defendant in mitigation, including his economic circumstances, his qualifications, work experience and community service, the fact that this was his first offence, his plea of guilty and remorse expressed on behalf. The value of the plea of guilty was, however, reduced by the fact that it was a late plea given only after the original hearing had been adjourned and reconvened with the attendance of the witnesses for the Secretary, although, in the event, they were not required to give evidence.

6. The Committee considered this offence to warrant a greater sanction than a reprimand. This case involved a misdiagnosis that fell well below the expected professional standard. As the Defendant accepted in agreeing to the statement of facts, pregnancy should have been at the top of his list of differential diagnoses. The foetuses should have been detected on palpation and/or use made of the x-ray or ultrasound facilities that were available to detect the pregnancy. An aggravating factor in this case was that the misdiagnosis led to a recommendation by the Defendant for euthanasia that could have resulted in the animal being put down. The Committee was particularly concerned that such recommendation was made on a wholly unsound basis.

7. These matters had led the Committee to conclude that the sanction of removal from the register for a period of 12 months with a requirement for further training was an appropriate order in this case. However, in view of the fact that this was a first offence and the plea of guilty, although the value of that had been decreased by its lateness, as well as the Defendant’s economic circumstances, the Committee decided to suspend such removal.

                        Under section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance, an inquiry committee of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 29 August 2007 and 10 September 2007.

     The defendant veterinary surgeon ("the Defendant") was charged as follows:

“That on or about 16^th March 2004, while a client’s cat was under the Defendant’s care for medical treatment, the Defendant provided the client with misleading or untrue information concerning the cat, to the effect that the cat was already dead and/or that it was no longer in her clinic, in circumstance where the cat was still alive and kept inside her clinic.  In relation to the fact alleged she has been guilty of misconduct in a professional respect thereby contravening section 17 (1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap 529”

                         After very careful consideration, the Committee had the following observations.  Bearing in mind that all the prosecution witnesses were honest witnesses, there was no reason for them to come to the Committee and not telling the truth.  They had all tried their very best to reflect and relate what had happened on that particular dates.  But the Committee also bore in mind that due to the lapse of time and/or communication problems that may render their evidence not to be relied upon by them; they therefore looked into their evidence and gave their evaluations.

                        The first prosecution witness (PW1) could only communicate to the veterinary assistant.  Hence, the Committee believed any misleading and untrue information was directly between herself and the veterinary assistant.  Therefore, there was no direct evidence to point out that anything said was directly from the Defendant to PW1.  The Committee therefore was unable to rely on PW1’s evidence. 

                        The second prosecution witness (PW2) was the sister of PW1.  She told the Committee more or less the same thing as what had happened in the clinic.  But again, as stated above, there was a communication problem between herself and the Defendant.  So, all conversation and/or translation were directed by the veterinary assistant.  Hence, the Committee was unable to rely on her evidence. 

                      The said two sisters PW1 and PW2 then asked their friend (PW3) for assistance.  The Committee bore in mind that when she gave evidence, she revealed herself as a woman police inspector and a well educated person, there was no need for her to come to the Committee and not telling them the truth.  But unfortunately, she was already informed by the two sisters of their experience in the clinic.  The Committee believed through her blinded and misguided loyalty to her friends, her usual rationale may be overtaken by her anger and emotion to protect her friends’ interest.  This was particularly reflected in her letter to the Veterinary Surgeons Board almost twenty months after the incident.  And also her evidence to the Committee, her accusation about the Defendant and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was totally unsupported by evidence. 

