Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap. 529 (the “Ordinance”), the Veterinary Surgeons Board referred a complaint alleging a disciplinary offence on the part of a registered veterinary surgeon to an inquiry committee for decision. The inquiry committee subsequently met on 2 November 2000 to hear the complaint.

The veterinary surgeon had been charged with an offence alleging misconduct or neglect in a professional respect by failing promptly to notify the owner of the death of a cat following post-surgical treatment. The cat had been returned to the veterinary surgeon's care two days after having undergone a surgical operation. It died the same evening, at 9:30 p.m. The owner was not informed of the death until the next day, at about 10:30 a.m. There were methods available to enable the veterinary surgeon to contact the complainant at an earlier stage, in the evening, but he had considered it more appropriate and less distressing to the owner to delay the information until the next day. The committee found that in all the circumstances of the case it was not wrong for the veterinary surgeon to delay reporting the death and dismissed the charge.

The committee was satisfied that owners of pets must be informed of the death of the pets in a timely manner. However it noted that there were no guidelines, written or otherwise, as to when such communications must be made. The expectations of the public, and of registered veterinary surgeons themselves, may vary. The committee therefore made a recommendation to the Board that consideration be given to requiring registered veterinary surgeons to obtain instructions in advance from a client who leaves a pet with them as to the manner and timing of any communication to the client.

The Board considered the recommendation made by the inquiry committee at its meeting held on 3 November 2000. After careful consideration, the Board decided that the inquiry committee's recommendation should be adopted and that with immediate effect, the following guideline would be promulgated for observance by registered veterinary surgeons –

“A registered veterinary surgeon should obtain instructions in advance from his/her client who leaves an animal with him/her regarding the timing and manner of any communication with his/her client as to the occurrence of any emergencies including serious complications or death of the animal, etc.”

Registered veterinary surgeons are advised to observe the above guideline. The Board's Code of Practice for the Guidance of Registered Veterinary Surgeons will be suitably amended to incorporate this guideline in due course

Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap. 529, the Veterinary Surgeons Board referred a complaint alleging a disciplinary offence on the part of a registered veterinary surgeon to an inquiry committee for decision. The inquiry committee subsequently met on 12 October 2000 and 22 November 2000 to hear the complaint.

The veterinary surgeon had been charged with an offence alleging misconduct in a professional respect by hitting a dog on the head several times when examining it in his capacity of a registered veterinary surgeon. The dog was being examined because of an apparent weight loss. There were unsuccessful attempts to weigh the dog and it was after these unsuccessful attempts that the veterinary surgeon was alleged to have hit the dog. The veterinary surgeon agreed that he had slapped the dog once, on its shoulder, to elicit a submissive response. The committee was satisfied that the dog was hit more than once. It was unable to resolve the issue as to the amount of force that was applied and was not satisfied that in this case there was misconduct. The charge was dismissed.

The committee stated that a veterinary surgeon must control his patient and may be justified in applying some force to the animal, but any force used must not be excessive. It is not acceptable to cause pain or injury to an animal and veterinary surgeons must approach the application of any force with caution. A single application of force may not be acceptable

Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap. 529, the Veterinary Surgeons Board had referred a complaint alleging a disciplinary offence on the part of a registered veterinary surgeon to an inquiry committee for decision. The inquiry committee subsequently met on 21 March 2001 to hear the case.

An inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong after due inquiry held on 19 & 20 June 2001 in accordance with section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, was satisfied that the defendant veterinary surgeon (“Defendant”) had been guilty of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect in that he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, performed a sterilization operation on a female grey and white Persian cat on or about 9 March 2000 at his clinic, which was not up to the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, in particular:

Three witnesses were called to give evidence by the Counsel for the Secretary. A registered veterinary surgeon working for the SPCA (“Dr A”) gave evidence that the cat in question was brought to the SPCA clinic for emergency treatment at 5 a.m. on 10 March 2000 by the owner of a pet shop. The cat was lying on its side, in a lot of pain, pushing its forelegs forward in a circular motion; that it was quite pale. The history that she was given was of the cat having been spayed by the Defendant the previous day at about 2 p.m. and having been returned to him at 11 p.m. because of bleeding. She was informed that the Defendant had surgically explored the abdomen and that he had checked the ligatures.

