Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

iphone fun

journal photo

Subscribe to Journal

Monday, November 26th 2012

10:50 AM

Secrecy and political connections of government~~and BAD VETERINARIANS

  • Mood:
 
http://vetabusenetwork.blogspot.com/2012...

http://vetabusenetwork.blogspot.com/


"We dance around a ring and suppose but the secret sits in the middle and knows.”

The Secret Sits,” Robert Frost

My friend and fellow advocate Barbara Albright has had this quote on her site, Pocket's Story from New Hampshire, for years, but it was only recently that I fully understood how it applies to incompetent, negligent vets.....
 

As Julie Catalano mentioned, I blogged that years ago....
 
It was a time of utter frustration, when I realized the circle of SCAM and political connections grew and grew, to a point that was overwhelming and beyond any person's comprehension. At that time, I still naively believed in "justice" or correction within a "system", be it governmental or legal, or just plain moral high ground.
 
Never, in my life or wildest dreams, would I have believed that NO ONE cared whether laws were broken or unethical, immoral, and just plain cruel behavior would be tolerated to be perpetrated on animals or humans.
 
BUT why the hell would I think that? Every day of the week , newspaper accounts of the very same abusive issues come to public light along with its years and decades of stifled and reported history.....
 
Sandusky, the Boy Scouts, Catholic priests, grade-school teachers, corrupt judges,physician child predators and on and on.....
 
I was blessed and cursed with a damn good memory of facts and events. My initial "post-Pocket" scariest event was my interview with then NH Board of Veterinary Medicine and investigator Brad Taylor, DVM about my complaint filed in November of 2006.
 
It was approximately  90 minutes via "phone". One would think my allegations would warrant a full "in-person" interview, or even a several member panel interview. BUT NOT NH....particularly since Brad Taylor was the very current employer of Catherine Gajewski, DVM cited in my complaint .
 
Though the majority of the interview rehashed my very words, the two comments that never left my memory spoken by Brad Taylor, DVM were:
 
....."I don't know, I don't know, I don't know..." in response to my question: "WHAT SUBSTANCE was used to 'euthanize' my DOG???"
 
Wouldn't YOU think that was a basic question that DESERVED an unqualified ANSWER???? And an important question at that??
 
The second and most troubling comment that Dr. Taylor of Riverside Clinic made to me was : ....."YOU KNEW your dog was never leaving that hospital..."
 
I nearly fainted and was overwhelmed with that callous and 20/20 hindsight comment:
 
After all....what the HELL does that mean? I was sending my dog on a last minute $3000 VACATION????   FOR WHAT???? FUN?
 
That's how idiotic and insulting and SECRETIVE and LYING a board of "hens" can be. Despite having their very own colleagues NOTES in their own handwriting, all the proven documentation, records and evidential PICTURES of a CRUEL SCAM, SCAM, SCAM....in their very faces.
 
http:walnut-hill.bravehost.com
 
Unfortunately for me, That's when I became indoctrinated into the victims' hall of fame, and hugely apprised and embarrassed of being a citizen of a particular state. It took 50 years, for some it is far less, for me , just like others...it should have never happened at all.
 
For sure:
 
"We dance around a ring and suppose but the secret sits in the middle and knows.”
0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Monday, November 26th 2012

10:29 AM

New Hampshire~~worth repeating, a statute coming to YOU--

  • Mood:

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:

 

3) A VETERINARIAN IN ANY PROCEEDING INITIATED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION WHO IS FOUND TO HAVE WILLFULLY AND WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION CAUSED INJURY OR DEATH TO A COMPANION DOG OR CAT SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OWNER FOR ECONOMIC DAMAGES AND NONECONOMIC DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP.

(4) AN AWARD FOR LOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP DAMAGES UNDER THIS SECTION MAY NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

(5) DAMAGES AWARDED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO, AND NOT IN LIEU OF, ANY FINE, SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION IMPOSED BY THE STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-64-111, C.R.S.

And surely, BREAKING the HUMANE euthanasia law of New Hampshire, not even including the devious and unethical diagnosis and subsequent fruitless and unwarranted treatment....just may have have been deterrent for the cruel and immoral behavior that was endured and carried out by:

John Morrison MacGregor, DVM, DACVIM

Sarah Curry, BVSc and Edgefield Veterinary Hospital , et all

Catherine F. Gajewski, DVM

Dover Veterinary Hospital, et al

Statutes / Laws

 

 

 
 


Summary:

Permits an owner of an injured companion dog or cat under certain circumstances to recover damages for loss of companionship. Imposes an informed consent requirement on a veterinarian before he or she performs a service involving a substantial risk to a companion dog or cat. Exempts a veterinarian under certain circumstances from local and regional companion dog and cat inoculation requirements.

