Submission to the Royal College of Veterinary from Ivan A Walton,  B.V.M&S. Edinburgh(1978)

First I would like to thank the committee for meeting to discuss the issues I have raised.

We in the veterinary profession are entrusted with the privilege of self-regulation. It is vital for the future that we show the Public that we can be trusted to so do in an honest, impartial and  prompt manner. Otherwise the veterinary profession and the RCVS will join the medical profession and the GMC in losing the public's confidence.

My sole concerns in these matters are the aspects of Animal welfare and professional integrity covered by my complaints. It is worth at this point reiterating the Declaration we all took on receiving Membership, 

'In as much as the privilege of membership of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is about to be conferred upon me, I PROMISE AND SOLEMNLY DECLARE that I will abide in all due loyalty to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and will do all in my power to maintain and promote its interests. I PROMISE ABOVE ALL that I will pursue the work of my profession with uprightness of conduct and that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care.

I have highlighted the part of the oath that I believe is central to being a Veterinary Surgeon. The next thing I would remind the committee is the  legal obligations we face.

The Protection of Animals Act 1911 (1912,SCOTLAND) provides for cases where animals are caused unnecessary suffering. 

Finally, the Role of the RCVS as laid out in the Annual Report 2001.

THE ROLE OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS IS  

a).  To safeguard the health and welfare of animals committed to veterinary care through the regulation of the educational, ethical and clinical standards of the veterinary profession, thereby protecting the interests of those dependent on animals and assuring public health. 

 b). To act as an impartial source of informed opinion on animal health and welfare issues and their interaction with human health. 

In the light of the above three it is amazing that the RCVS will not act to Ban Intra-cardiac injection of the conscious animal as a means of Euthanasia. 

INTRACARDIAC INJECTION 

In the 1970's I was taught at Veterinary School that intra-cardiac injection was 'NOT to be used in conscious animals.

UFAW guidelines supported this. Numerous papers support this. 1993 AVMA report supports this. 2000 AVMA report clearly states

"Intra-cardiac injection must only be given if the animal is heavily sedated, unconscious or anaesthetised"  

(See -JAVMA Vol 218, No.5,Mar 1,2001. P 680 http://www.avma.org/resources/euthanasia.pdf)

It is a matter of GREAT concern that the RCVS, RSPCA or MAFF/DEFRA were unaware of this until I quoted the above references, especially in view of the self-stated role of the RCVS.I have provided opinions from the ASPCA that this method is unacceptable. 

The RCVS justification in not acting bears examination.

1.  RSPCA  opinion.

With no disrepect to the Chief Veterinary Officer, Mr  Laurence . He is has no obvious status as an expert, especially as he is involved primarily in the administrative functions. Apart from an anecdotal subjective opinion following a visit to a mass slaughter site, and reports from RSPCA Inspectors, he offers no scientific justification for the use of Intra-cardiac injection in conscious animals. He also raises the issue that he considers the method to be safe only in the hands of competence with the technique. which concedes that those veterinarians who were not experienced in this technique DID cause unnecessary suffering and as such were in breach of their  declaration and the Law.

2.  Mr Kirkwood on behalf of the H.S.A  a

Actually accepts the conclusions of the AVMA report. He does qualify it by saying that regarding administration, "It should be a judgement depending on the circumstances.

The statement 'In expert hands, killing by intra-cardiac injection is very quick' raises 2 issues.

a)  The duration of the suffering of these animals is not relevant to deciding if this method is Humane or Inhumane. If the method is unnecessarily painful be it one second or ten minutes, it MUST be banned.

b)  How do the veterinarians become expert without being inhumane to animals as they practice the technique ?

3 The RCVS asked a number of Unidentified "expert" witnesses to Comment.

They did not contact any of the Authors of the AVMA report .

The "experts" were in anaesthesia and cardiology, not experts in the field of animal welfare

The "experts" were NOT asked the most pertinent question -  

'In view of the AVMA report's comments on Intra-cardiac injection in conscious animals, and in view of the easy alternatives of pre-medicating with small doses of drugs such as Xylazine followed by free-bullet shooting or intra-cardiac injection, is it acceptable to inject conscious animals into the heart as a method of Euthanasia ? '

We find such comments as, 

Expert 1 -  said, " humane when performed efficiently" yet conceded that is performed inefficiently. including many animals being found alive days later! "may not always be an easy technique," "not ideal - but what of the alternatives?" not offered my alternative.