Dr A said that she had checked the CBC; it was normal. There was no blood obtained from an abdominal tap. She put the cat on a drip and gave it analgesics. She replaced its bandage, which was loose, with a tighter body bandage. She handed the cat over to another vet of her organisation (“Dr B”). She explained that she decided not to surgically explore the abdomen in view of the information given to her by the Defendant, including that there had been an exploratory laparotomy earlier; that her concern was that the cat was in shock with low blood pressure; that further anaesthetic at that time could compromise the blood pressure and lead to death.

Dr B gave evidence that she examined the cat at 9.30 a.m.; it was brought out from its cage and when the bandage was removed blood came out of the wound. She said that the bandage itself was fairly clean but when the pressure was released the blood came. She therefore surgically explored the abdomen. She stated that only part of the abdominal muscle wound had been stitched; that the left ovary had only been partially removed; both uterine horns had been inadequately double ligated; the right ovarian stump was inadequately ligated; and there was what amounted to massive abdominal haemorrhage and blood clotting. She said there was 80 ml. of blood. She also said that photographs had been taken at the time, which she asserted were photographic representations of what she had seen. The committee decided to allow the photographs to be admitted in evidence.

An overseas expert was called to give expert evidence. He opined that the operation was not of a standard to be expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, with inadequate ligation of both uterine stumps and ovarian pedicles, incorrect clamping of the left ovarian pedicle and inadequate closure of the abdominal incision. He also commented on the blood loss, both the amount and the timing. In his opinion the anaesthetics had caused low blood pressure, the anaesthetics would be wearing off resulting in blood being seen at the time of the second operation; that it was probably normal at the time Dr A saw the cat and by the time Dr B saw the cat there was active on-going seepage. He said that it was impossible for the blood to have accumulated from a nicking of a mammary gland's blood vessel.

The Defendant described the steps and procedures that he took in the operation; that he had performed the operation correctly. He denied the allegations in the charge. He said that two of his colleagues (“Dr X” and “Dr Y”) were present and observed the operation. In cross examination he said that there was no particular reason for their presence other than that it was their practice to come in and greet each other. He said Dr X was present for about 5 minutes; that he came in when he had already sutured the muscle layer and was starting on the subcutaneous layer; that Dr Y was present for about 10 minutes, coming in when he sutured the muscle layer. He described the return of the cat later that evening at around 11 p.m.; that there was blood seeping from the wound; he applied a half dosage of anaesthetic and cut the stitches of the outer layer. He saw 2-3 cc of blood around the breast part. He applied a bandage to mop the blood and held it there for a minute. There was no more seepage of blood. He said he believed the blood had come from around the mammary gland, so did not cut the stitches in the muscle layer. He resutured the wound and put the cat on a drip. He gave the cat back to the pet shop owner with instructions as to the cat's care.

Dr X and Dr Y gave evidence of having been present during the operation. There were some discrepancies between their evidence and that of the Defendant but both gave evidence of being present at a time when the Defendant was suturing the wounds. The pet shop owner gave evidence. He said that he had taken the cat back because there was blood seeping from the abdomen and the Defendant had advised him to bring it back. He said that he was called into the operating theatre to observe the cat. He said that at that time there was not much blood seeping from the wound; that the abdomen was open.

There was one matter that the inquiry noted. There was evidence that the cat had been released into the care of a lay person whilst on a drip. The committee was concerned as to this practice and would refer this issue to the Veterinary Surgeons Board for its consideration of issuing an advice as to this practice. The committee did not take this into account in deciding the issues.