 

CARNIVORA THAT ARE USED FOR PURPOSES OF COMPANIONSHIP, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, IMPOSING CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ANIMAL CRUELTY AND NEGLIGENT ANIMAL HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES AFFECTING COMPANION DOGS AND CATS, AND ESTABLISHING SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF VETERINARY PRACTICE INVOLVING INOCULATIONS FOR COMPANION DOGS AND CATS.

Bill Summary

Permits an owner of an injured companion dog or cat under certain circumstances to recover damages for loss of companionship. Imposes an informed consent requirement on a veterinarian before he or she performs a service involving a substantial risk to a companion dog or cat.

Exempts a veterinarian under certain circumstances from local and regional companion dog and cat inoculation requirements.

Makes conforming amendments.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: SECTION 1. Article 21 of title 13, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW PART to read: 3

PART 10

CIVIL LIABILITY FOR INJURY TO COMPANION DOGS AND CATS

13-21-1001. Legislative declaration.

(1) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES THAT:

(a) HARM TO COMPANION DOGS AND CATS IS AN INCREASING PROBLEM FOR COLORADO PET OWNERS;

(b) CURRENT LAWS DO NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR HARM CAUSED TO COMPANION DOGS AND CATS BY ANIMAL CRUELTY OR BY THE NEGLIGENT ACTS OF ANIMAL HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS OR VETERINARIANS, AND CURRENT LAWS DO NOT DETER THAT HARM;

(c) CURRENT LAWS FAIL TO MAKE THE OWNER OF THE INJURED COMPANION DOG OR CAT WHOLE, AND THEY DO NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT SOCIETY'S FAVORABLE ATTITUDE TOWARD COMPANION DOGS AND CATS;

(d) CURRENT LAWS PRECLUDE COMPANION DOG AND CAT OWNERS FROM UTILIZING AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT HARM CAUSED TO THEIR COMPANION DOGS AND CATS;

(e) COMPANION DOGS AND CATS OFTEN ARE TREATED AS MEMBERS OF A FAMILY, AND AN INJURY TO OR THE DEATH OF A COMPANION DOG OR CAT IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY SIGNIFICANT AND OFTEN DEVASTATING TO THE OWNER; AND

(f) CURRENT LAWS RELATING TO INOCULATION AND VACCINATION ARE ARBITRARY, INCOHERENT, AND AMBIGUOUS. AS THE FIELD OF ANIMAL HEALTHCARE INCREASINGLY IMPACTS COMPANION DOG AND CAT OWNERS AND CAREGIVERS, PROFESSIONALS ARE GREATLY AT RISK FOR CLAIMS WHEN THEY VACCINATE OR INOCULATE ANIMALS, OR FAIL TO DO EITHER.

(2) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THEREFORE, DECLARES THAT:

(a) CERTAIN ECONOMIC AND NONECONOMIC DAMAGES RESULTING FROM EITHER ANIMAL CRUELTY OR THE NEGLIGENT ACTS OF ANIMAL HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS THAT HARM COMPANION DOGS OR CATS SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED UNDER THE LAW; AND

(b) PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO INOCULATIONS OF COMPANION DOGS AND CATS INVOLVING THE PUBLIC HEALTH SHOULD BE RATIONALIZED AND CODIFIED.

13-21-1002. Definitions.

AS USED IN THIS PART 10, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:

(1) "COMPANION DOG OR CAT" MEANS AN ASSISTANCE DOG, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 24-34-803 (7) (a), C.R.S., WORKING DOG, OR OTHER DOMESTICATED DOG OR CAT THAT IS OWNED OR KEPT BY A PERSON FOR COMPANIONSHIP, PROTECTION, OR THE SALE TO ANOTHER FOR SUCH PURPOSES.

(2) "OWNER" MEANS A PERSON OWNING, POSSESSING, HARBORING, KEEPING, HAVING A FINANCIAL INTEREST OR PROPERTY INTEREST IN, OR HAVING CONTROL OR CUSTODY OF, A COMPANION DOG OR CAT.

(3) "PERSON" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION, OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.

(4) "VETERINARIAN" MEANS A PERSON WHO HAS RECEIVED A DOCTORAL DEGREE IN VETERINARY MEDICINE, OR ITS EQUIVALENT, FROM A SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE AND IS LICENSED TO PRACTICE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 64 OF TITLE 12, C.R.S.

