Vet reprimanded for home care of ‘happy’ cat she was told to euthanise
An experienced vet has been reprimanded for taking home a patient’s cat that she was told to euthanise and charging nearly £500 for the animal’s care in Suffolk.
Janine Parody decided against putting down the ill eight-month-old feline named Shadow in 2021 and, contrary to the owner’s wishes, treated him.
The vet, who had an “exceptional” reputation, told a disciplinary tribunal that she had put down three or four animals that morning and could not face euthanising another.
Parody, who worked at a surgery in Framlingham, Suffolk, said she had deemed the pet to be “happy” and curable.
She sedated the male cat and castrated it without obtaining consent from the owner, before replacing its microchip and taking it home, the tribunal heard.
The owner told the hearing that she “grieved for his little soul” before she was eventually told the truth and was asked to pay £480 for the treatment.
Referring to Shadow, Parody told the tribunal: “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 euthanasias that morning … and upon seeing a happy young cat, I just could not face another euthanasia.”
Parody added that despite having been a vet for 10 years, “euthanasias are never easy”.
A Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons tribunal reprimanded the vet for “disgraceful” professional conduct.
It ruled she had made a “series of very poor decisions”, although it recognised that at the time the vet was working under “extraordinarily stressful circumstances” because of the pandemic.
Parody, who has subsequently moved to a practice in Hereford, was described by colleagues at Castle Veterinary Group as an “exceptional vet” who was “very fair”.
In December 2021, a woman who regularly rescued cats and who was referred to at the tribunal only as SM took ownership of Shadow.
The owner decided to have him put down as he was “very sick” with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a bacteria which causes lesions on the skin.
SM consulted other vets and Shadow was scheduled to be put down by Parody five days before Christmas.
Parody consulted a dermatologist after a colleague raised a question over whether cats with MRSA could be treated. Two days later, she shaved Shadow, castrated him and directed a colleague to remove his microchip.
The owner was eventually told Shadow had not been put down and was “shocked and elated”. SM was told she would have to pay £480 to have it returned and she accepted.
Two months later, Shadow’s condition deteriorated and he was put down. Parody resigned and an investigation was launched.
The panel noted that owing to confused communications the vet had wrongly believed the cat did not have an owner, but it said in its ruling that she “should be under no illusion of how serious it is to have a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect made against her”.
