In this STATE, it will take years~~ why? Because we do NOT hold companion animals in anything more than a commodity or inanimate object. BUT someday, all will change amongst our apprised, educated, and socially conscious:

Yes, indeed, the part of this meaningful statute that would have or COULD have deterred the egregious immoral behavior towards my dog Pocket would be the following excerpts:

Ever wonder why groups of like -skilled people don't oust their bad apples, when so many ethical people are ashamed of them?  I do. And I wonder why "ads" aren't in their "professional journals" or trade-based magazines like the one above.

Is it because perhaps the "bad apples" aren't enough of a minority to speak out against? Is the fear of retribution too great? Aren't there enough dedicated, ethical, and hard working people in any line of work to not allow the drag of bad people to humiliate and embarrass the whole group?

I guess not, because if there were, this ad would be seen often and frequently in its modified context in many places and inform the "whistle-blower" , that they have a moral obligation to diminish the bad apples and rid them from their professional and trade group.Or at the very least, impose meaningful penalties and sanctions to modify future behavior.

Pocket's Story from New Hampshire

Key words:

Dover Veterinary Hospital

Edgefield Veterinary Hospital

Catherine Gajewski, DVM

Sarah Curry, DVM, BvSC

John MacGregor, DVM, DACVIM

walnut-hill.bravehost.com

My Scottie dog named Pocket was murdered by a licenced NH vet in my presence six years ago . This was because NH gave excuses to  "bad vets" that did not posssess Federal licenses to prescribe narcotics  because of previous substance abuse issues . The state of NH has decided to allow YOU and your pet to be "collateral damage" to existing laws and state ethics and moral laws accepted by the AVMA, and accepted and posted by the NH Veterinary Act.

http://walnut-hill.bravehost.com Pocket's Story from NH

Key words:

Catherine Gajewski, DVM

John MacGregor, DVM, DACVIM

Sara Curry, DVM

Dover Veterinary Hospital

Edgefield Veterinary Hospital

Ahh, which one shall I start with today? It should be the motivation that caused all to be put aside and sit down to type this post.

The Good: This is a totally personal , emotional, feeling and opinion, only derived through my own experiences. The Fall was always my favorite time of year, mostly the weather suiting my comfort, and I found for the many years that my dogs enjoyed the relief from the hot and humid summer too. For the last 6 years, I flip the calander page and see October and dread Columbus Day week, because of the cruel, horrid memories that become so intense. A huge drawback of permanent abstinence of "psych drugs" are the uncontrolled anxiety prompted by anything vet and stress related. Yes, indeed my old, old gal Pearl required a visit and my sleepless prior night escalated to morning fear and dread. And I really need to point out that we are fortunate to have an excellent, smart, kind Veterinarian to take her to. He happens to be a low-key type of guy, not big on distracting chit-chat, but makes effort to deal with two obviously "shell-shocked" human pet owners.

I finally realized how different the two of us are, with our behavior, dealing with the very same anxiety. The other deals with the thought of bad and unwelcome news by continually asserting all positivity of the patient's normal capabilities to extreme, and I have relented to careful listening and lots of prayer that when, and if the time comes, to relay bad news that our Vet will make it happen in a way, for it to be clearly understood. Our Pearl is clearly in "overtime", nearly 15 , passing her breed's life expectancy by 2 1/2 years---we are blessed!

Here's my Pearl, Ch. Goodspice O'Walnut Sanspareil

The Bad:

I was reminded several weeks ago, about the "Bad" veterinary care. This too, was very personal and really has only the excuse of lazy and poor quality veterinary care.

I still can't fathom why a Veterinarian can hear a repeated "complaint" and not take the time to investigate the cause. This complaint is a "senior" dog that has been prescribed the same, same "lousy prescription" food for nearly 12 years. Why, you ask? Because this particular dog has had repeated urinary infections for years! Oh, ok, you say, so this special "diet" must keep them away??------well no, it sure hasn't done a damn thing. The infections still happen.

But what has happened over the last TWO YEARS, are repeated bouts of bloody, mucous diarreah, painful abdomen, and periods of not eating. This cycle has increased in frequency, yet NOT one professional has EVER suggested that a diet switch may be in order. The food is 17 SEVENTEEN PERCENT minimum FAT CONTENT.!!

