Supreme Court halves suspension of veterinarian for caring for golden retriever

A High Court judge has halved the two-month suspension imposed on a veterinarian because he found the original punishment relating to his care of a golden retriever named Alfie to be “excessively harsh”.

Judge Michael P. O’Higgins said justice in the case, which arose after veterinarian William McCartney operated on the dog’s left leg rather than the right as originally planned, would be done by “halving” the veterinarian’s suspension from practicing medicine to one month.

In August 2020, Mr McCartney, who owns a practice called North Dublin Animal Hospital, which employs 18 staff including four veterinarians, was scheduled to operate on Alfie’s right hind leg.

After examining Alfie, the vet decided it would be in the dog’s best interest to operate on the left leg first and the right leg at a later date.

However, this information was not communicated to the dog owner before the operation and when she picked up the dog, she believed that the operation had been performed on the wrong leg.

Following the operation, Mr McCartney was called out of the practice due to a serious family medical emergency before Alfie’s owner came to collect the dog.

In his reasoning for the verdict, the judge stated that the veterinarian had neither arranged a meeting with a colleague to meet the owner nor called him to explain what had happened.

The owner, who was accompanied to the practice by two of her children, was not informed of the change.

One of the owner’s children noticed that only the dog’s left leg was bandaged and not his right.

The owner asked the practice’s receptionist and an assistant who had gone through the post-operative measures for Alfie’s incident with her for explanations.

They couldn’t explain what had happened. The owner also wanted to speak to the vet, but he wasn’t there.

The owner said she and her children were traumatized by the incident because she thought the wrong leg had been operated on.

The veterinarian fully understood the owner’s concerns, the judge found.

Later that evening, the vet spoke to the owner and, as a gesture of goodwill and to defuse the situation, offered to not charge for the operation or any surgical procedures on Alfie’s right leg.

The owner declined the offer and arranged with another veterinarian to operate on Alfie’s right leg. According to the judge, the operation was a success for the dog.

As a result of the incident, the owner filed a complaint with the Veterinary Council of Ireland, the organization that regulates the profession in Ireland.

The complaint was referred to the Council’s Fitness to Profession Committee.

Although the veterinarian admitted to having made mistakes, he denied that his actions constituted professional misconduct.

The Council ultimately made certain findings against Mr McCartney, including that he had failed to inform the owner in advance of his decision to undergo surgery on his left leg and that he had failed to obtain the owner’s consent to the surgery on his left leg.

The court could not raise the most serious allegation, namely that the veterinarian had performed the operation on the wrong leg, without admitting the error.

Ultimately, it was decided to exclude the veterinarian from practicing his profession for two months.

He appealed the sanction to the High Court and brought proceedings against the Council on the grounds that it was totally disproportionate.

He claimed the council had failed to take into account that the vet had shown insight into the incident, that Alfie was not injured and that his left leg would require surgery.

The Council rejected the appeal, stating that the misconduct alleged against the veterinarian was of a “serious nature” and that he had “completely disregarded the central and crucial role of the owner in the care of his animal”.

No appeal was lodged against the finding of misconduct.

In his judgment, Judge O’Higgins stated that Mr McCartney was an experienced veterinary surgeon and recognised specialist in small animal surgery.

However, the judge said it was difficult to understand why the vet did not speak to the owner before operating on Alfie’s left leg, nor did he inform a colleague about the matter.

The judge said that, taking into account all factors in the overall context of the case, the veterinarian’s offence was “no higher than medium range”.

Since there were no aggravating circumstances but there were a wealth of mitigating circumstances, the judge added that the original period of suspension had been unreasonably long and reduced it to one month.

The judge said that in his view it was not in the interests of the parties to refer the matter back to the Council for further consideration.