Come Clean, Massey Veterinary School Dean Jon Huxley:
Clients Have NO Idea You're Using Their Pets for Unethical, Unauthorised, Lethal Student Activities and Filming
EXHIBIT A: THE FILM SET . . . Conversion of my “property” for teaching resources: Unauthorised Conversion of Property & Breach of Bailment (Common Law); Illegal Manipulation for Teaching (Animal Welfare Act 1999, S83)

"SELFIE-MODE" FILMING OF PATIENT COLLAPSE
10:49 AM: IMG_9885 captures footage recorded via a front-facing (selfie) camera. For professionals, the use of a handheld selfie camera indicates a non-medical filming priority over ICU stabilisation. For the public, it documents the patient being utilised as an instructional prop during the onset of a severe pharmacological (drug-induced) crisis. Sharp, rectangular redactions suggest hidden fixed objects, likely monitor or pump displays. This confirms secondary data sources were visible while the patient was an instructional prop, proving the "missing" logs (ref. EXHIBIT B) were a human choice to omit data, not a technical failure.
EPISTAXIS: NASAL BLEEDING CONSISTENT WITH PHARMACOLOGICAL OVERDOSE CASCADE
Note the reddish-brown staining around Harry's muzzle and nasal area. Independent AI analysis assessed this as consistent with epistaxis - nasal bleeding - potentially caused by cardiovascular or vascular stress resulting from the pharmacological cascade of repeated sedative overdosing.
Vice-Like Cephalic Restraint: Compromising A Sedated Patient for Video Production
This shot captures the aggressive cephalic restraint used to force Harry’s head into a fixed position for the camera. In a patient suffering from a 750% pharmacological overdose, this vice-like grip is not a clinical necessity; it is a mechanical obstruction. By forcibly extending the neck and pinning the jaw while the patient’s protective reflexes are suppressed by sedation, the staff are actively compromising the airway and risking critical respiratory failure simply to ensure a stable shot for video footage.
HARDWARE AVAILABILITY DURING DATA GAP
11:00 AM: IMG_9893 shows an active SurgiVet monitor, gas lines, and staff (redacted) present. This confirms hardware and personnel were available during Harry's pharmacological (drug-induced) crisis. Thus, the missing logs (Ref: Exhibit B) represent a human decision to either neglect to monitor vitals or to omit data, not a technical failure.
FORCED MOBILITY UNDER SEDATION
10:41 AM: IMG_9882 captures the patient struggling to maintain posture while heavily sedated. For the public, this documents the distress of forced movement. For veterinary professionals, it records the decision to exercise a physiologically unstable patient - prioritising instructional demonstration over standard clinical recovery protocols.
FORCED OCULAR EXPOSURE DURING CRISIS
10:56 AM: Depicts physical pressure being exerted on the patient’s head to force the eye open for an extreme close-up (macro) recording. This occurred during active physiological collapse. For the public, it shows a pet being physically handled as a film subject rather than receiving emergency care. For professionals, it confirms the stabilisation of a collapsing patient was abandoned to facilitate an instructional "money shot".
HIGH-RISK POSITIONING 'DISPLAY PIECE'
10:55 AM: This depicts a sedated, unstable patient being manually suspended in the air. For the public, this is "property conversion" - a pet treated as an instructional display piece. For professionals, suspending an ataxic, drugged patient high in the air is a gross violation of handling protocols, risking physical injury and respiratory distress solely to facilitate camera framing.
STAFF PROXIMITY DURING DATA OMISSION
10:46 AM: This video still shot captures a staff member (redacted) standing directly over the patient while holding an iPhone to film. For the public, it shows a pet unable to hold his own head up being used for a "shoot". For professionals, it is definitive proof that a human operator was physically at the monitor's side during the missing log period (ref. EXHIBIT B), confirming that the lack of data was a failure of clinical conduct, not a failure of technology.
Withholding Postural Support of Blind, Sedated Dog for Production Value
This still documents Harry - blind, unco-ordinated, and in a state of 750% pharmacological overdose - being forced to "circle" for the camera. Harry is left unsupported on a clinical floor to provide "demonstration" footage. Every vet student knows that a stumbling, overdosed patient needs a "sling" or other physical support. This photo proves they withheld that support to get a "better shot" of his unco-ordinated movement.
What follows is the full text of an Official Information Act request submitted to Massey University today, June 4, 2026 – the statutory framework underpinning each question having been established through six months of forensic investigation, published documentation, and independent analysis.
Massey University has 20 working days to respond. Their response – or non-response – will be published here.