                      PW3 further accused the Defendant of being greedy and a liar.  The Committee took such accusation at a whole.   She accused the Defendant of being greedy because she believed that the Defendant would use the cat for breeding purpose.  There was no evidence to support that the cat was a pedigree cat or a champion cat from any cat shows.  And there was no evidence to prove the cat had ever been used for breeding or sired any litters.  There was also no direct evidence to prove the Defendant was lying at that time unless there could be supporting evidence from the veterinary assistant and/or from a person who was supposed to be in charge of the concerning company which dealt with the disposal of the dead bodies of the animals.  The rest of the writing on the note which included the name of the veterinary assistant and an address of above-said company was written by PW3 as admitted from PW3’s own evidence.  The Committee therefore concluded that PW3’s view in this matter was subjective and at that time there was a total break down of communication between herself and the Defendant.   In other words, the situation was a cross wire incomprehensible dialogue between the two parties.   The Committee found it extremely difficult to rely upon her evidence alone to convict the Defendant.  The Committee believed that exchange of conversation could well be misunderstood between each other.

                        Based on what had been stated above, whether the Committee adopt to the standard of proof required by the criminal law that the prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt or by adopting whether there was a balance of probability that the Defendant did give misleading or untrue statement to the two sisters, by simply relying on the prosecution witnesses’ evidence to the Committee, the Committee found that to convict the Defendant would be unsafe and by accepting their evidence for such conviction would be unsatisfactory.

                        Therefore, the Committee found that the facts alleged against the Defendant in the charge had not been proved to its satisfaction.  The charge was dismissed accordingly.

        However, the Committee expressed their concern regarding the Defendant’s record of the cat.  The reason was that they were unable to rely upon it to give favourable or unfavourable consideration to her case.

Under section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance Cap. 529 (“the Ordinance”), an inquiry committee (“the Committee”) of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 25 – 26 February 2008 and 21 April 2008.

The defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged as follows –

“That he, being a registered veterinary surgeon,

(a) on various occasions during the period from or about 19 November 2004 to 24 November 2004, permitted or suffered his lay staff to give, or failed to take reasonable steps to prevent his lay staff of a veterinary clinic from giving medical advice or opinion to the complainant in relation to the medical condition and post-operative care of the complainant’s chinchilla;

(b) during the same period, failed to advise the complainant, whether by himself or through his lay staff, to seek timely medical treatment for the said chinchilla, in circumstances where, according to the description of the medical condition of the said chinchilla given by the complainant to his lay staff, the said chinchilla was in need of immediate medical treatment and attention; and

(c) on or about 19 November 2004, permitted or caused or suffered his lay staff to sell, or failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the selling of probiotic sachets, the safe consumption period of which had expired for over one month, to the complainant.

In relation to the facts alleged he has been guilty of misconduct in a professional respect thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance.”

The Committee had considered all the evidence very carefully and decision was made to deal with all the charges separately.

The Committee found the Defendant guilty of Charge (a). The reason was that he had never given any evidence that he did prevent his lay staff from giving any advice or opinion. The Committee had actually considered that what the lay staff said amounted to medical advice or opinion. If the advice or opinion given was merely a general advice, the Committee would have ruled to his favor. Unfortunately the Defendant neither gave evidence under oath nor provided defence witness to support his case. Hence the Committee could not give the Defendant any benefit of doubt but would have to accept the first Prosecution Witness (PW1)’s evidence.

The Committee found the Defendant not guilty of Charge (b). The reason was that even though the Defendant did not provide any evidence under oath and the Committee had to rely very much on the evidence given by PW1, PW1 did not deny that the lay staff had offered PW1 the option of seeking timely medical treatment over the telephone conversation on various occasions.

The Committee found the Defendant not guilty of Charge (c). The reason was that although the Committee accepted the verbal evidence from the Prosecution Witnesses, in particular, the second Prosecution Witness (PW2) who was deemed to be a very honest witness, the evidence given by PW2 that the medication prescribed by the Defendant to her was expired could only confine to her own allegation and her case had nothing to do with the present case. Since there was no solid proof of physical evidence, the Committee could not make any inference as to whether or not the Defendant prescribed expired medication to PW1. And indeed PW1 should have kept the expired packing herself to support her case.