(5) "VETERINARY SERVICE" MEANS A SERVICE OR PROCEDURE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PRACTICE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 12-64-103 (10), C.R.S.

(6) "WORKING DOG" MEANS A DOG THAT HAS BEEN OR IS BEING SPECIFICALLY TRAINED EITHER TO BE A THERAPY DOG TO AID AN EPILEPTIC OR OTHER MEDICALLY DISABLED PERSON, OR TO BE AN AID TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN CARRYING OUT HIS OR HER DUTIES, OR TO PROVIDE ANOTHER REASONABLE SERVICE IN AID OF A PERSON.

13-21-1003. Damages for harm resulting from cruelty to

companion dogs and cats or from negligent health care practices concerning companion dogs and cats. (1) AN OWNER MAY ASSERT A CLAIM THROUGH ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION TO RECOVER ECONOMIC DAMAGES AND NONECONOMIC DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP OF A COMPANION DOG OR CAT FROM A PERSON WHO TORTURES, NEEDLESSLY TORMENTS, OR NEEDLESSLY KILLS A COMPANION DOG OR CAT. IF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IS UNSUCCESSFUL, THE OWNER MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION TO RECOVER THE DAMAGES DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBSECTION (1).

(2) AN OWNER MAY ASSERT A CLAIM THROUGH ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION TO RECOVER ECONOMIC DAMAGES AND NONECONOMIC DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP OF A COMPANION DOG OR CAT FROM A VETERINARIAN WHO, IN THE COURSE OF NEGLIGENT VETERINARY PRACTICE, NEGLIGENT VETERINARY PERFORMANCE, OR THE NEGLIGENT PRESCRIBING OF VETERINARY SERVICES, CAUSES INJURY OR DEATH TO A COMPANION DOG OR CAT. IF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IS UNSUCCESSFUL, THE OWNER MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION TO RECOVER THE DAMAGES DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBSECTION (2).

(3) A VETERINARIAN IN ANY PROCEEDING INITIATED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION WHO IS FOUND TO HAVE WILLFULLY AND WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION CAUSED INJURY OR DEATH TO A COMPANION DOG OR CAT SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OWNER FOR ECONOMIC DAMAGES AND NONECONOMIC DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP.

(4) AN AWARD FOR LOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP DAMAGES UNDER THIS SECTION MAY NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

(5) DAMAGES AWARDED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO, AND NOT IN LIEU OF, ANY FINE, SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, OR OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION IMPOSED BY THE STATE BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-64-111, C.R.S.

(6) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT OR ABROGATE:

(a) A CRIMINAL ACTION BROUGHT TO PROSECUTE AN ACT DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION OR IN PART 2 OF ARTICLE 9 OF TITLE 18, C.R.S.;

(b) ANY RIGHT OR CAUSE OF ACTION THAT A CRIME VICTIM MAY ASSERT OR BRING.

13-21-1004. Informed consent.

(1) PRIOR TO PERFORMING OR PRESCRIBING ANY VETERINARY SERVICE THAT INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL RISK TO THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF A COMPANION DOG OR CAT, A VETERINARIAN SHALL DISCUSS THE SERVICE WITH THE OWNER. THE DISCUSSION SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:

(a) A DISCLOSURE BY THE VETERINARIAN OF ANY MATERIAL RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE VETERINARY SERVICE THAT MAY AFFECT THE HEALTH OF THE COMPANION DOG OR CAT;

(b) THE OWNER'S DECISION TO CONSENT IN WRITING TO THE VETERINARY SERVICE;

(c) APPLICABLE STATE OR LOCAL LAW AFFECTING THE VETERINARY SERVICE; AND

(d) ANY ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO THE VETERINARY SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO APPROACHES INVOLVING A VACCINATION WAIVER.

(2) A VETERINARIAN SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSENT REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION IF HE OR SHE REASONABLY BELIEVES THAT A COMPANION DOG OR CAT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE VETERINARY CARE IN ORDER TO AVOID SUBSTANTIAL HARM OR DEATH TO THE COMPANION DOG OR CAT.

13-21-1005. Attorney fees.

THE PREVAILING PARTY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART 10 SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND THE COSTS OF SUIT.

SECTION 2.

25-4-607, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

25-4-607. Order of board of health requiring inoculation of

animals. (1) When it is deemed advisable in the interest of public health and safety, the board of health of an organized health department or a county board of health may order that all dogs, cats, other pet animals, or other mammals in the county or district be vaccinated against rabies, such vaccination to be performed by a licensed veterinarian. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section SUBSECTION (1) AND EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION, no board of health of an organized health department or county board of health shall order the inoculation of animals against rabies any more frequently than is recommended in the "Compendium of Animal Rabies Control" as promulgated by the national association of state public health veterinarians.

