'Disgraceful conduct' - Shropshire vet allowed prescription medicine meant for a cat to be given to a human

The medicine intended for a cat was instead used by another person to treat a fungal infection.

The Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (MRCVS) committee hearing between January 6 and 9 heard how Dr Evans admitted the three charges: charge 1 relating to the medicine, charge 2 relating to the blood test and 3 relating to the "dishonest and misleading" conduct.

Through her legal counsel, she accepted that the admitted charges passed the threshold for serious professional misconduct, though that question still needed to be determined independently by the committee.

The committee found that Dr Evans’ conduct had breached several key parts of the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly around honesty and integrity.

It also found aggravating factors in the case, including the risk to human health by allowing the prescription-only medication to be ordered knowing it was for human use, the abuse of her professional position, the breach of client trust, the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she falsified the blood test records, and the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she had falsely recorded the prescription-only medicine.

Paul Morris, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said in relation to the first charge: “In the committee’s view, this irresponsible approach to a prescription-only medicine risked human health, potentially compromised an animal’s welfare, since the clinical record suggested the cat had been given Fluconazole when it had not, constituted an abuse of the trust placed in her as a registered veterinary surgeon and was in breach of legal provisions designed to safeguard human health.

“Such behaviour falls far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, undermines public confidence in the profession and would be considered deplorable by colleagues and the public alike. The committee was thus satisfied that charge 1 on its own amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

“Acting dishonestly runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of the profession. The public need to know that they can rely on the honesty and integrity of the people to whom they entrust the care and welfare of their animals.

“Further, Dr Evans’ conduct in both incidents had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession of veterinary surgery and bring the profession into disrepute. In all the circumstances, the committee was satisfied that Dr Evans’ behaviour as reflected in charge 2 fell far short of the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and amounted to disgraceful conduct.

“Accordingly, the committee found proved the allegation that Dr Evans was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

Having found serious professional misconduct in relation to all charges, the committee considered what the most appropriate and proportionate sanction would be for Dr Evans’ actions and conduct.

In mitigation, the committee considered the fact that Dr Evans had no previous disciplinary history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon; her open and frank admissions; the circumstances of pressures at work exacerbated by Dr Evans’ desire to please everyone and not let anyone down. She had also shown "genuine expressions of remorse".

Summing up the committee’s decision on the appropriate sanction, Paul Morris said: “In all the somewhat exceptional circumstances of this case, the committee was satisfied that a reprimand and a warning not to behave in this way again would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Evans was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.

“The committee was satisfied that Dr Evans does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first. She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the committee considered the wider public interest would best be served in this case by a reprimand and a warning.

“Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Evans' conduct, the committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if Dr Evans were allowed to continue to practise.

“The decision of this committee is, therefore, that Dr Evans be reprimanded and warned about her behaviour. Dr Evans should, however, be under no illusion of how serious it is to have a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect made against her and she should not take lightly the decision of this Committee to reprimand and warn her.”