In conclusion, the Committee criticized the Defendant strongly and pointed out that despite numerous reminders had been sent by their legal advisers and the Committee members to the Defendant advising him that he should have sought legal representation and given his own evidence on oath in the witness box, the Defendant just failed to do so at the hearing. His act gave no assistance to the inquiry committee. The whole case only demonstrated a total breakdown of effective communication between himself and his client. The Committee therefore considered it was appropriate to serve the Defendant with a warning letter and advise him to attend a training course on client management within 6 months. Failure to submit his proof of satisfactory attendance of such training course within the said period, the Board shall review his case.

Under section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap. 529 (“the Ordinance”), an inquiry committee (“the Committee”) of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 25 September 2008.

The defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged as follows –

“That he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, on 9th January 2004 in a veterinary clinic, carried out or attempted to carry out an unnecessary operation to trim/grind the teeth of a client’s dog, which was not an acceptable remedy for the dog’s behavioural problem. In relation to the facts alleged, he was guilty of misconduct in a professional respect and thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance”

The Inquiry Committee found that trimming/grinding any dog’s teeth was mostly unnecessary and unacceptable and it was not an acceptable remedy for the dog’s behavioural problem. However, in this situation, the trimming/grinding of the dog’s teeth might have been a necessary evil course to take.

The Committee had the following observations. Firstly, the Committee found the prosecution witness (PW1) a very irresponsible dog owner. According to her own evidence, her Pekingese dog bit her family members frequently. Having kept the dog for over three years, she had never taken it to any veterinary clinic for any kind of consultation and/or vaccination hence the dog was unlicensed under the law. She only sought advice from her friends and pet shops. Secondly, on 9th January 2004 when the dog was brought to the clinic by her domestic helper, even the registration was not under her own name. Indeed, without regret she informed the Committee that the dog she was now keeping was also unlicensed under the law. The Committee was of the opinion that this placed the public’s health at risk.

Despite her irresponsible attitude towards her dog, it remained the fact that she did try to alleviate the severity of her dog’s biting problem by giving instructions to the Defendant to have the dog’s teeth to be trimmed/grinned. Indeed the Defendant followed her instructions by making such honest error of judgment and was therefore in breach of professional misconduct. It was for the Committee to decide whether such misconduct amounted to a serious mistake, or whether it fell below the standard of his peers.

Having considered the whole situation and evidence very carefully, the Committee came to the decision that the Defendant had made a mistake but it was not serious enough to constitute professional misconduct. Furthermore, the whole situation fell into the grey area for which guidance was limited. Hence, there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of conduct that fell below his peers.

Based on the above stated, the Committee dismissed the accusation and found the Defendant not guilty.

Under section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance, an inquiry committee (“the Committee”) of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 29 September 2008.

The defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged as follows –

“That he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, failed to explain or adequately explain to the client the likely costs involved and associated services before carrying out a surgical operation on a client’s dog on or about 15 September 2006. In relation to the fact alleged, he was guilty of misconduct in a professional respect and thereby contravening section 17 (1)(a) of the Ordinance.”

After careful deliberation, the Committee made the following comments –

Although the Committee found the prosecution witness was not telling lies, this case demonstrated a misunderstanding between the complainant and the veterinary assistant. The complainant stated clearly that she was not targeting at the Defendant but rather the veterinary assistant.

Under such circumstances, the Committee did not feel that the prosecution had proven the ingredients of the offence. Therefore, the Committee accepted the Defendant’s submission that there was no case to answer.

Under section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance, an inquiry committee (“the Committee”) of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 17 and 24 November 2008.

The defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged as follows –

“That on 19 November 2006, at around 7:30p.m., while a client and her friend made enquiries to the Defendant about the death of her dog, which had hitherto received treatment from him, he maintained an impolite and/or hostile and/or inappropriate attitude towards the client and her friend to the extent that he yelled at them and acted as if he wanted to charge at them. In relation to the fact alleged he was of misconduct in a professional respect and thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance.”