Whilst the committee accepted that the Defendant perceived that he performed the operation correctly, from what he had presented to the committee by way of his descriptions and diagrams, and his demonstration of surgical knots, even allowing for the difficulties of presenting the situation on paper and the difficulties for the demonstration the committee was satisfied that he did not perform the operation to a standard required of a registered veterinary surgeon.

The charge particularised five matters in which it was alleged the operation was not up to the standard expected. In respect of the first matter the committee was satisfied that when Dr B observed the site, there was a gap in the abdominal muscle wound but they were not satisfied that this was because only one-third of the wound had been stitched.

The committee accepted that the photographs were an accurate depiction of what was seen and done by Dr B. From the evidence of Dr B, the photographs and the drawings of the Defendant which reflected his lack of knowledge on anatomy and notwithstanding the lack of histology the committee was satisfied that the left ovary had only been partially removed. The committee was satisfied that massive abdominal haemorrhage and blood clotting was present. From Dr B's evidence and the fact that the blood in the abdominal cavity could only come from the surgical sites of the ovaries and the uterine horns with inadequate ligation, the committee was satisfied that both uterine horns had been inadequately double ligated and the right ovarian stump was inadequately ligated. Even if there had been contributory factors, such as a clotting problem, the main factor was inadequate ligation. Dr A had considered whether there was a clotting problem. There was no evidence that there was. The committee was satisfied that the Defendant was guilty of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect.

The committee had been urged to consider a lenient disciplinary order; that the cat was still alive, that the cat owner did not complain. The committee put little weight on these matters. The committee was concerned that this was not an isolated incident, it was not a momentary lapse. Rather, from the evidence before them there was a real concern that the Defendant had inadequate surgical skills and was in need of remedial training. The committee had taken into account that there was no facility in Hong Kong where he could obtain such training. However the committee would be failing in their duty to the public to allow him to continue to practise surgery with his present skills. The committee therefore on 20 June 2001 ordered the Secretary to remove the name of the Defendant from the register; that the order would not take effect for the period of 12 months from 20 June 2001; that for that 12-month period the Defendant must not practise surgery; and that within the 12-month period he must produce evidence, to the satisfaction of the Board, that he was competent to practise surgery. If the Defendant failed to produce such evidence, his name would be removed from the register at the end of 12 months. If he practised surgery within the 12-month period, his name would be removed from the register immediately.

The defendant veterinary surgeon (“Defendant”) was charged with a charge alleging misconduct in a professional respect, the particulars being that he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, on 2 June 2001, at his clinic, behaved in a disgraceful or dishonourable manner towards the client in relation to her request for the refund of HK$500 deposit.

There was little dispute on the basic facts of the events that gave rise to the charge. The complainant's dog had been X-rayed at the Defendant's clinic on 27 May 2001. She had later decided to take the dog to the SPCA for a second opinion and had requested to borrow the two X-ray films. She had been allowed to do so, upon the payment of a deposit of $500. On 2 June 2001 she had returned to the clinic, with the X-ray films, and sought to recover the deposit. She failed to do so, and it was the manner by which the Defendant declined to do so that gave rise to the charge. The Committee's duty was not to determine whether the complainant was entitled to a refund of the deposit but whether the Defendant had behaved in a disgraceful or dishonourable manner towards his client.

The complainant gave evidence that she had decided to return the films on her way back from a visit to the SPCA. She handed the films to the receptionists who took them away to the back office. It was not clear whether both the Defendant and the Practice Manager of the clinic came out at the same time, but she was told in the reception area by them that the films had been damaged and the deposit would not be refunded. The films were not produced in evidence, but it seemed to be accepted that marks had been made, possibly by the SPCA vet.

