An “outstanding” vet has been convicted of disgraceful conduct after she decided to take a cat home that was scheduled to be put down. Dr Janine Parody chose not to put the ill eight-month-old feline to sleep, and instead treated it, against its owner’s wishes.
Dr Parody, who had worked as a vet for more than 10 years at the time, had already put down three or four animals that day and said she could “not face another euthanasia”. She found the cat to be “happy” and curable” and, without the owner’s permission, sedated the animal.
Dr Parody later neutered it, removed its microchip, inserted a new one, and took it home to care for it. The cat’s owner, who frequently rescues cats and had only recently acquired this one, said she “grieved for his little soul”.
She was asked to pay £480 for the treatment once she was told the cat was alive and she could reclaim it. A Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [RCVS] tribunal found Dr Parody guilty of disgraceful conduct and issued her a reprimand.
The RCVS panel concluded that Dr Parody made a “series of very poor decisions” but was operating under “extraordinarily stressful circumstances” due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The tribunal heard that at the time, Dr Parody was employed at Castle Veterinary Group in Framlingham, Suffolk.
Colleagues described her as an “outstanding vet” who is “very fair”. In early December 2021, a woman who regularly rescues cats became the owner of eight-month-old Shadow, reports the Express.
A woman, known only as “SM” during the tribunal, made the decision to have Shadow put down on December 20, 2021, due to a severe illness with MRSA, emaciation, and facial injuries. She entrusted Dr Parody with the task of euthanising Shadow.
However, after a colleague raised the possibility of treating cats with MRSA, Dr Parody did not go through with the procedure. Instead, she shaved and neutered Shadow two days later, had its microchip removed by a colleague, and took the cat home to look after it during Christmas 2021.
The owner was later informed that Shadow had not been euthanised and was both “shocked and elated”. She agreed to pay £480 to get her beloved pet back. Tragically, Shadow’s health did not improve, and two months later, he was finally euthanised. An investigation ensued, leading to Dr Parody’s resignation.
During the tribunal, allegations surfaced from the owner suggesting Dr Parody had intended to keep Shadow for herself. Dr Parody recounted the immense pressure her practice faced amidst Covid-19, covering for two other practices and being “always fully booked and often double booked”.
She described the moment she met Shadow, saying: “I gowned up and I first saw the cat when I walked into a consulting room… We were ready to euthanise him. The drug Pentoject had already been drawn up.
“Upon entering the room, I was greeted by a sweet young cat which appeared healthy apart from his skin condition. I had already done back-to-back euthanasia that morning, as mentioned, and upon seeing a happy young cat, I just could not face another euthanasia.”
“I think it is important to say here that even though at that point I had been a vet for over 10 years, euthanasias are never easy and you always ‘take them home’ with you.” Dr Parody continued: “I understand that my decision not to euthanise Shadow and instead to treat him without the consent of Ms SM was wrong.”
“It was a decision I made on a very, very busy and stressful day and when I thought the cat had no owner, but I fully appreciate that was no excuse. Once I had made that one decision, I did not revisit my decision but simply continued to treat the cat as best I could at an extremely stressful time.”
“I accept that as a result of my decision and actions, the lady who had brought the cat in, and who I now know was SM, was misled into thinking that it had been put to sleep and this is something I very much regret. My actions with regard to this cat all snowballed from my decision to treat the cat on 20 December and not put him to sleep.
“I know I should not have done this but because the cat was young and the condition curable, I felt that I was acting with the welfare of the cat at the centre of my decisions. My actions were not in any way for my personal gain. I did not want to adopt the cat and never had any intention of doing so.”
The panel concluded: “The Committee was in no doubt that, however mistakenly, Dr Parody had been acting in, what she considered at the time to be, the best interests for the welfare of a viable young cat, whom she felt deserved another chance at life, given the advice of the dermatologist that the MRSA could be treated.”
“However, no doubt driven by the extraordinarily stressful circumstances, she made a series of very poor decisions, without having first done the most basic of checks that could have avoided the whole sorry chain of events. A simple scan of the microchip and a consequent check of the clinical records, would have shown that the cat had a name and an owner.”
“Had Dr Parody done that and still felt that the cat should have been given another chance, having spoken to the dermatologist, she could and should have then relayed that to the new owner, SM, and sought her views. Instead, Dr Parody made incorrect assumptions about the lack of ownership of Shadow, based on conversations from other members of staff, rather than clinical records and took it upon herself to make a series of decisions she was not entitled to make, without first consulting the owner.”
Dr Parody, who currently works at a practice in Hereford, was given a formal reprimand.