The Committee considered that the gravity of the charge was almost equivalent to a criminal charge. Hence, they had to follow a standard higher than a civil case. The Committee found that both the prosecution witness (PW1) and the defence witness (DW1) gave good evidence. However, the Committee reminded themselves that due to the lapse of time and maybe for other personal reasons, all the witnesses were unable to tell them the exact whole truth. For example, the identification of the two persons was confusing to prove.

1. PW1 insisted that the lady she called was her friend and not sister, and that the alleged husband was a male friend only. This was contrary to the evidence from both the Defendant and DW1.

2. These two persons existed but were not called to provide any evidence.

3. DW1 gave almost perfect evidence except that the Committee had slight reservation when it came to the most important part that she picked up the glasses for the Defendant. This was in contrast with PW1’s evidence. For this reason, the Committee was torn between believing and disbelieving, and found it difficult to accept or not to accept the two sides’ stories.

4. Say even if the Committee took it to the highest to accept what PW1 had told them, i.e. that the Defendant attempted to rush forward from his standing position, the prosecution needed to prove his act of intention.

5. Should the Closed Circuit Television had been functional with recordings available, this would have given better assistance to the Committee.

6. Hence, based on the findings stated above, whether the Committee adopted the higher civil standard or criminal standard, the Committee was unable to find the Defendant guilty of the charge.

The Committee would say further that even though, according to evidence from both the Defendant and DW1, the Defendant had attempted to explain the cause of death to the client but to no avail over the course of the day on 19 November 2006, this indicated that there was room for the Defendant to improve his client communication skills.

Under section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance (Cap. 529) (“the Ordinance”), an inquiry committee of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 25 February 2009.

The defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged as follows:

“That she, being a registered veterinary surgeon, on or about 19th May 2006, conducted a surgical operation on a dog in a negligent manner, viz. including the urinary tract in the ligation of the uterine stump of the dog. In relation to the facts alleged, she was guilty of misconduct in a professional respect thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance.”

The inquiry committee found the Defendant guilty of the charge for the following reasons:

- the Defendant did not report any anatomical abnormalities or surgical difficulties on the medical record or subsequent submission;

- the medical record of the second surgery on the 21st of May 2006 stated that “Catgut ligatures seen closed to the enlarged bladder –appearing as a ring-like structure, unable to see the urethra amongst the fat, odd location for fatty tissue and urethra. Cut at Catgut ligatures. Bladder slowly reducing in distention and expressible”;

- the fact that urine was found on the towel inside the cage did not rule out a urinary tract ligation because there were numerous possible explanations for the urine on the towel;

- the Defendant’s hypothesis of “periurethral tissue entrapment” was extremely unlikely;

- the expert witness’ opinions were more likely;

- the urinary tract was actually ligated during the surgery; and

- on a balance of probabilities, the Defendant was found guilty of the charge.

The inquiry committee took into consideration the mitigating factors stated by the Defendant, and also the fact that she had a clear record. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the inquiry committee ordered that the Defendant be reprimanded and that the reprimand be recorded on the register. The inquiry committee further ordered that in the 12 months following the date of the inquiry, the Defendant should complete 20 hours of Continuing Professional Development in small animal surgery and such training be approved by the Board in advance.

Under section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance, an inquiry committee of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 4 May 2009.

The defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged as follows:

“(a) That he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, in or between the evening of 9 November 2005 and the morning of 10 November 2005, while a client’s dog was under his care and hospitalized overnight in his clinic, he failed to ensure that appropriate clinic staff was stationed at the clinic to attend to and/or care for the said dog, in circumstances where the medical condition of the said dog was such that it was inappropriate and/or improper for it to be left unattended to and/or uncared for overnight while his clinic was in fact not staffed overnight and he had thereby failed to take adequate and/or appropriate care of an animal which was placed under his care; and

(b) on or about 9 November 2005, when the client brought the dog to the Defendant’s clinic for treatment, and before the client made a decision that the dog be hospitalized overnight, the Defendant failed to explain or adequately explain to the client that no staff would be present overnight in the clinic to attend to and/or care for the dog, thereby depriving the client of the opportunity to make an informed choice as to whether to hospitalize the dog overnight in his clinic.”