(2) A BOARD OF HEALTH OF AN ORGANIZED HEALTH DEPARTMENT OR COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MAY NOT ORDER THAT A COMPANION DOG OR CAT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-21-1002 (1), C.R.S., BE INOCULATED AGAINST RABIES:

(a) ANY MORE FREQUENTLY THAN WHAT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE "COMPENDIUM OF ANIMAL RABIES CONTROL" DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, OR TRIENNIALLY, WHICHEVER IS LESS FREQUENT; OR (b) WHEN THE VETERINARIAN BELIEVES THAT, IN THE INTEREST OF THE HEALTH OF THE COMPANION DOG OR CAT, INOCULATION IS INAPPROPRIATE DUE TO THE AGE OR POOR HEALTH OF THE COMPANION DOG OR CAT.

(3) A VETERINARIAN MAY ISSUE A WRITTEN WAIVER EXEMPTING A COMPANION DOG OR CAT FROM LOCAL INOCULATION REQUIREMENTS WHEN THE VETERINARIAN, IN HIS OR HER PROFESSIONAL OPINION, DEEMS THAT THE WAIVER WILL BENEFIT THE HEALTH OF THE COMPANION DOG OR CAT WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE PUBLIC HEALTH. A WAIVER EXECUTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE ACCEPTED AND RECOGNIZED BY ANY LOCAL OR REGIONAL AUTHORITY ISSUING LICENSES FOR THE OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS THAT ARE COMPANION DOGS OR CATS.

SECTION 3.

25-4-615 (2), Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended, and the said 25-4-615 is further amended BY THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING NEW SUBSECTIONS, to read:

25-4-615. Further municipal restrictions not prohibited.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section AND EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (3) OF THIS SECTION, no municipality shall require any animal to be inoculated against rabies any more frequently than is recommended in the "Compendium of Animal Rabies Control" as promulgated by the national association of state public health veterinarians.

(3) A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT ORDER THAT A COMPANION DOG OR CAT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-21-1002 (1), C.R.S., BE INOCULATED AGAINST RABIES:

(a) ANY MORE FREQUENTLY THAN WHAT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE "COMPENDIUM OF ANIMAL RABIES CONTROL" DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION, OR TRIENNIALLY, WHICHEVER LESS FREQUENT; OR

(b) WHEN THE VETERINARIAN BELIEVES THAT, IN THE INTEREST OF THE HEALTH OF THE COMPANION DOG OR CAT, INOCULATION IS INAPPROPRIATE DUE TO THE AGE OR POOR HEALTH OF THE COMPANION DOG OR CAT.

(4) A VETERINARIAN MAY ISSUE A WRITTEN WAIVER EXEMPTING A COMPANION DOG OR CAT FROM MUNICIPAL INOCULATION REQUIREMENTS WHEN THE VETERINARIAN, IN HIS OR HER PROFESSIONAL OPINION, DEEMS THAT THE WAIVER WILL BENEFIT THE HEALTH OF THE COMPANION DOG OR CAT WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE PUBLIC HEALTH. A WAIVER EXECUTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE ACCEPTED AND RECOGNIZED BY ANY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY ISSUING LICENSES FOR THE OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS THAT ARE COMPANION DOGS OR CATS.

 

 



 

 

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Monday, November 26th 2012

8:14 AM

WANTED: a few bad apples of the Veterinarian kind~~

  • Mood:

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

 

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Thursday, October 18th 2012

7:25 PM

Six years ago ~~ Pocket's story from NH~~the same account~~what's new??

  • Mood:

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

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Monday, October 1st 2012

2:26 PM

Veterinarians: the Good, Bad, and the Ugly~~October 2012

  • Mood:

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

1 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Monday, September 10th 2012

10:26 AM

Bittersweet Remembrance~~Tickles ~~sadly missed

  • Mood:

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!

1 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Tuesday, August 28th 2012

5:40 PM

DEA registration and your Veterinary Professional~~part two

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.

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Tuesday, August 28th 2012

3:21 PM

What DEA registration means for your pet and YOU~~~part one~~

  • Mood:

 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 ......"

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Saturday, August 18th 2012

8:49 PM

President Obama and the mystery NH baby~~~August 18, 2012

  • Mood:

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 !!

 

1 Comment(s) / Post Comment

Sunday, August 5th 2012

2:18 PM

Random thoughts: Veterinary abuse and malpractice~~

  • Mood:

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

0 Comment(s) / Post Comment