 Expert 2 - "I strongly believe... Is as kind a way of euthanasia as is possible in the field" again not asked re pre-medication. "when carried out by someone who is experienced at the job" an admission (it) is inhumane when  learning the technique. "The only pain should be the needle."  The pain of IC injection is intense according to people who have received it in emergencies. In fact it has now been discontinued even in Cardiac arrest in Humans, drugs being given into the trachea. Again this expert is admitting this method is inhumane. "Sagatal" discussed, but not used. In fact the solution is considerably stronger, and as I found out on accidental self-injection into a finger is VERY painful. The expert describes the pain reaction of a dog, accidentally injected into the Pleural cavity as," Whimpering for one minute" Injections such as this have been acknowledged to have happened in the cull. (NB.does not discuss use in Goats or Calves.

Expert 3 - Very non committal, but does specify that should if possible use intravenous method. If Intra-cardiac injection is in his opinion humane, he or she would not need to suggest this preference.

Expert 4 - "To inject solutions reliably into the cavities of the heart in cattle, sheep and pigs is not easy" Admits injection into the heart muscle itself, as happens, "can be very painful." "There can never be any excuse for intra-cardiac injection in cattle" I am suggesting to the various people, including Dr Caroline Green MEP, who are looking at the admission of Mr Eddy that he has used Intra-cardiac injection in a Calf or Calves, that this witness be called to any legal proceedings. 

"The intra-cardiac route of Injection is NOT an acceptable method of euthanasia in small lambs and piglets even under field conditions (where other less objectionable methods can always be used by trained personnel) (My underlining). As above in respect of Mr Eddy's admission that he has used (this method) in Lambs and piglets. I note that the experts were not asked about Dogs and Cats 

Expert 5 - (Veterinary Cardiology) " The technique is not difficult  provided ...the operator is sufficiently experienced in the technique "   This again raises the question of how one can humanely acquire the experience and Skill! If we accept this point, then it is obvious that the inexperienced will have committed offences under the Protection of Animals act 1911 and 1912. 

To summarise. the veterinary schools taught this was an unacceptable method.

The ASPCA  consider it cruel, UFAW considered it cruel The AVMA experts' report consider it cruel, and YOUR OWN expert  opinions weigh heavily against this method. 

The only unconditional support is from an RSPCA veterinary administrator with NO stated expert status based upon one visit and anecdotal reports from RSPCA inspectors.

I would respectfully submit that as the RCVS has acted in the past to ban tail docking, the weight of evidence and Opinion I have submitted  DEMANDS the RCVS  ban this Barbaric Method.

THE POSITION OF Mr Eddy FRCVS

Mr Eddy replied to several questions in his capacity as President of the RCVS His practice website states, "Roger Eddy is a specialist in fertility and was awarded a Royal College Fellowship in 1981. He is also available to act as an expert witness in legal work relating to certification, animal welfare and cattle health and production."In these replies he states that he had "euthanased many animals by intra-cardiac injection (pentobarbitone) including dogs, cats, lambs and piglets and on one or two occasions calves "

This clearly, in view of the AVMA report AND comments from RCVS independent experts is a breach of the Law. If Mr Eddy retracts the above he has acted disgracefully in issuing a false statement in his capacity as President and as an expert and must face disciplinary action.

The RCVS has said it cannot act upon such an admission. This is UNTRUE as in the 1980's Mr Eddie Straiton MRCVS was disciplined for making a statement on a radio show which he later admitted was invented as a Joke.

THE POSITION OF MR RAFFERTY MRCVS

It is beyond belief that many months after the illegal killing, (while trespassing on private property), of a pet goat, the RCVS has not taken action against this man. 

The distress caused to the Goat and the owner was widely reported in the media. bringing the profession into disrepute! The RCVS has tried by various means to dissuade me from continuing with my complaint. This matter is so serious that the whole credibility of the RCVS rests upon not only a prompt conclusion but also the punishment for this act must be severe.

THE POSITION OF MR SCUDAMORE  MRCVS

The RCVS has in the past rightly disciplined. Practice owners whose employees have broken the law or misbehaved. As C.V.O of MAFF/DEFRA it is unacceptable that Mr Scudamore is not called to account for the actions of Mr Rafferty as described above, as well as any more  incidents that occur under his leadership of the State Veterinary Service. 

It is unacceptable that the RCVS has backed away from a thorough investigation of the actions of the various levels of Command in the State Veterinary Service. I

t is very obvious that the RCVS disciplinary procedures. starting with the forms used to complain, are aimed solely at investigating and disciplining the individual private practitioner. A matter I have asked Ms Hern to consider for future action. 

Again I would thank the committee for meeting to consider these matters. The Foot and Mouth outbreak will have considerable long term consequences on the Veterinary Profession. I would suggest that unless the RCVS  have been seen to have put their own house in order changes may lead to the regulation of our profession being taken out of the RCVS hands. The damage to the standing of the Medical Profession by similarly perceived failures of the GMC has been immense.

 Ivan Walton - 2001