The Defendant pleaded guilty on both counts.

The inquiry committee was satisfied that from the evidence provided the Defendant’s actions fell well below the expected standard of a competent veterinary surgeon. So, the inquiry committee accepted the guilty plea.

The mitigation put forward included the Defendant’s claiming that he had given medication at 2 a.m. on the material day so that nothing more could be done, and that he had to leave the clinic to attend another emergency call. The inquiry committee considered these factors but believed that the evidence given was weak and therefore the mitigation did not carry much weight.

The inquiry committee paid due attention to the guilty plea and the said family circumstances. The inquiry committee considered that it was a serious offence to fail to provide appropriate overnight care and to fail to inform the owner of the situation. It was clearly stated in the Principles of the Code of Ethics in the Code of Practice for the Guidance of Registered Veterinary Surgeons that public trust and confidence in the profession should be upheld.

The inquiry committee ordered the Secretary to remove the name of the Defendant from the register for a period of three months. They further ordered that the Defendant be required to undertake 30 hours of Continuing Professional Education in the field of small animal internal medicine within the next 12 months. If the Defendant failed to submit proof of satisfactory attendance of such training course within the said period, the Board would review his case.

The inquiry committee made the following observations and comments:

1. They noted that the medical records kept by the Defendant’s clinic were grossly inadequate. In particular, the following information was lacking :

(i)the presenting symptoms;

(ii)the physical examination;

(iii)the diagnostic assessment;

(iv)the timing of the administration of medications; and

(v)the patient’s response to treatments.

2. It was essential that the owner of a hospitalized animal be fully aware of the level of care that would be provided overnight and what other options might be available.

Under section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance (Cap. 529) (“the Ordinance”), an inquiry committee of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 23 May 2009.

The defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged as follows:

“On 30 December 2006, after consultation of a client’s dog, he provided to the client, or caused or permitted or suffered to be provided to her, for the purpose of treatment of the said dog, ophthalmic ointment the expiry date of which, viz., July 2006, had already lapsed.”

The inquiry committee found the Defendant guilty of the charge thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance.

The inquiry committee stated that the act to provide the animal an expired medication for the purpose of treatment was considered a sub-standard work by a veterinary surgeon.  Hence, this would constitute misconduct in a professional respect. 

The inquiry committee ordered that the Defendant (1) be reprimanded in writing and not to record the reprimand on the register; (2) in the 6 months starting from 23 May 2009, he should submit a Standard Operating Procedure in Drug Inventory Management in his clinic(s) to the Veterinary Surgeons Board; and (3) be required to undertake 20 hours of continuing professional education in the field of client management and clinic management within the 12 months starting from 23 May 2009, such training to be approved by the Board in advance.  In the event of his failure to comply with the orders above, the Board would review his case.

Under section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance, an inquiry committee of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 8 June 2009, 8 August 2009 and 29 August 2009. The defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged as follows:

“On or about 3 October 2006, when a client’s dog was hospitalized in the defendant’s clinic for an operation, he failed to perform the said operation personally, as requested by and promised to the client.”

The inquiry committee considered that the documents and evidence given in the hearings were conflicting on the primary factual issue. Therefore, the inquiry committee had taken into account the demeanor and creditability of the witnesses, and the clinical records of the case. Given the fact that the owner of the dog insisted to see the Defendant and waited for hours in the clinic for that, it was highly probable that the owner was given the understanding that the dog would be under the Defendant’s personal continuous care. If it had been made clear to the owner that there would be a change in the surgeon performing the surgery, it would have been a problem for the owner to accept. Moreover, an apology was given to the owner after she became fully aware that the actual surgery was not performed by the Defendant.