After some talk in the reception area, the Defendant and the Practice Manager left and the complainant waited. She said that in this period she telephoned her sister and brother in law asking them to come. Fifteen minutes later she was asked to go into a consultation room where the Defendant and the Practice Manager were. She said that the Defendant's attitude in the room was angry and rude and frightened her. She agreed that he used no obscenities or foul language; that no one prevented her from leaving the room and that there was no physical contact between the staff and her. She said that after looking at the X-rays he thrust the envelope containing them onto her chest; she told him that he was very rude and was not satisfied with his explanation; she said that he then frightened her by trying to pass the Practice Manager to reach her. (The layout of the consultation room was such that the length of the consultation table separated the Defendant and the complainant who were facing each other; the Practice Manager was at the short end of the table.)

She left the consultation room and was still there when her sister and brother in law arrived. When the Defendant and the Practice Manager were leaving the clinic they stopped the Defendant and attempted to speak to him. Nothing was resolved.

The Practice Manager gave evidence. The Committee took into account that he was still employed at the Defendant's hospital. His recollection of the incident was not as clear as that given by the complainant, but it did not appear that he was attempting to tailor his evidence to put the Defendant in a good light. The Committee did accept his evidence as to the layout of the consultation room, in particular as to the location of the second door of that room. This was relevant as to whether the Defendant was intending to approach and threaten complainant, rather than to simply leave the room. He gave evidence that they were in a hurry to get to another clinic at the conclusion of this meeting. (complainant said that she was in the consultation room some 15 to 20 minutes; the Practice Manager said that this was 30 minutes.)

The Committee accepted that the complainant was an honest witness, but believed that she may have misinterpreted the Defendant's actions. It appeared to the Committee that the Defendant had been prepared to spend time discussing the matter with the complainant on an unscheduled appointment, but it was also apparent to the Committee that he was in a hurry to meet his commitments at the other clinic. The situation was obviously not resolving itself, and this may have precipitated grievances on the complainant's part that had not been intended or appreciated. The Committee did not find that the charge had been proved and dismissed the complaint.

Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board met on 25 March and 14 May 2002 to hear a complaint. The veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence of committing a misconduct in a professional respect in that she, being a registered veterinary surgeon, during the period from 26 December 2000 to 2 January 2001 at her clinic, in relation to treatment given to the complainant's dog for an injury to its proptosed left eye, failed to provide proper care and treatment for the said dog.

The said dog was injured in an accident and, inter alia, had its left eye proptosed. The dog was then taken to the veterinary surgeon concerned for treatment from 26 to 29 December 2000. On each of the 4 days, the treatment given by veterinary surgeon consisted of a physical pushing back of the proptosed eye into the eye socket by simply using lubricants. It was alleged that during this process there was no anaesthetic used, nor was there any lateral canthotomy – a surgical incision in the corner of the eyelids to allow relaxation of the constriction around the base of the proptosed eye so as to replace the eye back into its normal position. On each visit, the veterinary surgeon attempted to replace the proptosed eye into the socket but failed on each occasion. Eventually on 29 December she succeeded in doing so. However subsequently the dog was taken to another clinic and it was discovered that the left eye was already dead and so had to be removed.

The case against the veterinary surgeon was that the procedure adopted by her was completely unacceptable, the reason being that the eye itself being a very delicate structure, would not tolerate the pressure required to push the eyeball back into the socket forcefully; that in order to properly replace the eyeball into the socket a surgical procedure is required that would require putting the dog under anaesthesia, either general or local, and then performing lateral canthotomy so as to allow the relaxation of the constriction and to facilitate the easing back of the eye. Furthermore, it was alleged that the delay in that treatment, the replacement of the eyeball into the socket, reduced the chance of recovery of the eye completely; that whenever a proptosed eyeball occurs, it should be immediately replaced since every hour of delay would seriously reduce the chance of recovery; that because of the four days' delay in replacing the eyeball into the socket that had reduced the chances of full recovery to zero.