I am hopeful to say that this painful and chronic issue has subsided, with the Owner discontinuing the prescription food and choosing a quality senior based diet with 10% fat. This has now been 5-6 weeks, however, the pancreas surely will never function at "optimum" capability.

The UGLY: For the past month or so, I have been tempted to post a public media article on a male Veterinarian (not in NH) that has been brought up on charges of "mis-use" of client's animals. It sickens me to read it, and just comes too close to home with me. This unethical and immoral Vet decided to practice surgery on animals that were relinquished for humane euthanasia. The notable example was ona client's elderly, sick cat that he decided to practice "eye surgery" before euthanaizing the cat....NICE, HUH? Please don't consider this a rare occurence-----because he's not the first one to do so.

But let's address a "bigger issue", reported by none other than a fellow Veterinarian:

Fixing the culture of cheating on veterinary state board examinations

Dr. Patty Khuly Posted on Friday, August 24, 2012 at 11:37AM

My trip to PondLilli last week was bittersweet, it was the first time I went alone and nearly a year since Tickles has been gone. She is buried with some very fine dogs that I had the pleasure of knowing: "Otis" , a fine Scottie gent , rescued from a New Bedford animal shelter and "Tessa", one of the infamous "35 Sealyhams" rescued from a mid-west puppymill. Their graves overlook PondLilli and lie below a Holly tree.

Tickles loved it there, and became "Queen for a day", enjoying her outings with her sister PiccaLilli. PiccaLilli looked and looked for her, wondering why she never emerged from my car. Yes, dogs form bonds and have memories too.

Tickles and PiccaLilli LOVED their car rides together, I could only imagine how ecstatic she would have been sharing the dog pillow with the air blowing through their beards and noses!!

Tickles and PiccaLilli (pictured with Mom) loved beachwalks and picnics

PiccaLilli (with me) and Tickles loved the gorgeous sunsets

Rest in Peace, Tickles~~ You are in your favorite spot forever!

Ok, so I posted several long excerpts of an even longer web article and yes, I become lost in the myriad of details and facts. I will try to shorten it up:

...." veterinarians are
often asked to surrender their federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
registrations when they become the subjects of investigations conducted by DEA investigators or when DEA investigators assist professional licensing and other state investigators.

 it is apparent that one has committed a serious violation of federal law concerning controlled substances, and a federal prosecutor is willing to guarantee that the registrant will not be prosecuted criminally or civilly
if the registration is surrendered. Second, when the registrant is addicted to controlled substances and, in his or her opinion and/or in the opinion of
those treating the addiction, not having a DEA registration will help to facilitate recovery, then it may be in the registrant’s best interest to surrender the registration

A registrant who has been convicted of a crime that involves prescribing, administering, or dispensing
controlled substances will be asked to surrender his or her registration when the DEA becomes aware
of the conviction. Even registrants who have not yet been tried or convicted frequently are asked to
surrendAll Rule to Show Cause cases throughout the United States are prosecuted by the Office of the
Chief Counsel of the Drug Enforcement Administration in Alexandria, Virginia. As of
December 2006 and the writing of this article, that unit had one supervising attorney and five staff
attorneys. For the past several years, only 30 to 40 Rule to Show Cause hearings have actually been
held during each calendar year. The average length of time from the initiation of an investigation to the
issuance of a Final Order following a Rule to Show Cause hearing was from one to three years.er registrations if the DEA learns that they have been charged or are being investigated.

In essence , despite states like NH , changing a controlled substance act to allow a NON_DEA licensed profession to obtain controlled drugs from a licensed DEA professional, (in 200 , the simple matter remains that ALL states are under Federal regulations first and foremost.

But the simple question is: Does YOUR veterinarian have State license yet doesn't possess a valid Federal DEA license and if so...why NOT? 

And why, pray tell, would a state ALLOW, such as New Hampshire clearly did, a person to hold themselves out to the public as : John M. MacGregor, DVM, DACVIM, Sara Curry, DVM (or BVSC) or Catherine Gajewski, DVM with either NO valid DEA license or RESTRICTED DEA licenses.