Therefore, the inquiry committee found the Defendant guilty of the charge. The Defendant was to be reprimanded in writing and was not recorded on the register. The Defendant should attend a training course on “Client Management” in the 6 months starting from the date of the order made and ensure effective communication measures be implemented for the clinic staff to follow. If the Defendant failed to submit proof of satisfactory attendance of a suitable training course within the said period, the Board would review his case.

The inquiry committee has the following observations:

• (a) Amendment of clinical records should be dated and signed.
• (b) There should be improvement in Consent Form format for surgical procedures which the inquiry committee wishes the Board to review, for example, the name of surgeon and risk of surgical procedures.
• (c) The inquiry committee wishes to remind the profession of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance and not to release patient’s information to unauthorized person(s).

Under section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance, an inquiry committee of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 11 December 2009. The defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged as follows:

“On or about 6 July 2007, upon discharge of a client’s dog, which had hitherto been hospitalized in the Defendant’s hospital, he provided, or caused to be provided, to the owner a bottle of medicine/solution, which was to be administered on the said dog, without any or any proper labeling.”

The inquiry committee found two vastly different versions of what happened from the two witnesses. The inquiry committee had chosen to base the inquiry committee’s findings on two points. First, the shape and contour of the bottle were such that adhesive labeling would be difficult and this was clearly demonstrated in the hearing. Second, the fact that the complainant phoned in to the clinic the next day to ask for clarification on the use of the scrub lotion supported that there was no labeling then or he would not have phoned in and ask for directions.

The inquiry committee therefore found the Defendant guilty of misconduct in a professional respect for providing the owner with a bottle of medicine/solution, which was to be administered on the complainant’s dog, without proper labeling, thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance.

The inquiry committee ordered that the Defendant be given a written reprimand and that this would not be recorded on the register. The inquiry committee made this decision based on the fact that no harm had been done from the improper labeling in this case. The Defendant had a clean record and had also demonstrated that he currently had a proper labeling and storage system for his medicine/solution.

Under section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance, an inquiry committee of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 8 February 2010. The defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged as follows:

“On or about 14 January 2007, when a client’s cat, to which the Defendant had prescribed dexamethasone treatment in previous consultations during the period from on or about 9 November 2006 to on or about 28 December 2006, was brought to him again for consultation and treatment, he administered to the said cat yet further large dosage of dexamethasone without considering or conducting thoughtful or detailed clinical examinations and tests such as blood test, in circumstances where the said cat was already exhibiting signs of adverse side effects from corticosteroid treatment.”

The inquiry committee found the facts alleged against the Defendant in the charge had been proved to its satisfaction and that such facts amounted to misconduct in a professional respect. The Defendant was found guilty of the offence charged accordingly. The inquiry committee had made the following remarks on the Defendant’s behaviour :

• 1. Failure of the Defendant to confirm presumptive diagnosis of eosinophilic plaque as the clinical condition of the animal did not respond to the long course of corticosteroid treatment.
• 2. Failure of the Defendant to conduct detailed investigation, for example, biopsy and blood tests after the animal failed to respond to treatment over 67 days.
• 3. Failure of the Defendant to communicate clearly with the client on the adverse side effects of long continual course of high dose corticosteroid treatment.

The inquiry committee reprimanded the Defendant and ordered that the Secretary record its reprimand on the Register. The inquiry committee also ordered in the period of 12 months following the date of inquiry, the Defendant should complete a total of 20 hours of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in the subject areas of feline internal medicine and client management, the courses in which were to be approved by the Board in advance, with such CPD training not counting towards the Board’s requirements for CPD certification.

In summary, the defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged with misconduct in a professional respect by reason that he made statements that were disparaging to veterinary surgeons of non-Chinese ethnic origin in Hong Kong with regard to their charging, professional skills and/or standards, and attitude towards veterinary surgeons of Chinese ethnic origin, in the course of a speech made by the Defendant while he was in Mainland China to an audience that included Mainland veterinary surgeons.

