A vet who took home a cat that was due to be put down has been found guilty of disgraceful conduct.
Dr Janine Parody had already euthanized three or four animals that morning and said she “could not face another euthanasia” because she thought the “happy” cat could be cured, a disciplinary committee heard.
When a veterinary nurse questioned whether the owner had consented to the treatment, a court heard Dr Parody said the owner didn’t want the cat, thought it would be dead and “wouldn’t notice”.
Without obtaining consent from the eight-month-old cat’s owner, Dr. Parody sedated the animal, neutered it, removed its microchip, inserted a new one, and took it home to care for it.
The cat’s owner, who regularly rescued cats and had recently taken him in, said she was “hurt for his little soul.”
But although the woman, identified only as SM at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) tribunal, was “elated” when she was finally told the cat was alive, she was later asked to pay £480 for the treatment and agreed .
Dr Janine Parody (pictured with dog) has been found guilty of disgraceful conduct by a professional tribunal.
Dr Parody (pictured) was reprimanded for her actions, which she said took place on a “very busy and stressful day.”
The court heard the woman who regularly rescued cats took possession of the cat, named Shadow, but soon after decided to put it down because it was “very sick” with MRSA, was thin and had facial injuries.
An appointment was made for Dr Parody to carry out the task at Castle Veterinary Group in Framlingham, Suffolk, on December 20, 2021.
But after consulting a dermatologist who suggested MRSA could be treated, Dr. Parody shaved the cat, neutered Shadow and instructed a colleague to remove the microchip.
Dr. Parody, a single mother who has two dogs and two cats at home, took Shadow home to care for him during Christmas 2021.
But after Christmas, after a receptionist asked why there was no record or medical history for Shadow, Dr. Parody admitted that the cat was alive and at home with her. SM was then informed and returned to the clinic to pick up the cat on December 31st.
But the court heard that in late February, after further treatment, the cat was still unwell and was put down.
Dr. Parody resigned and an investigation was launched.
SM told the court that she felt that both she and the animal had suffered unnecessarily as a result of Dr Parody’s decision not to put it to sleep on December 20, 2021.
The court heard the cat’s owner felt Dr Parody, who was working under “extraordinarily stressful circumstances” caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, wanted to keep the cat.
But the vet told the panel she had been “ready for euthanasia” until she walked into the consultation room and was greeted by a sweet young cat who looked healthy, apart from her skin condition.
She added: “I had already carried out consecutive euthanasias that morning as mentioned and seeing a happy young cat, I simply couldn’t face another euthanasia.”
“I think it’s important to say here that, although I had been a veterinarian for over 10 years at that point, euthanasias are never easy and you always “take them home.”
The panel found that there was a confusion in communication as Dr. Parody mistakenly believed that the cat did not have an owner.
It was discovered that the vet (pictured eating ice cream) mistakenly believed the cat had no owner.
Instead of euthanizing the animal, she took the cat home from her job at Castle Veterinary Group in Framlingham (pictured) on December 20, 2021.
Dr. Parody said: “I understand that my decision not to euthanize Shadow and instead treat him without Ms. SM’s consent was incorrect.
“It was a decision I made on a very, very busy and stressful day and when I thought the cat didn’t have an owner, but I fully appreciate that that was no excuse.”
He said he acted “with the cat’s welfare at the center of my decisions” and had no intention of adopting him.
The panel concluded that the vet had acted with the best of intentions but had “made a series of very poor decisions”.
They said Dr Parody “made incorrect assumptions about Shadow’s lack of ownership, based on conversations with other staff members, rather than clinical records” and had not verified the cat’s microchip. Then, the veterinarian “was in charge of making a series of decisions that she had no right to make, without first consulting the owner.”
Dr Parody, who now works in Herefordshire, received a reprimand.