The committee was satisfied that the veterinary surgeon concerned did fail to provide proper care and treatment and that she did not offer the client a lateral canthotomy. On the defendant veterinary surgeon's own evidence, she appeared not to appreciate what a lateral canthotomy entailed, nor did she appear familiar with both the surgical procedure and the medical treatment of the condition. In this regard, the committee considered that that it did amount to neglect in a professional respect. In accordance with section 19(d) of the said Ordinance, the committee ordered on 14 May 2002 that a warning letter would be served on the veterinary surgeon who was also required to undergo 40 hours of continuing professional education which was to be completed within 12 months from 14 May 2002. She must supply proof of having completed such continuing professional education to the Board.

In accordance with section 23 of the Ordinance, the veterinary surgeon concerned subsequently filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order of the inquiry committee. However, on 26 March 2003 she abandoned the said appeal.

The inquiry committee met on 17 March, 19 June and 4 July 2003 to hear the case in which both the complainant and defendant were registered veterinary surgeons. The defendant veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence of committing a misconduct in a professional respect in that he, being a registered veterinary surgeon, on a date unknown but prior to about 13 June 2001, he

and that in relation to the facts alleged he had been guilty of misconduct in a professional respect thereby contravening section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance.

The defendant veterinary surgeon entered into a franchise agreement with the complainant to run a clinic in November 1998. In June 2001, the former veterinary surgeon opened his own clinic. He was alleged by his previous franchiser to have obtained confidential information, including information relating to the names, contact telephone numbers and addresses of clients, from the previous clinic. The defendant veterinary surgeon was alleged that he had used such kind of information to solicit and/or canvass business from clients of the said clinic.

The committee was satisfied that the facts alleged in the charge have been proved, and that they amounted to misconduct in a professional respect. In accordance with section 19(d) of the said Ordinance, the committee ordered on 4 July 2003 that a warning letter be served on the defendant veterinary surgeon.

Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 21-22 October 2003 and 18 November 2003.

The veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect by failing to remove completely the ovaries of two dogs referred to him by their respective owners for sterilization operations. The inquiry involved two separate complaints and complainants.

The facts of both cases in relation to the charges were the same. Two dogs were sterilized by the defendant in July 2001. After the operations, both dogs still exhibited signs of estrus. The owners took the dogs to another clinic for further examination, and ovarian tissues were found present in the left ovarian stumps of both dogs. Ovarian bursa tissue was also found in the right ovarian stump in one of the dogs. These tissues were then removed by the other veterinary surgeon and the dogs did not have any further signs of estrus. An overseas expert was invited to give expert evidence on the two cases.

The Inquiry Committee ruled that given the purpose of sterilization operation was to remove completely the ovaries and the uterus, the non-removal of the ovarian bursa is irrelevant to the propriety of the operation. The overseas expert who attended the inquiry to give evidence also accepted that the presence of the cystic ovarian bursa had no clinical significance. The Inquiry Committee therefore dismissed the part of the charge relating to the presence of ovarian bursa tissue.

In deciding whether the subsequent finding of the ovarian tissue in the two dogs was the result of the surgical errors on the part of the defendant, the Inquiry Committee noted both the overseas expert's views that these were remnants of the ovaries which should have been completely removed during the sterilization operations; and the defendant's claim that this could have been the result of the unusual position of the ovary in the case of one of the dogs and the possibility of an accessory ovary in the case of both dogs. After hearing the evidence, the Inquiry Committee accepted that in one of the cases, the position of the ovary of the dog was so unusually close to the kidney that a competent veterinary surgeon exercising proper care could still have left some ovarian tissue in the dog. The Committee therefore could not be satisfied that it was a surgical error on the part of the defendant in that case. For the other case, the Committee noted that there were reported cases in cats, cows and women of accessory ovaries or of ovarian tissue extending into the ligament of the ovary. Although similar cases in dogs had not been reported in those studies, it had not been ruled out, nor was the overseas expert able to deny, that accessory ovaries could exist in dogs. Furthermore, the manifestation of two episodes of estrus within a month, which according to the evidence of the owner of the dog occurred after the sterilization on the dog, tended to reinforce the likelihood of the existence of an accessory ovary. The Inquiry Committee therefore could not be satisfied that the ovarian tissue subsequently found in this dog was the result of a surgical error on the part of the defendant and not the result of the existence of an accessory ovary or ovarian tissue extending into the ligament. In the circumstances, the Committee dismissed the charges in both cases.

Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 6 February 2004 and 12 February 2004.

The defendant veterinary surgeon was charged with the offence of misconduct or neglect in a professional respect by failing to provide proper care and treatment for the complainant's rabbit, in particular, (a) failing to diagnose or correctly diagnose the medical conditions of the rabbit; and (b) giving inappropriate treatment and/or failing to give appropriate treatment to the rabbit.

The facts of the case were that the owner of the rabbit found that the rabbit had stopped eating. She took the rabbit to the defendant for consultation. The defendant examined the rabbit and gave an injection to the rabbit. He also prescribed medicine to be given to the rabbit at home. Then, the complainant took the rabbit home and gave it the Papaya tablets in accordance with the defendant's instructions but not the other medicine prescribed. That evening the rabbit developed diarrhea and died the next morning. An expert was invited to give expert evidence on the case.

There were conflicting accounts of the defendant's diagnosis and treatment given by the complainant and the defendant. According to the complainant, the defendant told her that the rabbit had a heat stroke which affected its digestion. She said that the defendant never mentioned that the rabbit was in a critical condition and never suggested hospitalization or treatment in the form of drip. The defendant, on the other hand, explained in his letter to the Preliminary Investigation Committee in response to the complaint that the rabbit was nearly dead when it was presented for treatment. He also gave evidence in the inquiry that the rabbit was in critical conditions and might not survive.

Having considered the evidence, the Inquiry Committee found that the complainant was an honest and reliable witness and accepted her evidence. Her evidence was also corroborated by the medical history recorded in the defendant's medical record. The Inquiry Committee did not accept the defendant's allegation that, despite his diagnosis that the rabbit was critically ill and required hospitalization and treatment on drip, he did not record that finding in the medical record owing to the brevity of time. That allegation was wholly incredible given his recognition that this was a situation which called for detailed records. Furthermore, that allegation was inconsistent with the fact that in the defendant's letter to the complainant earlier he only stated the diagnosis of ileus and bloat, and no mention whatsoever was made about the critical condition of the rabbit nor his suggestion of hospitalization and drip treatment.

However, according to the complainant the rabbit was not in a poor condition when it was taken to the clinic for treatment. Even the expert witness was uncertain whether the rabbit was in a critical condition at that time. There was insufficient evidence for the Inquiry Committee to come to the finding that the defendant's diagnosis of bloated stomach, heat stress and maldigestion, as recorded in the medical record, was incorrect. Therefore the allegation in Charge (a) was dismissed.

The Inquiry Committee noted that the treatment given by the defendant according to the complainant and the medical record dealt only with the gastro-intestinal problems. It also accepted the expert evidence that the treatment given by the defendant did not deal with the problem of heat stress. The Inquiry Committee was satisfied that in the circumstances of the case fluid therapy was required to be given in the clinic before the rabbit was released. It rejected the defendant's allegation that hospitalization and drip treatment were suggested but refused by the complainant. It was also satisfied that fluid therapy was not given to the rabbit, nor was it suggested to the complainant in the first place.

Therefore, the Inquiry Committee was of the view that the treatment given by the defendant had fallen below the standard expected of registered veterinary surgeons and that this amounted to misconduct or neglect in a professional respect. It therefore found the defendant guilty of Charge (b).

Having considered the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors advanced by the defendant, the Inquiry Committee ordered that the defendant be reprimanded in writing and that the reprimand be recorded on the register.

Under section 18 of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Chapter 529 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the Veterinary Surgeons Board held and completed a disciplinary inquiry on 18 May 2004.