The inquiry committee found that the Defendant made the disparaging statements concerned without any proper basis for doing so. It also noted the Defendant had admitted during the hearing that the statements concerned were inappropriate.

The inquiry committee found the Defendant guilty as charged, thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Ordinance and Part II C4.1 and C9.1 and C9.2 of the Code of Practice for the Guidance of Registered Veterinary Surgeons. The inquiry committee ordered that the Defendant be reprimanded in writing and this would not be recorded on the register.

The inquiry committee also commented that it respected freedom of speech but found that disparaging colleagues without evidence was not acceptable. It agreed that dual language (Chinese and English) should be used in communications between the Board and veterinary surgeons, and suggested veterinary surgeons should file their complaints to the Board instead of airing their grievances in public and damaging the image of the profession.

“Defendant A”: “On or about 15 June 2007 and 17 June 2007, a dog was brought to defendant A for consultation and treatment following a history of choking on a piece of dried chicken gizzard, defendant A failed to carry out adequate investigation to make confirmative diagnosis on the rupture of the oesophagus of the dog.”

“Defendant B”:“On or about 18 June 2007, a dog was brought to defendant B for consultation and treatment following a history of choking on a piece of dried chicken gizzard, defendant B failed to carry out adequate investigation to make confirmative diagnosis on the rupture of the oesophagus of the dog.”

Under section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance (Cap. 529) (“the Ordinance”), an inquiry committee of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 11 June 2010.

The defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged as follows:

"During the period from about 21 August 2008 to about 24 August 2008, while the deceased body of a cat was under the custody of the Defendant’s clinic, the Defendant, as the veterinary surgeon responsible for the administration of the said clinic, failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the body of the deceased cat from sustaining unnecessary damage.”

The inquiry committee found the Defendant not guilty of the charge. The Defendant’s clinic had reasonable precautions in place for preventing animal bodies from sustaining unnecessary damage. The inquiry committee found the clinic’s regulations on animal carcass management to be adequate and in line with the standard expected by peers in the veterinary field.

Although not relevant to the charge, the inquiry committee noted that the Defendant dismissed the staff member who he believed had caused the damage, offered to stitch up the wound, stopped the practice of storing carcasses at his clinic and gave a sincere apology to the complainant before the inquiry committee.

However, the inquiry committee reminded the Defendant that under clause 13.1 of the Code of Practice, as a registered veterinary surgeon responsible for the professional supervision of lay staff, he must ensure that they carry out their duties in such a way as to avoid damaging relationships within the profession, or between the profession and the public. This responsibility extends to all aspects of clinic management, not just those aspects relating to medicine and surgery.

Under section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance (Cap. 529) (“the Ordinance”), an inquiry committee of the Board held a disciplinary inquiry on 30 June 2010. The defendant veterinary surgeon (“the Defendant”) was charged as follows:

“On or about 1 April 2007, when the complainant took her dog to the defendant for further consultation following earlier treatments by him for the same clinical problem on 13 March 2007 and 25 March 2007, the Defendant declined to provide medical attention to the said dog, without any or any reasonable justification for such decline.”

The inquiry committee found the Defendant not guilty of the charge. In the inquiry committee’s view, the Defendant had reasonable justification to decline to provide further medical attention to the dog in the circumstances of this case for the following reasons. Firstly, the dog was not in serious pain or suffering (see section 23.1 of the current Code of Practice; formerly section 22.1). Secondly, the owner had twice declined to follow his recommendations as to treatment. Thirdly, as this case involved surgery at another clinic and post-surgical care there, the Defendant was justified in recommending further care be undertaken by another clinic. The inquiry committee therefore believed that this was not an abandonment of a case without good reason (see section 23.3 of the current Code of Practice; formerly section 22.3).

The inquiry committee takes this opportunity to remind the profession of the need to document fully all recommendations made to clients, especially when a client chooses not to follow the veterinarian’s preferred treatment option.