Has Sara Curry re-obtained her DEA license since her FEDERAL hearing in April of 2011? Why was she allowed then and subsequently allowed to have animal patients that may have required prescription or administration of controlled substances (such as euthanasia solution)

HOW on earth does the State of NH condone contact with companion animals and their owners without narcotics and licenses available at all times.

AND finally, are you absolutely assured that your state is "protecting" your pet's interest and insuring humane and compassionate drugs are present, maintained, and administered for your pet's: surgery, pain control, and yes ---even euthanaisia?

John MacGregor, DVM went without a DEA license for FOUR YEARS in the state of NH, all because he was "forgetful" ? Frugal, perhaps? The $100 fee was too expensive?

Sara Curry was licensed and not in possession of her DEA while seeing and treating my dogs, why? Because she was lazy, forgetful, or frugal? Why did her employer, Edgefield Veterinary Hospital not care or be concerned?

AND finally, how many CLINICS such as DOVER VETERINARY HOSPITAL, run a completely "dry" facility for VETS with no DEA to work at and place clients and patients at RISK and HARM?

Don't be so sure this can't happen elsewhere, because it does, and there is public record to confirm it.

 Today's post is about "bad" medical professionals, including Veterinarians that find themselves in trouble with the DEA or Federal Drug Enforcement Agency.

What is the DEA ? Well, it is the Federal or national agency that licenses a medical professional to :handle, order, prescribe, and administer "controlled substances" or "drugs" as we think of them , whether narcotic or non-narcotic .

Here are some legal excerpts of advice for those caught in a "bad situation":

...." veterinarians are
often asked to surrender their federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
registrations when they become the subjects of investigations conducted by DEA investigators or when DEA investigators assist professional licensing and other state investigators. In the majority of cases, one should not even consider surrendering his or her DEA registration. The answer should be, “No”.

...

In my view, a registrant should consider surrendering his or her DEA registration in only
two instances. First, it makes sense to surrender a DEA registration when after consulting with legal counsel experienced in such matters, it is apparent that one has committed a serious violation of federal law concerning controlled substances, and a federal prosecutor is willing to guarantee that the registrant will not be prosecuted criminally or civilly
if the registration is surrendered. Second, when the registrant is addicted to controlled substances and, in his or her opinion and/or in the opinion of
those treating the addiction, not having a DEA registration will help to facilitate recovery, then it may be in the registrant’s best interest to surrender the registration. In either case, there is no urgency. The decision whether to surrender a
DEA registration should never be made at the time the DEA investigator makes such a
request.

Who May Be Asked to Surrender a DEA
Registration

A registrant who has been convicted of a crime that involves prescribing, administering, or dispensing
controlled substances will be asked to surrender his or her registration when the DEA becomes aware
of the conviction. Even registrants who have not yet been tried or convicted frequently are asked to
surrender registrations if the DEA learns that they have been charged or are being investigated.
Persons convicted of crimes related to professional practice that did not involve controlled substances
(such as Medicaid fraud) may also be asked to surrender their DEA registrations. Further, it is
conceivable that a person convicted of a sex offense, for driving under the influence, or another offense not related to professional practice might also be asked to surrender his or her registration.
However, in my experience, most requests to surrender a registration are not made after a
registrant is charged with or convicted of a criminal offense, but rather when a registrant initially is
interviewed as part an investigation, inspection, or audit.

Further, the vast majority of criminal prosecutions, civil lawsuits, and administrative actions such as
Rule to Show Cause hearings are resolved through negotiation. When a registrant surrenders his or her DEA registration, he or she cannot then use the willingness to agree to have restrictions
imposed on the registration, or the willingness to surrender the registration as a “bargaining chip” in negotiations. By initially surrendering the registration, the registrant greatly weakens his or her bargaining position.

An investigator’s suggestion that surrendering a DEA registration is in the best interest of a registrant is easily addressed: it is not in any practitioner’s best interest to not have a DEA registration. In addition to not being able to
prescribe, administer, and dispense controlled substances, there are a number of other possible
severe consequences. (See the “Consequences” section, above.) The only reason it would be in
one’s best interest to immediately surrender a DEA registration would be if one could avoid potentially
worse consequences by doing so. For the reasons explained below, it is unlikely that the surrender of
a DEA registration will preclude worse consequences.