This OIA has been formally forwarded for the awareness of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, as the statutory regulator of the veterinary profession in New Zealand and the body mandated to investigate complaints against registered veterinarians; the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK), as an international accreditor of Massey University's veterinary program and the body whose own Senior Standards and Advice Officer has acknowledged in writing that Massey's systematic redaction of clinical staff identities breaches all accepted international standards; the American Veterinary Medical Association, as a second international accreditor of Massey University's veterinary program; and the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council, as the third international accreditor of Massey University's veterinary program . . . all four of which have now received multiple rounds of detailed correspondence documenting the conduct this OIA addresses, but none of which have taken any meaningful action in response.
This official statutory request is issued directly in relation to the documented clinical record of the private patient Harry Kelly, admitted to Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital on November 30 / December 1, 2025.
A comprehensive clinical and systemic analysis of the hospital's invoicing data, medical logs, and post-admission records has revealed an un-indicated medication cascade and severe over-sedation that did not align with any active neurological or structural brain pathology.
Under New Zealand statutory frameworks – including the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, and the Veterinary Council of New Zealand Code of Professional Conduct – utilising a privately-owned animal for clinical demonstration, student training, or non-indicated pharmaceutical protocols outside of explicit therapeutic necessity crosses directly into regulated territory and requires both mandatory institutional oversight and owner consent.
The following core investigative records form the explicit evidentiary basis for this inquiry: (NB: These are part of a broader and even more comprehensive base of published documentation.)
Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, and referencing the investigative evidence linked above, Massey University is required to provide definitive answers to the following:
1. Informed Consent Protocol & Its Application by the CAH in the Harry Kelly Case
The exact operational protocol or Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that governs the obtaining of specific, explicit, written owner consent for the use of a private patient in student teaching activities, clinical demonstrations, or video productions – distinct from and beyond any general teaching hospital disclosure clause contained in standard admission forms.
This request specifically includes whether Massey University's own protocols require additional specific consent where an owner has previously and repeatedly stated, verbally, in writing and on admission documentation, that their animal is not to be used as a teaching aid, training tool, or the subject of any student activity – as Harry Kelly's owner had documented and verbally stated on multiple prior occasions.
Please confirm whether any such specific consent was sought from, or provided by, Harry Kelly's owner for any student activity or video production conducted on, or with the use of, him during his November/December 2025 admission.
2. Animal Ethics Committee Registrations for Harry Kelly
All internal registry entries, meeting minutes, approvals, or project logs demonstrating whether Harry Kelly was at any time during his November/December 2025 admission registered, listed, or utilised as a live subject under an active Massey University Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) approved protocol for research, testing, teaching, or data collection.
3. Divergence from Clinical Necessity in Harry Kelly's Care
The specific institutional directive, clinical justification worksheet, or authorisation that legally permitted Companion Animal Hospital or ICU staff to transition Harry Kelly's medical management – including his documented sedation levels and drug administration cascades – away from direct therapeutic welfare and into a non-indicated clinical protocol without notifying or obtaining the consent of his owner.
4. IV Disconnection Authorisation for Harry Kelly
Whether the disconnection of Harry Kelly's IV rehydration fluids during his November/December 2025 admission was documented, clinically justified, and authorised by a supervising clinician – and if so, what clinical justification was recorded, who authorised it, and at what time it occurred relative to the documented sedation administrations.
5. Internal Audit, Review and Billing Records for Harry Kelly
All internal correspondence, emails, clinical review notes, handwritten meeting minutes, incident reports, or file notes held by the School of Veterinary Science, the Companion Animal Hospital Executive / Management or other parties, or individual ICU staff, regarding the specific drug administrations, medication discrepancies, over-sedation concerns, or invoicing codes applied to Harry Kelly in November/December 2025.
If no formal audit report exists, this request explicitly includes all informal communications, email strings, team debriefs, or draft reviews concerning these billing and clinical discrepancies.
6. Regulatory Breach and Risk Communications
All communications, emails, internal memos, legal counsel briefings, and risk-assessment notes exchanged within the University – including but not limited to the Veterinary School Executive / Management, the Companion Animal Hospital Clinical Director and Practice Manager, and University Risk and Legal teams – or with any external regulatory, statutory, or insurance bodies or the like, concerning potential, alleged, or established compliance breaches under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, or the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, or other legal concerns held, regarding the case file of Harry Kelly.
This request explicitly includes any internal correspondence discussing or reacting to the publisher's public exposures, Privacy Act and Official Information Act requests, or statutory (or intended statutory, for example those awaiting Massey’s / VCNZ’s release of clinician identities to enable) complaints regarding this matter.
I request a response within 20 working days as required by the Act.
Sincerely
Jordan Kelly
Editor-in-Chief – The Customer & The Constituent,
www.thecustomer.co.nz
Executive Director – International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics,
www.iiive.org
Other News, Reviews & Commentary