All Rule to Show Cause cases throughout the United States are prosecuted by the Office of the
Chief Counsel of the Drug Enforcement Administration in Alexandria, Virginia. As of
December 2006 and the writing of this article, that unit had one supervising attorney and five staff
attorneys. For the past several years, only 30 to 40 Rule to Show Cause hearings have actually been
held during each calendar year. The average length of time from the initiation of an investigation to the
issuance of a Final Order following a Rule to Show Cause hearing was from one to three years. Unless
a registrant’s DEA registration has been summarily suspended, he or she can continue to prescribe,
administer, and dispense controlled substances unless and until a Final Order revoking the
registration is issued. The passage of time can be used to the advantage of the registrant. A registrant can obtain treatment for a controlled substance addiction if such a problem exists. The time also can be used to obtain continuing education in the area of ethics and record keeping ......"

Yes New Hampshire folks, you are seeing it here first:

WHO is that cute , adorable baby girl held by President Obama??

OH my goodness, it is my GRAND NEICE Heidi !!!!  

Doe she look serious? Formidable? Well she does to me and it shouldn't be surprising~~I've been accused for over 2 decades that somehow my "genes" got priority in her Mom and just perhaps we are seeing the inheritance of "Auntie Barbara" , once again Only time will tell, but "I" won't be surprised !!

And~~ the 1st Amendment:

Today I am reminded of a fellow victim of veterinary malpractice with a 3 year lawsuit in place. Yep, just like me, experienced a horrible and fraudulent time with her pet and decided to speak up and out. We aren't alone, nor unusual, except when it comes to "going public".

As a typical victim of any crime or fraudulent practice, the defense attorneys deperately try to accuse and find "dirt" in the victim's past. Of course it is totally irrelevant for the most part---but there is always hope for the Defendant

She reminded me of all the years of paid legal discovery and particularly "deposition". The opportunity for legal reps to ask questions under oath hoping to confuse or "trip up" a party into lies or evasiveness , or call into question their past history or reputation.

Yes, indeed, it becomes easier to discredit an individual with a criminal history, a poor work record, or the like. OH HOW SAD, it must have been for the THREE male attorneys looking to find some hidden dirt in my past. OH, HOW SAD, it must have been to not find any mental ilness or substance abuse OR poor employment or work issues in my past!! Yep, the icing on the cake was when I was asked about my termination of employment at Lawrence General Hospital in 1984, (Pocket's Story in 2006) hoping to find??? What??? I don't know~~~~I worked there part time as a college student, and later asked by my Chemistry Supervisor to consider full-time post grad and certified, but declined to take on industrial work in my "field". Yet, the 3 attorneys were still hopeful in that SEVEN HOUR DEPO, sounding silly to me to "threaten" discovery of those years of employment...."Be my guest, I responded, with a smile on my face....."

Yep, they were hoping to assume that anyone that leaves a medical field job, must have a "medical problem"----yikes!   I certainly wasn't, nor ever would be a "PROBLEM" professional like THEIR clients were---no sirrreee, nope, nada, and never "forgot" my certification nor the like, needed DEA license to perform MY JOB~~~~

(like John MacGregor, DVM, Sara Curry, BVSc or DVM) NOR WORK AT a hospital that had ZERO DRUGS on the premises).

Yes, I reminisced a bit. I cannot call the BAD FRAUDULENT Vets involved "low-lifes" They may or may NOT be. According to the dictionary "Low-lifes" are people that do not fullfill financial obligations~~~well, I have no clue about that. But yes, I can certainly without FEAR call them BAD,UNETHICAL, IMMORAL, FRAUDULENT, MEAN, and CRUEL.

But I diverse to a reminder of a larger picture: First Amendment rights and FREE SPEECH.

And sadly, it is the fear of retribution in some way that creates the fear and silence. I can't do it, probably never could. The stakes of harm were too damn high. I lived it, I saw it, and I paid dearly for it.  Pocket's Story from NH

Hopefully soon I'll be ambitious enough to reorganize my website from 2007 to be user friendly and more understandable---that's my 2012 goal